Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Edit request: Economic Impact (Feb 28/2022)

Can we add a description about both Shell and Norway's Equinor announcing on Feb 28, 2022, that both of them are exiting their respective Russia operations due to the Ukraine Invasion Phileo (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (2)

WP:NOTAFORUM

It's not invasion. It's military operations in order to save Russian people in Ukraine from Neo-Nazzis from Ukraine, USA, EU and UK. 31.223.132.51 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Invasion "an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.", it says nothing about why. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Is there really even a need to engage with such comments? Can we just remove this entirely? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC) As not everyone speaks English as a native, yes, as they may genuinely not be aware of what the word means. What we may need is a FAQ at the top of this page giving a few basic facts like this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (4)

Add in the 1 March section "Belarussian forces were reported by Ukrainian authorities as having entered the Chernihiv Oblast in order to aid the Russian invasion, though this was denied by President Lukashenko." Guyfromearth2 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Already done K8M8S8 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Added about: Casualties and Losses Section

As I cannot edit/reply in the above talk section. To clarify about the columns should be clearer "according to" or "for": The top FLAGS should have such clarifying text with them (It's not about identifying the flags as being Russian or Ukranian!) In addition, making it worse, the "per" is also unclear about meaning "according to" or "for".

So the division should be

 FOR Russia   Flag / FOR Ukraine   Flag

Then, below "according to" would be better than "per"

Alternatively, According to Russia Flag / According to Ukraine Flag ..and below "for" would be better than "per"...

As before, thanks for the great voluntary effort behind the page, not least the map updates and the day-by-day invasion progress editing. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Walk out on Sergei Lavrov speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Not sure where the best place for this is (maybe in the reactions section here), but it seems like it's probably worth a mention:

• Nebehay, Stephanie (1 March 2022). "Western envoys, allies walk out on Lavrov speech to UN rights forum". Reuters. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. More than 100 diplomats from some 40 Western countries and allies including Japan walked out of a speech by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the top U.N. human rights forum on Tuesday in protest over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Aluxosm (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

• Cumming-Bruce, Nick (1 March 2022). "Diplomats walk out of Lavrov's speech at the U.N. in Geneva". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva led the walkout, which left a largely empty conference hall to hear the remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov at a conference on disarmament.

• Shah, Furvah (1 March 2022). "UN diplomats walk out on Russian minister's speech in protest at Ukraine invasion". The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. Dozens of officials, including those from Britain, the US and the European Union, left the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday as a video message from Vladimir Putin's ally played.

Aluxosm (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Here's the diff. Aluxosm (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian reliable sources

I draw attention to following situation. Some news appear in Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian media but Wikipedians don't use these sources; then Western media reprint these news and Wikipedians include it into the text of the article with references to Western media and without references to media published these news for first time (for example, the news about control of the cities and towns, about Ukrainian casualties, about Ukrainian refugees is regularly publishing by UNIAN and Ukrinform; news about Russian war censorship and anti-war protests in Russia appeared in Novaya Gazeta, The Moscow Times, Dozhd; the news about Belarusian paratroopers preparing to invade Ukraine were published by Belsat TV). This situation is unfair to Eastern-slavic journalists.

I suggest to consider the following media as reliable sources:

• UNIAN, Ukrinform - in matters related to actions of Ukrainian government and armed forces, humanitarian situation in Ukraine, and other events within Ukraine
• Belsat TV, Tut.by and other media persecuted by Lukashenko's regime - in matters related to events within Belarus
• Novaya Gazeta, Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, The Moscow Times, Meduza and other media designated as "foreign agent" by Putin's regime (it's quality mark in Russia) - in matters related to events within Russia

If Western media reprints news of aforementioned media, we should use references to both sources - Western and original, as a sign to respect to journalists working in difficult and dangerous conditions, often under threat of death or imprisonment. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent point! Western mainstream media (WP:RS) goes through known, empirical statistical filters; other media very likely goes through statistical filters too. Dmitry Muratov of Novaya Gazeta was co-winner of the 2021 Nobel peace prize, which is a strong hint of reliability. The reliability of individual sources should be debated where necessary, but the above news sources mostly look reasonable to me (some are more familiar to me than others). Boud (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this is mostly sound, but my main issue with Russian government statements is that they've been peddling disinformation and intentionally creating confusion for weeks. I feel like we shouldn't state anything only said by the Russian government unless it's independently confirmed by RS (or it's a rebuttal or something like that), or are generic things like attributed casualty data. While this may create a disparity with our treatment of Ukrainian government statements, theirs hasn't been intentionally spreading disinformation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about pro-Kremlin media, I'm speaking about respected media such as Novaya Gazeta. And I limit the range of matters in which these media will be considered as reliable sources. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The media listed by K8M8S8 from Russia and Belarus are news sources that are quite anti-government; only Ukrinform appears to be a government source. The Kyiv Independent is a Ukrainian news source with a reputation for editorial independence (see the article). Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

They are considered as anti-government by local authorities because they don't want to be a part of pro-government propaganda. Russian and Belarusian authorities believe that editorial freedom amounts to working for a foreign intelligence services (it's not true of course). Unfortunately, Russian and Belarusian media have to work in this circumstances, making the choice - to be propagandist or to be "foreign agent". K8M8S8 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely agreed, unfortunately for me and I guess a lot of anglophones the Cyrillic alphabet is quite a barrier. Maxorazon (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the above have English-language services written in latin characters; Kyiv Independent appears to be only in English. Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Moscow Times is fully English-speaking magazine. Meduza, Belsat TV have Russian and English version. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that using good quality Western sources would be much easier. For example, Novaya Gazeta would qualify, but definitely not the Echo of Moscow. Venediktov is working pretty much under the guidance of Kremlin administration, just as many other presumably independent journalists and analysts in Russia. Dozd' is also not an RS per se, everything depends on who is talking. For example, Belkovskiy would not be an RS by any stretch of imagination. Same with Latynina. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belkovskiy and Latynina are columnists, and their opinions are not opinions of editorial staff. Aforementioned media are not just a set of columnists. For example, Dozhd have good reporters and photo and video journalists, and this media publish unique content. There are many good investigative journalists in independent Russian media, and thanks to them we know many secrets of powers that be. So, let's not this make about just expression a personal opinions of some persons - journalism is a a much broader concept. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus portal

Proposal to add a link to the Belarus portal at the bottom of the article, given that Belarusian territory is being used to launch missiles into Ukraine, along with the now official participation of the Belarusian Armed Forces. TorreAzzurro (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking Wikipedia in Russia

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.

