THC Science

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12
Location	{{{place}}}
Strength
Russia:; 175,000–190,000 (armed forces); 34,000 (separatist militias);	Ukraine: 196,600 (armed forces); 102,000 (paramilitary); ;
	Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Requested move 31 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The main point of disagreement was whether to continue using the single year 2022 or to use a range. This largely depended on how editors interpreted "invasion". Some arguments in favor of a move away from "2022" to a range were that the invasion is still ongoing, or at least that the fighting is ongoing and that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is often used for the war even if the initial invasion is over. Some arguments against a move were that 2022 means when the invasion started even if the invasion is ongoing, or that invasion means the initial offensive(s) even if the article also includes resulting events, or that additional detail in the title is unnecessary. Participants also discussed examples of other wars and invasions as arguments for consistency or at least precedent. Overall, the discussion did not produce a consensus.

The support side included the original proposal of 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and XTheBedrockX's proposal Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). Between these two, there was a general preference in favor of the "present" option, for being less likely to need repeated updating, and for not implying that it ended in 2023 already or will necessarily end later in 2023. Some editors also considered putting the years at the end to interact better with search.

Other options were raised, but attracted relatively less attention in this particular discussion. These options included Russian invasion of Ukraine (the subject of a recent RM before this), or a reorganization of content to make the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article focus on the initial invasion and to split or merge content about later parts of the war to some other location (also discussed below in #Article scope should be reduced to the invasion). Thanks to all participants in this well-attended RM for the civil discussion. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine – It is now 2023 in Ukraine. The invasion is still ongoing, so this page should be moved to a descriptive title that reflects the new timespan. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy move. Later, we can discuss if "invasion" is the right noun. But the year is obvious. I'd have just moved this. Red Slash 23:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
While the prior discussion was closed for procedural reasons, it received near-unanimous opposition. I don't think speed is appropriate here at all, and honestly would have advised against opening this discussion in the first place, not out of any personal preference for a given outcome, but simply on the basis that such a proposal seems unlikely to gain consensus at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Support As per the reasons given by the proposer. Compusolus (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Meh. The title "2022..." can reasonably be interpreted to mean "invasion starting in 2022" regardless of whether it is ongoing or not. As such, the proposed target seems unnecessarily less concise. But it's hard for me to drum up much of a strong opinion on it if everyone else thinks adding the "-2023" is important. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Support Per the reasons given by the proposer. Support XTheBedRockX's idea As it gets rid of the issues with constantly updating the title every year and is consistent with articles like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). BlueShirtz (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose for now per VQuakr. I mean, if the invasion keeps going on, we can't change the year every year... stay at just 2022 for now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Why can't we change the year every year? ~Awilley (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Support Per the reasons given by the proposer Support User:XTheBedrockX's title to move the duration to the end of the article in parentheses. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC), edited 2 January 2023
Speedy Move just do it. Great Mercian (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. War articles on wikipedia tend to have the years on the title. I don't see why this one shouldnt. But the war could go on to 2024.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose It's the War of 1812, not the War of 1812-1815. And the alternate universe thinking here with the titles broken to begin with. History is going to remember the "Russo-Ukrainian War" as starting in February 2022, 2014 being a lead up. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Luxtaythe2nd mentioned below that the War of 1812 is the common name for that war which already existed in the referenced sources. This article title doesn't originate that way, it has 2022 to specify when this event occurred. So leaving it as just 2022 makes it sound as if the invasion has ended. There are example of wars that have their titles with the whole year range too such as Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) which would both support User:XTheBedrockX's alternative title suggestion. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose It is the 2022 invasion. They invaded in 2022, not in 2023, which has barely begun, but during which it will be war. At least one ought to wait until the end of the entire conflict before deciding this. kbrose (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
To do that would be to wait until the middle of 2025, by then someone would've already moved it. why are we even having this debate? we should've moved this the second UTC hit 2023. Great Mercian (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