---

Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media threats to block Wikipedia due to the article «Вторжение России в Украину 2022» in Russian Wiki. K8M8S8 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not imagine seeing such amount of repression and censorship in such short amount of time. Mellk (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just the beginning, I can feel it. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the extreme amount of absurd thoughtcrime they've been pumping out, and how autocratic they have become, if they didn't want to block it, we are doing something wrong. :) Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Congrats, guys. You did it!167.244.212.100 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let Russia do it. Nothing will stop the truth being spoken, and Wikipedians and the website itself should not be bullied by such single-minded fools in the Kremlin. They are not the boss of tech companies who stand for truth, and if those companies face such action, they should systematically threaten to shut down access to their services to Russian government officials. 5.64.106.84 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, this may have a chilling effect on other users. I don't speak Russian, but looking at a Google-translated version of this article talk page on the Russian Wikipedia shows that there is already talk about "changing the name to the official name adopted in the Russian Federation" to comply with the aforementioned government agency. It doesn't look like it's likely to pass, though. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant 'see also' section is Censorship of Wikipedia#Russia. Boud (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Survey: Current consensus

Having been involved in this talk page for 4 days now, I see lots of repetitive requests being made despite consensus having been established to the contrary earlier. Maybe we should create a /Current consensus subpage & transclude it here, as a quick reference for editors & visitors, like the one being transcluded at Talk:Donald Trump § Current consensus. This way editors will know what is current consensus without having to sift through archives and help improve the article. Please share your opinion & suggestions. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is why (above) I suggested a FAQ, much like we have Talk:George Floyd, and for the same reasons, a flood of the same questions over and over again. But yes we should have a current consensus page, if people think that will work. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm usually against current consensus pages (as-implemented), and I'm not sure it's appropriate here. There are a lot of preliminary consensuses on this article, based on how we decided to deal with a given issue through editing (which I think is the most collaborative type of dispute resolution and consensus building). We went back and forth on issues, discussed some but not others, but either way reached a state that was acceptable to most. Then someone might've figured out a better structure so it went out the window since folks agreed the new structure was better. I'm kinda opposed to calling much of this 'consensus' per se, at least in the sense of putting it up in a sticky banner at the top and pretending it's involatile, and thus also discouraging people from making further improvements to it. There are very few things we could put in such a banner anyway, even if it were a good idea, but my biggest concern is it may deter further article improvement. An FAQ is something else entirely and that could be appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

that may be a good idea; however it should be consensus, not turn in to status quo as this article is fluid and should remain flexible. answers to common questions and the consensus but it should be regularly updated as new info is uncovered and brought in as well as new questions answered. that said I don't know what the examples look like because as i said else where on this talk page I'm a lazy american.Bruvlad (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The recently added FAQ banner seems appropriate. I suggest we may close this discussion now.n---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 05:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The map

I am concerned about the map. Is it updated correctly? What I have read are the cities of Mariopol, Chernihiv and Sumy encircled. I also find it hard to belive that the big yellow territory north of Konotop is in full Ukrainian hands? Maybe a new color showing "contested territory" is a good idea? 217.209.60.112 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the map has its own talk page. It probably is best to ask there again https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg WoodyCabin (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses Section = ?According to? ?For?

There are flags and lots of "per" --

The Flags should have text titles with them.

Do they mean ACCORDING TO Russia/Ukraine or FOR Russia/Ukraine...and the "per" also has the double meaning ACCORDING TO or FOR... 188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

They mean 'according to' in the present context. The flags are identified immediately above in the 'strength' section, I don't know if it's typical to note their identity in each subsequent section and will leave that up to others to address. I've formatted your comment slightly just to avoid the unintended quote box. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The general structure is for[according_to]. So "per" means "according to". I find it pretty understandable. Maxorazon (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've personally noticed that "per" is used a lot by Wikipedians but not as much outside Wikipedia. Just FWIW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, strict definitions don't really apply to how we use it on Wikipedia. I guess Merriam Webster's third definition is the sense in which we use it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

"The US and others accused Russia of planing to invasion, but Russian officials repeatedly denied this". Please correct this someone.-103.53.232.62 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You do need to say what you want it to say, backed by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "Ukraine agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal" oversimplifies and misrepresents what really happened

There's a lot of discussion around what Budapest really means. Here is the expert consensus, as I understand it:

- While physically there were nukes in Ukraine, they were controlled by the Soviets. It was more akin to U.S. weapons stationed in European countries

- Ukraine tried to convince the nuclear operators to defect and did some saber rattling around taking the nukes

- If they had taken the nukes, they would have had no way to use them or maintain them and the fissile material would have expired

- In return for not turning it into a bid deal/inconvenience, they got some concessions in Budapest

- Ukraine never had a clear path to becoming nuclear armed, nor did they ever really start on that path

- This false narrative around Ukraine having once been a nuclear state is being used by Putin to, in part, justify the invasion - he's pointing to the threat of a nuclear Ukraine

Here are a couple blog posts by reputable though opinionated arms control experts. They point to underlying scholarly sources which I don't have access to but you could take a look to confirm what they're saying if you have access to those journals: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/

I would suggest changing this to say simply that "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine and Russia maintained close ties. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on the condition that Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) would provide assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Five years later, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve".

The article on Budapest provides adequate context for the memorandum and properly explains this issue.

李艾连 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about Ukraine or the Ukrainian SSR? If the former, then it retained the formal rights to do whatever it wanted with the nuclear arsenal provided after USSR dissolution (since Russia nullified its debts). If the latter, then indeed it had no control over the said arsenal, but neither did Russia prior to 1992 because none formally existed. Putin said nothing about this arsenal in his address, he referred to the current weapons that Ukraine had been stocking up since 2021. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

李艾连, the summary is extremely simplified, but absolutely accurate, while your account has some inaccuracies. Ukraine had declared itself a non-nuclear state in its 1990 declaration of sovereignty. There were no Soviets after Christmas 1991. Fifteen new states legally owned all assets on their own territory according to the principle of uti possidetis juris, and some of them negotiated a consensus that the Commonwealth of Independent States would control their use. Experts speculate that Ukraine, which had built the rockets and guidance systems, may possibly have been able to gain control over the launch with enough money and time, or may have been able to dismantle the warheads to use or sell the material. I haven't ever heard anything about nuclear material expiring, Ukraine subverting operators, or rattling sabres: it merely negotiated security guarantees. The Budapest Memorandum was a not a ratified treaty, but it was a reaffirmation of binding obligations in the UN Charter, and agreements in the Helsinki Final Act. Good on you for mentioning the OSCE Charter, and I believe the Paris document is also important and relevant (or is that the same one?). —Michael Z. 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

：：Thanks for the responses - I'm certainly far from an expert, just glad this is being considered by people who deeply know the history (as it seems you do). 李艾连 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think one could probably write hundreds of words on counterfactual scenarios, but there's arguments on both sides on whether or not Ukraine would've eventually gained control over their nuclear weapons or the legal issues involved. That being said, perhaps a better intro would be along the lines of: "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was left with physical control over 1/3 of the USSR's nuclear arsenal, although Russia inherited the nuclear codes necessary to operate the weapons. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give their nuclear weapons to Russia by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances..." so on and so forth. I think the context that Ukraine didn't have the ability to immediately use the weapons is important and this would summarize that without going into the thorny legal issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable state of Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The quality of the historic and geopolitical perspective given to the reader on the current event is that of a British tabloid, a reddit thread, a twitter post: unacceptable for a worldwide encyclopedia. See also #NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes and #Right_to_adversarial_arguments.

This Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Wikilink is in fact a redirect to Historical_background_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine, which is far as general as the previous claim, and is in quite a poor state. I am dedicating time today to improving the subject, help welcome. Maxorazon (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

En:wiki is not a worlwide encyclopedia. It is a english language encyclopedia, striving what every good encyclopedia tries to do in its own language. Or, en:wiki is not the united nations of the Wikipedia's. --Robertiki (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct... I have made progress in understanding, but this is a complex, multi-scale, multi-faceted, multilateral conflict in which I know nothing about. Ideally someone tri-lingual EN/UK/RU would achieve the synthesis! I can't read Cyrillic and am not native in English... I can give some sort of a crucible, a wiki portal, for others to iterate upon, synthesizing the various aspects that I found to this conflict.

My report after trying to map the galaxy of articles and dive into the history is that: there is no such article as Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War today. It is split across a dozen articles. The synthesis history background of the war is hard to write. I propose with the above to create a Portal for the aspects of the conflict in the Russo-Ukrainian war, which would point to geopolitics, economics, such pending historic background... along with maintaining all the templates including the latter. What do you think? I will give it another day. Maxorazon (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. One main pain-point that I keep stumbling upon is that this conflict is a civil war too. There is extremely little mention of it around the corpus as far as I saw. Maxorazon (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually not so much... Maxorazon (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article reads like Western propaganda. It exclusively relies on reports from Western media, which have uncritically reported the fake news spread by Ukrainian propaganda and have rarely, if ever, reported that the initial news were exposed as fakes. Western propaganda has spun the narrative to justify the existence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine - a well-documented phenomenon. It is rather ludicrous to claim that just because Putin is himself using the Neo-Nazism in Ukraine to forward his interests, the threat of Neo-Nazism itself is wildly exaggerated or doesn't exist. Neo-Nazi groups and other extreme right-wing nationalist groups are integrated into the Ukrainian military-security apparatus and exert a significant influence on Ukrainian politics and society. Their claims that they are fighting for 'white Europe' and 'European civilization' against 'Asiatic Russia' is a classic Nazi trope.

For some reason, the article goes to great length to completely whitewash the Ukrainian side and NATO from all responsibility fro the conflict in Ukraine since 2014 and lay the blame on it solely on Russia. Reollun (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars

• Early reports declared it the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.
• Yugoslav Wars--Мечников (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts are not conventional warfare. Yugoslav Wars are not an attack by one sovereign state on another sovereign state. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, ethnic conflicts are conventional warfare. What do you call Russians and Ukrainians fighting if not ethnic conflict? Two ethnicities are fighting. Secondly, Yugoslav wars were not only civil wars and they involved recognised sovereign nation states fighting, see for example Battle of Vukovar (Republic of Croatia vs Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Melmann 11:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

the Ukrainian forces have a lot of russian etnicity persons. It's more hard problem--Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

About half Ukrainians are Russian-speaking. And they are fighting against Russian troops for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian citizens support Ukraine in this conflict. It's not ethnic conflict at all. I believe that Russo-Ukrainian war is the war between two concepts of statehood: Putin's concept of dictatorship controlling kleptocratic elite and disempowered population through exploitation imperialist ressentiment, on the one side, and the concept of democratic regime where population have possibility to influence on policy, on the other side. It doesn't mean there are no kleptocrats and oligarchs in Ukraine; the concept of statehood is just marking a vector of development. Putin's vector of development leads to medieval state with nobles and serfs, modern Ukrainian vector leads to state where citizens have rights and their opinion has matter. These two concepts of statehood can not coexist peacefully, these concepts are existential enemies. That is the real reason of Russo-Ukrainian war, this isn't about nationality. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The breakup of Yugoslavia was became in early 1990s. So Yugoslav Wars in 1990s was a war between sovereign states already. It's non-obvious phrase to put it mildly. It's need to write it more understandable --Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Breakup of Yugoslavia put the matter of borders of new countries. Yugoslav Wars were wars due to the border disputes. Russian-Ukrainian border was not disputed (see Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty), and the main objective of Russo-Ukrainian war in general and 2022 invasion particulary is de facto liquidation of Ukrainian statehood. That is why I really don't want to compare Yugoslav Wars and Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian invasion can be compared with German invasion of Poland in 1939 or any other war of conquest aimed to total control over victim of aggression. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But the text in the introduction of the article should be as clear as possible. They should not be ambiguous. What is the "largest conventional warfare operation"? The largest in terms of human losses or territory? This needs to be more specific, more understandable text. --Мечников (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Wars", as in more than one. This is one war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Could you please stop interjecting with ill-informed comments all over this page. Two of the Yugoslav wars involved tens of thousands of deaths each, and one of those - Bosnian War - involved the worst loss of life on European soil since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is nowhere near this scale at this time. It may, sadly, become comparable if this continues for months or years. But please, if you don't know what you're talking about: don't comment. Aside, this has also been discussed in two separate sections and it has been pointed out that neither of the cited sources support the statement as is in article. I was under the impression that it was changed to conform with the sources, but apparently this hasn't happened. Pinging Pincrete who noted this issue originally. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm seeing now that a third source has been added that says 'largest conventional military attack'. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That source is actually a US defence dept spokesperson, … so not a wholly neutral source. Bosnian War deaths were finally settled at around the 110,000 mark, so by that criteria, Bosnia was much bigger (and longer) than anything which has happened yet in Ukraine. Though then, numbers of conventional heavy armoury was probably less and troop figures may have been lower. My biggest concern is not so much whether our piece of 'headline-ese' is true or not so much as what does it actually mean? An inter-state war is not the same thing as an attack and is not the same as a ground war (which is what the other sources refer to) and how conventional is Ukraine - civilian militias in urban areas? The issue has already been raised twice in other sections above. There are all sorts of criteria by which Ukraine may be the biggest incident since WWII as far as W Europe is concerned, since unlike 'suppressive' incidents like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's and 60's, this is not re-establishing a Warsaw pact authority, and is potentially very destabilising, since this affects all of the EU and NATO directly, but at present our text is just fairly meaningless IMO. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree here. The "largest" claim - in any form I've seen cited reliably so far - is non-specific, subject to a wide array of misinterpretation, and possibly - though not certainly - represents a non-neutral interpretation of events (WP:NPOV). It's headline-y in the lead (see WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:PUFFERY) and should probably be moved to a less prominent position and contextualized based on source material. Though I think most of us know this already, it bears remembering that what we should not do is edit/replace it with a similar claim that constitutes any degree of WP:ORIGINAL research.

@Mr rnddude: I went and dug up that third source you mentioned because it showed that one of the earliest mentions was by a "senior [US] defense official." As Pincrete rightly noted above, this isn't a completely neutral source. When I included it, I only changed the article text to reflect that the statement was an early report (rather than verified fact) but made no further edits. That might be why you didn't initially notice a big change.

As written currently, one other concern is that the statement in question kind of sandwiches some bits about the Crimea annexation and seizure of Donbas. It's easy to misread the last sentence as a characterization of one of those events rather than the 2022 movements. IMO it's another reason to move this bit somewhere else entirely. --N8 18:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bosnian war involved 400,000 combatants (being generous), the Russian invasion of Ukraine involves over 1,000,000. I would argue that makes it bigger.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many criteria by which Ukraine might be seen as more impactful/dangerous/bigger than anything else since WWII, (more troops/armaments/more deadly arsenal?), but if we don't understand this claim, isn't it bit pointless? More heat than light? Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

One of two near duplicates discussions: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4#Largest European ground war since WWII?Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

An-225 loss in infobox should be removed

The An-225 was not operated by the Ukrainian military, (rather by a civilian airline) so it should not be recorded as a equipment loss in the infobox Chokoladesu (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for it not being party to the conflict? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/antonov-an-225-largest-plane-destroyed-ukraine-scli-intl/index.html Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good enough, it's not a military casualty, maybe put it under civilian as it seems to be noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed from infobox. I didn't add it to the civilian section, although if others think it's important they can do so. Jr8825 • Talk 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

uhh... anyone? Chokoladesu (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also think it should be removed. It's owned by a civilian corporation. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WELL ABOUT AN225, First it was not totally destroyed, it is damaged by explosion inside Hanger, this also partially damaged also. The Aircraft seems still standing, according satellite pictures. SO IT IS NOT LOST --90.186.219.179 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A note on recentism