support, however may need an WP:RFC to discuss all related articles. Lemonaka (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Support a move, but to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) instead, if only because the “Russia” part is probably what most people search for rather than the “2022” part XTheBedrockX (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This probably makes more sense than my original proposal, and like others have said, it's consistent with articles like War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I'm behind this too. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per VQuakr and Ironmatic1. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per others, this is both unnecessary and inaccurate It is the 2022 invasion. They invaded in 2022, not in 2023, … during which it will be war.. Suggestion creates a cumbersome title which is less rather than more precise. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I would rather we just create a new page for 2023, so as to not have a huge 10000000 line article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense—the invasion is ongoing; there aren't two separate invasions in 2022 and 2023. Compusolus (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes it does, as this is a phase in the wider war. So we split up the phases, the actual Russian invasion, and now the more bogged-down continuation phase. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but it's going to look very strange to have a '2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine' article. Such an article would imply an interlude between two different actions, which isn't the case. The invasion has been bogged down since the first few weeks, such that most of this article already is 'the continuation phase'. Indeed, the article is divided into three phases: opening/Russian advance (February-April) ; invasion stalled (April-September) ; Ukraine counter-attacks (September-present). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
In the same was as we have ww2 Normandy landings American airborne landings in Normandy Mission Chicago (all part of the same campaign/war). We break down large subjects into smaller bites to make them easier to navigate (as indeed we had to with the timeline article about this invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue I am pointing out is not that child articles do not exist. It is that '2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine' is a false title because Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2023, which the title implies. If you have an appropriate title, feel free to propose creating a new article. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
And the issue I am poi9itng out is that this article is a child of Russo-Ukrainian War, it is not a new war, and we should not be implying it is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. Since the invasion is still ongoing. Super Ψ Dro 12:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Support, As the invasion still ongoing. Cactinites (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as per the norm like [[War of 1812] ]Moxy- 15:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
"War of 1812" is a name that was widely used before Wikipedia made an article about it. "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a name invented by Wikipedia to be explicitly descriptive and adding a "–2023" wouldn't break some sort of ancient tradition of war naming. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Google Scholar Moxy- 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
And? 8/10 sources on page 1 do not use the name '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' – more common is 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' – and the 2/10 that do both post-date the Wikipedia article (as does practically every paper published since the article was created hours after the invasion began). Same story on page 2-5. Indeed, using quotation marks around the title cuts down the number of hits from 32,000 to... 1,500.[1] It's a tiny minority that use the same title that we do. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support, significant fighting has continued into 2023. Support XTheBedRockX's idea Definitely a better idea to just do "2022–present" in order to not change the title every single year. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The arguement from the standpoint of the name of the War of 1812 is fairly compelling. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The War of 1812 has a common name, and it is titled that way. As far as I know, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine does not. The first is a proper name and the second is descriptive. They're not comparable. This stance would imply that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a proper name. WP:OR. Super Ψ Dro 12:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments already given. Invasion began in 2022. Walrasiad (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Use XTheBedrockX's idea Originally, I was completely on board with a move, but the invasion occurred in February and March 2022, and is, in fact, being repelled, as we enter 2023. XTheBedrockX's idea was for Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which I think is a very good idea: we don't have to repeat this discussion on one of our most-viewed pages every year, and it does not mislead as much as 2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
If we move to the original proposed name and the invasion is still ongoing in 2024 (I pray it won't), changing it from 2022–2023 to 2022–2024 will not be controversial and so there will not have to be an annual discussion. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the 2022 refers to when it began and not the duration (also if we make it 2022-23 it will look like it's already over) LICA98 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per many above the 2022 refers to when it began and not the duration (also if we make it 2022-23 it will look like it's already over). // Timothy :: talk 20:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose 2022 refers to the event which can continue into another year. Can revisit in the future. Andre🚐 21:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose agree with above. The 'invasion' happened last year. The war is now happening that continues into 2023. We'll have to figure out when to stop the coverage of this article and the solution isn't to extend into the new year.Yeoutie (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as per the reasons already given. Let the name change once it ends and we can figure out how RS' are calling it.LordLoko (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per example of War of 1812, which officially ended upon Congressional ratification of Ghent treaty in 1815. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support XTheBedrockX's proposal, that is, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). As others have pointed out, "War of 1812" was an accepted title long before Wikipedia came about, and therefore the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, with no definitely established name, our priority should be instant ease of recognisability and clarity. This article is about the ongoing war that started in 2022, so in my opinion it makes sense for the title to make it clear the scope goes beyond 2022, as we usually do with current events spanning multiple years. While I understand the argument of those who think the current title is fine (2022 being when the invasion occurred), I agree with those who think this could potentially cause confusion for readers, as this article covers ongoing fighting. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a widely used name for the current war, not just the initial invasion. Adding the date range at the end makes it obvious the article is about the war up to now, and that the invasion started in 2022. We can always change it again later if a better title develops. Jr8825 • Talk 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, I think it's worth again bringing up the unclear distinction between the scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, as it relates to the issues we're hitting here. The "Russo-Ukrainian War" article is about the conflict/hostility between Ukraine and Russia since 2014, including and beyond the War in Donbas. The invasion article (this one) is currently set out so as to be about the escalation of the conflict between Russian and Ukraine into all-out war since 2022. This is indicated by the {{about}} template at the top of Russo-Ukrainian War, the fact that the date in the infobox is "to present", and the article structure following developments in the fighting up to now (beyond the initial invasion). One possibility is to rename the article "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "conflict", and have "War" redirect here instead, as many news sources refer to the current fighting interchangeably as "Russian invasion of Ukraine" / "Russia–Ukraine war". There was previously resistance to this suggestion as a number of pre-2022 academic sources referred to the (Donbas) fighting as the "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I personally think events have moved on. An alternative option is to move a summary of the fighting since the summer over to "Russo-Ukrainian War", and have that article become the main article for the ongoing war (narrowing this article's scope to the initial invasion), although that would require quite a lot more work to both pages and consensus for major change. Jr8825 • Talk 04:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support XTheBedrockX's idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). We've taken this approach elsewhere, e.g. War in Afghanistan (2001–present) or Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), which now redirect to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and War in Iraq (2013–2017) now that those conflicts are deemed over. I concur with the idea that "War of 1812" is well-established as the WP:COMMONNAME, which is not yet the case with this ongoing conflict. I also agree with Jr8825 that we ultimately need to address the scope of this article vs Russo-Ukrainian War and what title should apply to what level of coverage. ECTran71 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for XTheBedrockX: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) is a far better idea. It eliminates the whole issue of the dates (since it is an ongoing conflict, as was the case with War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which had the date span filled out following the Western coalition's withdrawal in August 2021). Also, considering that it is an ongoing conflict and a globally well-known one at that, it just makes sense to keep the title itself simpler (i.e., Russian invasion of Ukraine), since the overwhelming majority of searches are going to be related to the ongoing invasion and not any previous conflicts between the two nations. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support XTheBedrockX's idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) - The WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is undoubtedly 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' by a factor of ~10:1 (according to both Google Scholar and Search, and that is with filtering out leakage from the 2014 invasion). The year is present in the title only to disambiguate against that invasion. ECTran71 raises several precedents that support a change of title. The argument from 'War of 1812' is misplaced as that is a proper name for the war (akin to Second World War or Vietnam War) whereas '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' is not. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for "XTheBedrockX"'s idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present). Compusolus (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for XTheBedrockX: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) per above. Ythlev (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for the same change to “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 - present)”. Whilst I understand the argument that the initial invasion was in early 2022, the article does not simply cover the days of the invasion (there are separate articles that do). Instead it covers the invasion and subsequent war. A more accurate but excessively lengthy title would be “Russian invasion in Ukraine and subsequent war in Ukraine (2022 - present)” but I feel this is unnecessary long and descriptive. Regardless, given the article covers events occurring in 2022 and subsequent periods the title should make it clear that it not solely an article on events in 2022. For the reasons given above I’m not convinced by the “War of 1812” as this is a proper name, would be no different than having to call something the “x years war” as there is a war named “The Hundred Years War” Tracland (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Tracland (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean if the conflict is still happening in 2023, then it should be renamed as such. Quake1234 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The year to this article was always kept because "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was considered ambiguous. See List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)" is going to cause precisely this problem on other articles. I ask what would we do with for example Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we rename it to Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Which Russian invasion does it refer to? What do we do with Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Which Russian invasion, the 1918 one, the 1941 one, an earlier one? Or do you propose Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)? Super Ψ Dro 12:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is this article. Whilst I appreciate there is crossover to other subsidiary articles that shouldn’t impact the appropriateness of the name of this article.
On the prelude point, I don’t really understand your point. This clearly doesn’t need to be changed ‘prelude to the 2022’ clearly shows that it’s events occurring prior to a date in 2022 so the time period for this article is clear from its title.
If the article for Women in the… covers multiple years then I agree with updating it. Tracland (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough on the prelude point. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - other Per the rational that follows, I would support in order: Russian invasion of Ukraine (per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLEDAB), Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) (unnecessary disambiguation and less concise), then Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) (unnecessary disambiguation, less concise, unnecessarily precise).