Just a note on WP:RECENTISM: as a current and ongoing event, there is a lot of recentism in this article. I'll quote from the page itself:

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:

• Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

There is fertile ground for editors to try to improve the article in this respect. Especially in the invasion section, all through the article editors are inserting content for individual incidents without an overarching historical narrative structure. This is causing the article to miss some key ideas, such as the stall of the Russian army, its failure to meet its strategic goals, etc. If we can start to get on top of this now, it will require less work to shape the article in future.Mozzie (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, recentism is not always bad, unless it falls into WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE. When the dust settles, we can always summarize/split the article. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

failure to meet its strategic goals - and what are these goals? I see none in the article. Are there any RS about these goals? I say the strate goal is to revive the New Novorossiya ("New New Russia") project, see Novorossiya#Impact in modern times. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:TRIVIA is about not creating lists of trivia in articles (this was common a long time ago) and is not about isolated trivia in general. It's a common misconception. In any case I'm more talking about having a well structured article over a large scale, and not individual bits of information.Mozzie (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. Still, WP:UNDUE holds. In any case, The article is not so bad so far. Isolated facts go into daily sections. I am pretty sure we have detailed sub-articles for various wars. The first thing comes to my mind for comparison is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression of disagreeing. Undue is absolutely very important, and the two really go hand in hand. But a lot of undue stuff is small jobs, as opposed to the really big job of shaping the article correctly, and that's what I'm trying to seek some consensus on here, because otherwise it will probably be reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree strongly, and I would add it as one of the issues in the 'looking ahead' thing I tried to get at in another section. One important thing on these articles is that constant trimming of RECENTISM is done (i.e. go through with a WP:10YT outlook and remove any trivia, outdated details, or news-y things). A lot of people tend to add content but less remove stuff that should go. I think if we can get a hold of that, it's easier to reorganise the information and reorient it in terms of the bigger picture. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great feedback. I very much agree re lots of people adding content and few trimming it. Thanks Some good pages that are about ten years old are Russo-Georgian War and War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I guess at least in the invasion section, We can make sections on initial attacks as that is the worst for now: the main battles: Kyiv, Kharkiv and any others? Maybe the battle for air supremacy...Mozzie (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fake news

Surely we dont need to list numerous fake news generated by propaganda from both sides, but definitely something must be written about this, because this war is notable for its information warfare.

• BBC: Ukraine invasion: Misleading claims continue to go viral. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that misinformation on social media has been off the charts for this conflict, there must be some mention of this in the article, backed up by RSes.171.49.209.33 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are also separate articles for Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and Russian–Ukrainian information war which are proposed to be merged. The only current links to these appear to be from the "see also" text immediately under section headings at § Russian accusations and demands and § Media depictions. There are more textual references to mis/disinformation in the article however and it's possible several of these could be phrased to reference one of those other articles. --N8 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

could put it in the casualty stats as well, as almost everybody, even wiki, have biases. we try here but as for say fox news or cnn may not try so hard, and the kyiv independent and Russia today are actively fabricating or spinning things. so I think it should be placed anywhere logical; however ,yes I'm countering my own argument, there are rules against over linking even internally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider adding a cultural sanctions section

There is rightly a lot of coverage of economic sanctions but zero mention of cultural sanctions, which arguably are not much less impactful, especially in the context of "sport washing".

I can start the ball rolling with these two:

- On the 28th Feburary 2022 Fifa and Uefa suspended all Russian football clubs and national teams from its tournaments and competitions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/60560567 - The FIA cancelled the 2022 Russian Grand Prix https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60523049

Oiona (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oiona. You might also consider adding this information at Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society which does not currently have edit restrictions. --N8 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider adding a cultural sanctions section

There is rightly a lot of coverage of economic sanctions but zero mention of cultural sanctions, which arguably are not much less impactful, especially in the context of "sport washing".

I can start the ball rolling with these two:

- On the 28th Feburary 2022 Fifa and Uefa suspended all Russian football clubs and national teams from its tournaments and competitions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/60560567 - The FIA cancelled the 2022 Russian Grand Prix https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60523049

Oiona (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oiona. You might also consider adding this information at Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society which does not currently have edit restrictions. --N8 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Isn't it time to add EU as a Belligerent on the Ukrainian side in the infobox since many countries are sending weapons (with EU support)? --Semsûrî (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that's considered an act of war. It could be put down as support if there's consensus for including supporting actors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I do find it strange this article doesn't have a "supported by" section in the infobox while Russo-Ukrainian War does. Perhaps it's just because it'd largely be a duplication? Then again, that assumes that the list of countries which showed support before the invasion is the same as after. — Czello 10:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not though, as we have now a huge list of traditionally neutral countries that are sending aid (Finland for god's sake). It would almost be easier to have a list of countries not sending aid. But that (ironically) is an argument against adding them, the list would be huge, and might clutter up the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true, and we already have #Foreign_military_support_to_Ukraine and #Ramifications to cover this. — Czello 11:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the EU is an intergovernmental organization that works on "foreign" policy only with the unanimous concordance of all 27 countries, which lacks. Bulgaria, Ireland, and Hungary have all denied supplies to the individuals in power in Kyiv. Saying "the EU" is a simplification of a complex reality which must not lead us to forget who is legitimately in charge of armies and military policies, namely only sovereign states. --Foghe (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The EU says that it is providing arms to Ukraine "For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack.". This is reported by many many sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. etc.). Do you have a source that actually disputes this? 217.28.13.237 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus going to invade ukraine, and cutting of poland 217.171.226.115 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

source? Maxorazon (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are 2 totally conflicting articles from today.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-leader-says-minsk-wont-join-russian-operation-ukraine-belta-reports-2022-03-01

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/belarus-troops-ukraine-join-russia-invasion-president-lukashenko-army-1491050 ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

With both only being claims but one side or the other. When third party RS say "Belarus has invaded Ukraine" we can add this, otherwise it is just speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-belarus-invades-ukraine-second-26348732

https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-russia-war-ukraine/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belarus-ukraine-russia-war-putin-b2025596.html

The same. Ukraine claims, Belarus denies. But we can reflect these claims and denials in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done that. Seems like the usual confusion tactic Russia has also been deploying; staunchly denying something before doing it hours later (though will wait for an RS to say that before saying it in exactly those words). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ

In order to allow us to remove comments asking very basic questions, I think a FAQ may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I started a basic FAQ based on the two most frequent things I've seen on talk so far. Feel free to add more, but IMO we should prioritise issues that keep coming up (ie, more than once or twice with obvious results), lest the FAQ become too long and nobody reads it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Online and Cyber Warfare

Thinking of adding a section titled Online and Cyber Warfare for the nonlethal tactics being used by either side - Ukraine's IT Army, Anonymous, Russian's attacks, misinformation wars, etc. Anyone feel this would work? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me if the information can be properly synthesised and verified, though I'm fairly inexperienced so I don't think my vote should count for much. -- Sentimex (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

EU fighter jets donation

Slovakia and Bulgaria are rejecting that the countries will provide fighter planes to Ukraine. Poland refused to confirm or deny.--Znuddel (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it did fall apart. All Ukraine needs is about a half dozen A10 Warthogs to turn that 40 mile long convoy in to the highway of death and end the war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They would face massive Russian anti-aircraft measures. But that's neither here nor there - this is not the place to discuss such things. WP:FORUM. Also, looks like it is proceeding: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-fighter-jets-ukraine-russia-invasion-b2025470.html

Depends whether or not the rocket fuel has already been pawned for vodka, anyhow yes WP:NOTAFORUM I'll stop. That aside I don't think it is going to happen. The twitter is from Paul Mcleary who is a defense reporter for Politico. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Update Bio of Animated Map

The note below the animated map depicting the Invasion of Ukraine states:

"Animated map of the 2022 Russian invation [invasion] of Ukraine over time. Currently goes to February 28th. Should be updated every day as events unfold" -MaitreyaVaruna

However, the animated video goes to March 1st; it states "1 MARCH (UTC 2)." If possible, could we update the summary below the video? --MateoFrayo (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The animated map needs some work. Right now it just plays through every version of the map, leading to Russian lines expanding and contracting and repositioning erratically. IMO it should likely be taken out until we can establish a clearer timeline of events. BSMRD (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: @MateoFrayo: do you know the people involved with creating the main map? They are probably the best sources to know which version is best for which day in the timeline MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maersk suspend shipments to Russia

Addition to economic ramifications.

"The shipping company, Maersk, has suspended all shipments to Russia, excluding foodstuffs, and medical and humanitarian supplies."Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/maersk-suspends-all-container-shipping-to-russia FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Laurel Lodged. Two other places this edit might also be appropriate are International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Non-governmental organizations, non-political groups and individuals or Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society. There may be others as well. --N8 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"... even though NATO's ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia..."

In the lead, this seems to rely exclusively on a page from the NATO website. I don't really see any mention about this in Der Spiegel ref. Can a better source be found for this? I am sure there would be something else other than NATO website. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As Mandy Rice-Davies said, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?". Delete it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Article about refugees?

Hello, on German Wikipedia we are working on an article about refugees from Ukraine. Are there plans for such an article in English? I would like to help translating sections. Ziko (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ziko: I just created this draft: Draft:2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. Feel free to translate what you have to there. I'll add additional material. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Banning independent Russian media

Prosecutor-General of Russia demands to ban Echo of Moscow and Dozhd. Sites are already blocked by Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The slab of land south of Volnovakha-Polohny is in Russian hands

Russia controls everything there and around it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 10:54, March 1, 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC) This https://imgur.com/rQ0FHiS ?

A diagram is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Russian Air Force

Useful source? "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add Ford withdrawal

Source: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2022/03/01/ford-suspends-joint-venture-operation-russia/6982264001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Russians taking Kherson

Multiple though unconfirmed reports have come out that Russian forces seem to have entered and taken Kherson

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official-2022-03-01/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-01/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1498789059124158467?s=20&t=SuxwZwWHIXAsilpVDzihbw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Infob0x

Should Lukashenko be added to the commanders section of the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there any Belarus troops? If no the just the same we may add USA to combatants, because LOTS of materiel and instructors. Witout this Ukraine would not have any force to stand. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Airspace ban map

The map associated with said likely needs an update. The USA is the next nation to do so. Source.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone got it. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"New" news is old news.

In the article, it is said, "On 2 March, guerilla hackers in Ukraine pledged to fight Russia through cyber-attacks." This is old news. The media covered this and annoucements were made on the 25th. Yet, it is in the article as happening now. Even in the citation, it is treated as not-so-recent. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties "Per Russia" missing

I realize this number may be 0 or minimal, but their denial should be documented, no? 216.193.170.144 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to add figures that countries are reporting, they should be realistic and the countries should be trying to track them. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't add it without a source. Do you have a source that states what Russia thinks civilian casualties are?JMM12345 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report

I think this 2022, March 1st article from Fox News (which is also verifiable on the Wayback link in the article) is an interesting insight into Putin's objectives/motivations. The article is Ukraine War: Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report. Worth adding? 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's worth adding but use this source, Fox News is not a reliable source https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is useful, and note that outside of politics, Fox News is considered an WP:RSP (ie good source). 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It also should be noted that even on politics, there is no consensus that Fox is unreliable.JMM12345 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Use of Voice of America

While I don't necessarily view the content of the videos posted here as suspect, I don't think Voice of America as a source should be used here. Would Russia Today also be used in the same way? Voice of America is a state propaganda agency.Rando-user-here (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

VOA content alongside content from the State Emergency Service of Ukraine should be removed. This is solely due to the fact that the media is watermarked. I have not encountered any other major conflict that relies on media that is watermarked so heavily. I am under the impression that such content is frowned upon, in line with WP:WATERMARK. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not compare VOA to RT, since the latter has a history of consistently publishing outright disinformation and fabrications and whose editor-in-chief supports and is backed by the Kremlin in every possible way. VOA is perhaps not the best source to use though. Mellk (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rando-user-here I see no difference between RT and all western-driven media.

Offensive Splitting Discussion in Progress

I am notifying editors that there is a split proposal occurring for the Kherson offensive. Feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis

The article for the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (6)

Hello! Would the information below be relevant to Section 6.2 Economic Impact?

South Korea's SWIFT ban against Russia is expected to immediately impact roughly 8 trillion won (approx. $6.64 billion USD) worth of shipbuilding contracts Korea already has with Russia along with Korea's car exports. South Korea accounts for roughly 40.6% of all automobile and automobile-related parts imported by Russia and maintains a vehicle factory in St. Petersburg. There are also South Korean home appliance, parts, and plastics factories located in Russia which are directly affected by the ban and expected to report losses. South Korea's national carrier Korean Air is considering cancelling direct flights between Incheon and Moscow, possibly as early as March 3rd.

On February 28th South Korea announced it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves in an attempt to stabilize global oil prices as well as considering the option to re-sell LNG to Europe as part of "international efforts to support Ukraine" ("우크라이나를 지원하기 위한... 국제사회와의 공조"). South Korea is estimated to hold the world's 4th largest strategic petroleum reserve

222.99.95.163 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

It would take me a while to implement this correctly without some level of proficiency in Korean. But I noticed the Korean Wikipedia article on this topic is much less developed than the English one - and also doesn't appear to be edit protected as far as I can tell. If you (222.99.95.163) happen to know Korean, please consider contributing directly there also. --N8 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: likely too much detail for this article. International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War might be a better home. Jr8825 • Talk 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is not sending arms to Ukraine, said PM Kiril Petkov. There are sources of his statement. Nix3214 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Reuters, they are sending both humanitarian and military aid.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The source says that Bulgaria will send military aid... P1221 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

I have uploaded an image for the Propaganda part of the image. The file is Ukraine propaganda on twitter.PNG and is a screenshot of the official Ukraine Twitter account. The account can be found here and the tweet can be found here. KaptianKharisma (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That image is not uploaded in Wikipedia or WikiCommons, it is non even clear if it is free to use... P1221 (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Technically, on a historical base, this is a confrontation that goes on from 2014 between 2 nations, so it is historically more correct to call it "Russo Ukrainian war" and not "Russian invasion", but this is a simple technical observation of a history appassionate, that can't do much compared to a general opinion of ignorance, so in this case we should change the name to the 2nd Iraqi war to us invasion of Iraq? 91.80.25.59 (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There's already an article about the Russo-Ukrainian War (as well as a campaignbox template for it), this is just one aspect of the conflict. Aluxosm (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Tensions in Ukraine as background for the conflict

The Russian government uses the tensions between pro-Russian and Nationalist groups in Ukraine and how the Ukrainian goverment handled this as part of their justification for the war. Think "Odessa massacre", the supposed involvement of nationalists in Kyiv, and the failure of the Ukrainian judicial system. This needs to be explained in a section, everything else will promote an incomplete understanding of the ongoing events. --Jazzman (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, but please see WP:NOFORUM ... Maxorazon (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is however no original research but an aspect reflected in the media ([1], [2], EDIT: [3], [4]). --Jazzman (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Request addition: Convoy stalled, "literally out of gas" and having difficulty feeding their troops.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083733700/russias-40-mile-convoy-has-stalled-on-its-way-to-kyiv-a-u-s-official-says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/01/ukraine-convoy-stalled-heavy-fighting/

Intralexical (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Have tactical or battlefield nuclear, chemical or bacteriological weapons been detected on the Russian convoy approaching Kiev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

There is the spelling mistake in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" - Poskomnadzor instead Roskomnadzor. Also, you can use the name Russian communications and media regulator to avoid a tautology. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in last sentence under 2 March events

The last sentence under March 2nd events includes the typo 'Februar', missing the ending 'y'.

Fixed. Kosack (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

February is spelt wrong under March 2nd - final sentence. Romknowmyst (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Kosack (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Magomed Tushayev

To add: information about Magomed Tushayev (since his article was created, then deleted, three times now). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. He is neither dead nor notable. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion putting lard on bullets

Should the info on Azov Battalion coating lard in bullets targeting Chechen muslims that was posted on the National Guard twitter account be added to the article? or wait until it is properly reported in the media.-UtoD 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait to see if it's picked up by a number of secondary WP:RS, which might indicate its notability. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like baseless, lazy propaganda. Every war since the British in India has always had reports of Muslim personnel being shot with bullets coated in some form of pig fat. It's the laziest and most "phoned-in" made up story in history. It should not be lent any credence at all.Jersey John (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The video was distributed BY the Azov Battalion. It's hardly a made up story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and I also fail to see how it would not be undue anyway even if true, its one unit targeting another in a war involving 100,000's. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's made up or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to present information as reported by notable sources, not report things itself. If the pig lard on bullets story isn't being reported by WP:RS, it's a non-issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. John Bullock (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been picked up by Al Jazeera and Vice which I believe is WP:RS enough to be mentioned. As the post is made by the official Twitter account of the National Guard of Ukraine I believe it should be mentioned somewhere. -UtoD 17:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, and I also think my initial response thread (made when events were fast unfolding) was wrong. Given the scale of the invasion, isolated incidents such as this are not significant enough to be included here. At most, they might warrant mention on articles with a narrower scope. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:SUMMARY. Jr8825 • Talk 07:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey! about the "tank" that crushes the vehicle. It has been debunked and is still being shown in the article. Some example by press agencies: [5] , [6] , [7], Even those who see the complete videos, the place, the facts and the moment in time it happened realize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.78 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Pages Regarding 'Nazification' accusations.

From [2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands|this section]:

>and no far-right candidate won a single seat in the Verkhovna Rada, the national legislature

But one of the sources in that section:

>one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine's parliament

The two facts appear contradictory, or at least 'sneaky' ('sneaky' as in, "It's technically true because one is referring to the Rada, while the other is referring to Svoboda"). When I first read that section, I thought there was _no_ representation of the far-right in government.

In general, is there a better way that paragraph on far-right nationalism could be written? Because to an outside reader, it's very confusing. On the one hand, it sounds like it's trying to completely dismiss the far-right nationalism claim (to quote the section as of writing this, Putin was using a "false 'Nazi' narrative"), but many of the links and citations have something that seems to back up little bits of that particular claim (this link in the middle of that section gives me a lot of troubling cognitive dissonance and confusion). Perhaps to try to keep it NPOV, not directly contradict other articles in Wikipedia, and strike a middle ground here, it would be more appropriate and fit the available source material push the wording and tone to say something more like "While Putin's points on this particular matter do have some basis, analysts have found them to be greatly exagerrated?" That way, the section isn't contradicting itself so much? Fephisto (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of Ukrainian nazification claim is being made in a shallow and biased way, for two main reasons. First, it is biased toward the (common in the West) view that nazists persecuted only Jews, or that Jews were the most numerous victims, which is factually false. Shallow because, acknowledging that invocation of Nazism is somewhat exaggerated (but not false, anyway), one must take into account the historical fact that German forces at Word War II killed soviets indiscriminately, leading to the (documented) worst genocide known to mankind [8]. For Russian people, many times Nazism echoes as Russophobia. Despite Putin's populistic move, it shall be acknowledged that the existence of russophobe active militias officially supported and paid by Ukrainian government [9], whatever their size, is a fact (not a fake). The use of Wolfsangel logo is not a coincidence [10]. In the context or Russian-Ukranian war, the continuous support of far-right, russophobe groups against the Donbass separatists is viewed inside Russia (by many but not all) as something quite similar in essence to the Nazi assault to soviets - a move to annihilate the Russian people (and by extension, Belarusian, since they were also victims of Nazi genocide). Finally, everything must be viewd in the context of the historical division of east Ukraine and central/west Ukraine; it is not possible to understand what "Nazism" means for a Russian or a russophile Ukrainian without understanding the dynamics of the internal Ukrainian divisions and the historical context of WWII's Soviet genocide. The western view of the Nazism is completely distorted in this regard. That said, one must also acknowledge that Putin's move is a populistic one; however, what is being claimed here is not a dispute of opinions, but a more comprehensive and factual expression of the context that dictates the historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.255.226.128 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In the current context, the term "Nazi" is a defamatory label. Without going into details, the correct applicable terms would be "Neonazism" and "ultranationalism", see eg. Category:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

P.S. the article says there is no widespread support for far-right ideology. That's correct. However neonazis are well-organized minority, and armed, too, therefore I can readily believe they are used as a brute force by some groups. Funny thing, some time ago I have read about clashes between neonazi groups, because they were hired to defend interests of different oligarchs :-) On a more serious note, neonazis were used to quash protests by small businesses and independent businessmen (ФОП - a cyrillic abbrev; there is ukwiki page uk:Фізична особа-підприємець with no link to enwiki, which would be translated as "natural person-entrepreneur" or "individual-entrepreneur). Loew Galitz (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that this "russophobia" train of thought is a driver for Putin indeed, when he talks about denazification. On top of the disinformation spread that Ukraine is actually run by neo-nazis. Stalingrad is only what, 400 kilometers away from Donbass? So it is very far fetched from him, but seeing Ukraine trying to recover Donbass can be seen as a sign of aggression to the heart of Russia, in my opinion. But WP:NOFORUM, let's source... The general omerta from Europeans on the involvement of US in the Ukrainian conflict does not help :<, see my RfC about NATO. Maxorazon (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be said that Nazi influence is exaggerated, but cannot be dismissed entirely. Azov has state sanction; it is an official part of the Ukrainian National Guard. Also, the increasing rehabilitation of the UPA, an ultranationalist guerilla group during WW2. While not Nazis they were fascists who committed pogroms against Poles, Jews, and Russians and sometimes collaborated with Germany. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Our article isn't misleadingly worded, it's factually incorrect. The tl;dr of how the Ukrainian election system works is half the seats are first past the post elections in single member constituencies, like the USA or the United Kingdom. Everyone in a certain region votes for their regional representatives. The other half of the seats are allocated by party-list proportional representation where everyone chooses one party to vote for on a national level. The seats are then allocated so that every party that gets votes over a certain threshold (5% in Ukraine) gets a number of seats proportional to their vote totals allocated to the "party list" of candidates they want elected (see Elections in Ukraine).

What happened in this particular example was that Svoboda combined their list with several other ultranationalist parties to do better in the party list part. While they didn't get above 5% nationally, they did win one seat in one of the first past the post constituencies, specifically constituency number 83 where Oksana Savchuk won most of the votes. [11] It's only technically true because the united party list didn't win any seats, while a person representing Svoboda won a seat. Also, the source that NBC links to support their claim [12] says nothing about Svoboda. On the other hand, our recounting of this claim is demonstrably false, since we omitted the "coalition" part. I'm going to cut that part out of the article per this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess:The article reads better now. Thanks. Fephisto (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I just would like to thank all the writers and administrators of this article. Perfectly presented and developed, exalting the freedom to share true information.

With gratitude,

Lucas Lucas B. Lestido (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lucas B. Lestido well said. came here to say that. 51.155.195.31 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's all buy a big fat round of imaginary beers after this is over for everyone who is contributing to this article in such a timely manner to make it as detailed as humanly possible. This article shows that there is still hope for humanity! I just wish I could help out. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree! I'm glad wikipedianians (Is that how you say it?) across the globe were able to help in creating and supporting this article with the underlying belief of truth and freedom. Regarding the imaginary beer's, I'm down. MateoFrayo (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Haha, truth is not a belief. It is true whether you believe it or not. Janneman27 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes and racism: Indian and African students assaulted by Ukrainian border guards

Shouldn't this data be in this page? It is clearly a humanitarian issue. Such reports came from official sources, BBC, Al Jazeera, different Indian and African channels covered this issue too. SReader2101 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you produced these sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this issue should be addressed in the article. The Independent: Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing war zone, CNN: Foreign students fleeing Ukraine say they face segregation, racism at border, NYT: Africans Say Ukrainian Authorities Hindered Them From Fleeing Viewsridge (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, lets see a suggestion for an edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think about the subject. Viewsridge (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is already something written in this section, I added only the last sentence. P1221 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know whether things have changed since this section was started, but it now looks like this is appropriately covered. If anything, I think 4 sentences might be a bit too much detail, but it should be fine for now. Jr8825 • Talk 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Konotop on map

Konotop's mayor still in control. https://novosti.dn.ua/news/321278-konotopu-postavili-ultimatum-sdaetsya-ili-ego-raznesut-artilleriej GordonGlottal (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: I believe the surrender narrative refers to putting up a insurgency type resistance here, as the city was widely reported to have captured by Russia, including by Ukrainian officials on 25 Feb. Viewsridge (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian allegations of nuclear armerment

2/27/22 the russians have stated that they will be arming nukes should we add this?https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-nuclear-forces-ukraine-fighting/ due to this i feel like it is important to add your opinions? Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

THis is old news, discussed before. 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties per Ukraine

Not sure what's going on but civilian casualties announced by Ukraine just went from 346 KIA to 2,000 KIA. It is reliable sourced so I've added it into the article. It could still be some sort of reporting error though. Viewsridge (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, it has already been added. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (3)

Please add this into the subsection "United Nations" of the section "Reactions" of the article:

United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to reprimand Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and demanded that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces, an action that aims to diplomatically isolate Russia at the world body. 141 of the Assembly's 193 members voted for the resolution, 35 including China abstained and 5 countries including Russia and Belarus voted against the document.

K8M8S8 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

A variation of this seems to have been  Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Negationism vs Revisionism hyperlink error?

In the section titled, "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and war in Donbas (3rd Paragraph) it refers to - British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.

However, the hyperlink directs users to Historical negationism

I'm not an expert on the two topics, but this feels erroneous in nature or a simple mistake -- the historical negationism article also ironically instructs that it (negationism) should not be conflated with historical revisionism, a broader term that extends to newly evidenced, fairly reasoned academic reinterpretations of history. Happy to hear others' thoughts, or to get the edit done, I just don't have the access due to the protection. Cheers OfficerManatee (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this was done because most people who speak of "historical revisionism" mean it in the sense of negation. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

closing tag in archive Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix the link

Please, fix the link #17 (about crashing of Su-25, in infobox). K8M8S8 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The "International reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" Map's key is wrong.

The key says countries colored pink say NATO is to blame for the invasion, but the map colors those countries orange. JorikThePooh (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!  Fixed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses: "Per X", "Acc. to X", how about "X's claim"?

I've noticed frequent changes on Casualties and losses section. It was "Per Ukraine", then it became "According to Ukraine", now it is "Acc. to Ukraine". I suggest: "Ukrainian Claim", "Russian Claim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThalesMML (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this has been changed. "Per" is used in most such articles. Indeed, this article still has instances of "per" in the infobox, and I would favour reverting to that state pending a proper discussion. I don't mind "according to", but would expressly oppose "acc. to". I also don't mind the above suggestion. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it in a previous discussion. WikiUsage (and WikiFrequency of usage) of "per" is not the traditional dictionary definition, and a lot of people were complaining about the term being confusing, which is reaasonable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussion in Archive 5, a grand total of three editors responded to it and only you agreed that it was confusing - neither myself nor Maxorazon supported this change. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

Change "Luhansk Republic" and "Donetsk Republic" to "Luhansk PR" and "Donetsk PR" respectively. Spartacus but Russian (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix citation for French Finance Minister Quote

The inset image with the caption French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said that the EU "will bring about the collapse" of the economy of Russia inside of the Economic impact section has a broken link for it's citation, it resolves to https://www.thelocal.fr/20220301/french-finance-minister-we-will-wwring-about-collapse-of-the-russian-economy/ when it should actually resolve to https://www.thelocal.fr/20220301/french-finance-minister-we-will-bring-about-collapse-of-the-russian-economy/

 Done Thank you for pointing out the problem. P1221 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Timestamp for Military Situation map

The description below the map currently only shows the date, but since the map is being updated so regurlarly, may I suggest that the time also be added? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sentimex. I think timestamps would be great for a news site that strives to keep readers up to date with the very latest information. If that's what you're looking for check out sites like BBC's live coverage, or AlJazeera, and a variety of others. For this map specifically, you can see the time (and description) of each update at mw:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg under "File history". For the purposes of this article I think it might be best to leave timestamps off if only to help emphasize to readers that Wikipedia is not news. After all - we do eventually expect that the regular updates will slow down or stop altogether. In the meantime, the {{current}} tag at the top of the article should also help readers understand that the information will be volatile for now. --N8 14:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you for your very detailed reply! -- Sentimex (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson What about including timestamps for each frame in the animated map then? Since there are multiple frames in a single given day, that seems like an appropriate place to include timestamps? -- Sentimex (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this seems really helpful Sentimex. Timestamps would help clarify the pace of events. I don't know how to got about it but I like it. --N8 15:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems the animated map has been removed as per one of the discussions. Should we still make the suggestion to the creator to include timestamps when the animated map is to be included in the article after the war? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Typo fix in "Invasion" section, change:

"3 March The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, cries against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This after 39 nations petitioned for an quiry to be opened."

to

"3 March The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This came after 39 nations petitioned for an inquiry to be opened." 135.180.45.197 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The typo is "cries", which needs to be changed to "crimes".

See the original source (to which the citation links). It is crimes, not cries, in the source article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Btw, Chesapeake77, you're 30/500, not sure why you don't have a EC flag yet, you don't have AC either for some reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes strange. I believe I actually have about 460 edits now.

Thanks again.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction, I (just) now have 514 edits according to my account. I may have crossed the threshold while editing this.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pop-ups and xtools both also say 514 (now 516). If the flag doesn't show up in the next day or so - if you want to wait - you may request it to be manually added via WP:PERM. I'm fairly certain it's added at 500 edits, not 500 mainspace edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Z symbol - colors

Wouldn't it be better to change the colors to white (for the letter and border) and military green (for the background)? Ngfio (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture just disappeared from the article, but for the record I was talking about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Z_(2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine).svg Ngfio (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ngfio You can't change the colour of the image here, as the file is hosted on Commons and overwrite it there, but you cannot because it violates c:COM:OVERWRITE. SHB2000 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Info box - Belarus

Lukashenko has officially denied Belarusian troops in Ukraine. Whether or not it's true it needs to be listed as (officially denied). Other countries have also denied. Also, I would argue that unless we have concrete evidence (and not only Zelenskyy's claim) we should add (alleged) but that's minor

Source : https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-russia-war-ukraine/ Angele201002 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone edited while I was posting so disregard thisAngele201002 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1499311646690492417 P4p5 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done 2402:3A80:1C44:8EF0:AD96:278:DC71:2704 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) split proposal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

I propose that the information about the invasion be split off into Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2022. This section is the largest in the article and only will continue to grow as time moves forward. I think having timeline articles would be appropriate considering we have done so for other topics such as COVID-19. We should keep a monthly summary here of the most important details while the day-to-day summaries can be at the timelines. Noah^Talk 14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Way too specific. Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine already exists, we do not need monthly ones on top of that at this time, it hurts readibility for one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Then someone needs to do some serious trimming because the section is way too large. It should be a summary of the timeline and most important details rather than having hour by hour updates. This is especially prevalent in the February 24 area. Noah^Talk 14:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why there is a maintenance tag on the section. The blocker is the lack of someone with the ability, time and willingness to do it properly. Really it needs reorienting to focus on the big picture, and leave the intricate details and back-and-forth to the timeline article (which already exists). Multiple ongoing discussions regarding this above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd really prefer we minimise the maintenance tags on this high-traffic article. Do we need a split maintenance tag at the top? Given a timeline page already exists, it seems moot. Discussion can continue here, editors (who will only be extended-confirmed editors) are very likely cognisant of article length issues and the existence of a separate timeline article. Local Variable (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm against the idea. To restate what was said above, a Timeline article already exists for this. I think it would be a good idea to condense this article so that it's more concise, but I don't think we should split into monthly articles. Bobtinin (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, these is no urgency to split the article. See WP:HASTE. Second of all, please avoid creating an endless series of forks. If you do this, it becomes much harder to monitor the content, allowing all sorts of WP:UNDUE and unreliable information to be inserted into the article with fewer editors watching to prevent such things. The number of articles that already exist now with duplicate content related to these events is already absurd. See Category:Battles of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. If anything needs to be moved out of this article, try and use the existing articles, rather than creating even more... RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

One thing that's concerning is the number of see also links. I get that there are so many battles, but is it really necessary to have that many? Could we not just direct people to List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (I am aware it is already listed) instead of listing every battle/event as a see also for each day here? Many repeat for each day that they took place. Noah^Talk 14:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Under the Eastern Front section, change "Russian tanks where met with strong resistance" to "Russian tanks were met with strong resistance". Oktayey (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Done · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Graphic videos and pictures

Hi there,

I wanted to discuss the issue of graphic content on Wikipedia. Some of the images and videos show graphic content on this page or related pages. At the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) shows a woman with her leg blown off and many numerous dead civilians. Personally I find dead bodies less graphic than a living dismembered person. I think these videos should be treated with caution and perhaps are best not linked on any of the main articles since we do not know who may be watching them and they can come with little warning. I could not find much policy on them but thought I would ask here first since there is more traffic. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

War is hell and Wikipedia isn't censored. Thousands will be left maimed by this war. The images should be seen. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy = WP:NOTCENSORED · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

From ed.confl:

As for me, still remember the capture of Saddam Hussein on a video, whom to blame, my photographic memory, or, the editors who published the video? Anyway, removed File:Russian shelling of Kharkiv, 28 February 2022.webm ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Such video clearly belong to pages. If an attack was in fact horrific (as it was), that must be reflected in text and images. This is nothing special. There are iconic photos and images about the Vietnam war, for example. Same will be here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Horrific things can be noted in some warning, but they can't be a reason to delete relevant content. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, of course you do not expect an article on a war to contain only child-friendly pictures. If you have problems with this, maybe you could work through the democratic process of wikipedia and try to change WP:NOTCENSORED into something more censorship-friendly instead. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I do not know who are you answering to. I never denied this. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: I know, I should have made a new bullet instead. But when i realized my mistake i thought it was not big enough to fix.. :) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would give WP:NOTCENSORED a careful read which refers to Wikipedia:Offensive material that clearly states though Wikipedia is "not censored" it does not favour offensive images over non-offensive images. The video can remain in the Commons link but given the stub nature of the article there is no need to shoe horn this video in. There is no need to turn Wikipedia into a replacement for Live Leak or Kaotic video databases, purely for salacious reasons that "war is hell", which is clearly obvious. Words in the Wind(talk) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the video is not gore, it shows the reality of russian shelling of civilians. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as well. I'm not sure how including the video is favouring offensive material over non-offensive material. I think this sentence makes more sense in regards to something like graffiti. You can easily illustrate an article about graffiti using a non-offensive image rather than use an offensive image. I'm not sure how we can convey the reality of the situation if we censor bits that we find offensive. RicDod (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the video should remain. I'd also challenge the use of the word gore, gore is something you find on 4chan it is the grotesque for the sake of the grotesque, this is fundamentally different. The video shows the reality of the situation as it currently stands. The situation in Kharkiv is horrendous, and so it appears. The video isn't linked for some sadistic thrill but to show the events that are unfolding. I'd go further and say that if we were paint a white washed picture of the situation as if suffering were not present then we'd be guilty of WP:POV. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• The video should remain. WP:NOTCENSORED applies but not Wikipedia:Offensive material for the reason already made clear by RicDod. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Another vote for the videos to remain for all of the reasons stated above. The videos are factual depictions, and we should have as much of them linked in the articles as possible. How anyone feels about them shouldn't be any concern to change something factual. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support for video remaining. Such images are reality of war, and Wikipedia is not censored. General content disclaimer already covers this. Melmann 17:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• While I agree that the video should remain, would it hurt to indicate clearly that it contains graphic content? While I refrained from watching it, I'm assuming this discussion is about the "Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 28 February" video, since it's the only video I can see at the bottom of the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) page. And I don't see any warning on that page about graphic content in the video or otherwise. 109.98.21.177 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Page size

The page has finally reached a size that some content should be split/removed. Right now it's at around 90 KB of prose, and increasing quickly. Right now the "invasion" section is by far the longest, with the 24 February section alone at >40000 bytes. The reactions section is also fairly long. Are there any other sections that can be condensed or split? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortening the reactions and moving more to International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a good idea. I do think the 24 February section could be shortened. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for WP:HASTE. The subject is rapidly evolving and natural subtopics may become more apparent with time. Let's see where things are at in a few months. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A natural spinoff is "Timeline of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", where all daily sections must go. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it already exists: Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Most of the content from the invasion section could be split there. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The page should become as big as Russia itself 93.170.84.242 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)