As Mr rnddude evidences, The WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is undoubtedly 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' by a factor of ~10:1 ... This is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At the recent RM, it was argued that there were other invasions but beyond that, there was nothing in the way of evidence and little (virtually no) reference to WP:P&G. IMHO (and quoting from WP:NHC, most arguments offered were irrelevant and flatly contradict established policy - specifically WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT (a policy), to which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a guideline) specifically defers. WP:TITLEDAB states: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The policy is based on there being an actual and not a perceived or potential conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict between Russian invasion of Ukraine and any other Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, we are specifically told to use only as much additional detail as necessary. Because there is no actual conflict in titles, preceding with year in the title (eg 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) flatly contradict[s] established policy. Looking at the two other events listed under the Russo-Ukrainian War and the long term results from before the 2022 invasion: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has about 2,000 page views per day;[2] and, War in Donbas has about 2,500.[3] WP:RECENTISM was raised during the RM (in that the recent [2022] invasion is overshadowing earlier events). After a year, average daily page views at this article are tending to flatten at somewhere between 40,000-50,000. At an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the other two relatively recent events. That is a lot of recentism to overcome. Of the invasions/occupations listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine immediately post the Russian revolution, average daily page views are less than 40 (and typically much less). The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Given the magnitude of global reaction and of direct global ramifications (particularly economic) that demonstratively far exceed the other events (even if this is a somewhat qualitative metric), I submit it would be difficult to argue that this invasion, as the primary topic, will not survive the WP:10YT.
A year modifier ahead of a key phrase may be natural but is a poor title wrt WPs quick search function, which searches from the head of the search term - ie 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a poor title for this reason.
Re HelpingWorld, many war articles don't actually have years in the title! VQuakr observers, The title "2022..." can reasonably be interpreted to mean "invasion starting in 2022" ... Ironmatic1 observes, It's the War of 1812, not the War of 1812-1815. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is commonly referred to in sources by only the start year (see searches [4][5][6]). While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (eg War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and War in Iraq (2013–2017)), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only supports such a format if this represents best practice IAW WP:P&G. But year ranges appears to be a Wikiism contrary to common usage in sources and WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
If we can support “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” as primary topic then I think that’s best. If not and it needs disambiguation then I don’t like starting with “2022” as that’s clearly not the main search term or use. I’d prefer if using date in bracket as a disambiguation that it covers the period of time covered by the article (“2022 - present”). I don’t agree that this is being unnecessarily precise (unlike my previous comment which I thought was to precise), but gives the information needed and only that information. Tracland (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned - not pinged, just mentioned - there is something you state here that I do agree with. We don't actually require the date in the title. This is simply because not a single other invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, or the Tsardom of Russia is known by the name 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Indeed, the 1918 invasion that Super Dro mentioned above goes by the rather convoluted name of Group of forces in battle with the counterrevolution in the South of Russia. Typical of the Soviet's style. There is not a physical disambiguation required. Usually, if there are years, it's because an event has happened before, e.g.: Battle of Antioch (218) versus Battle of Antioch (145 BC) versus Battle of Antioch (1097) (and even 1098) for one that has a collection of disambiguating dates. It is editor desire to have the date so as to ensure the reader is aware that this is not the first time that 'Russia' has invaded Ukraine. Most relevantly to us, 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Other than that, I caution that you have mixed WP:OTHERSTUFF (an AfD related essay) for WP:OTHERCONTENT (same premise, but regarding article content). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Once the war ends, the recentism argument will appear less appropriate. I think it is also easier (in lack of a better word) to say a war that is not ongoing anymore has a common name. A move to Russian invasion of Ukraine might be worth visiting after the end of the war. I personally might vote support then. Super Ψ Dro 13:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
At the current rate, the war will never end. Great Mercian (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
As in the RM closed a day before this one opened, Oppose per O'Dea, and per others in this new one above. The invasion happened in 2022, and there is no issue with the article also discussing the resulting war. There may be a better title, but it is not the one proposed. CMD (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and Russian troops are still within Ukraine. Therefore, this escalated stage of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the invasion that started on 24 February 2022, is still taking place. Russia is still invading Ukraine in 2023. I understand this interpretation but I don't think it's the only true one. Can an objective argument be made when other editors may intepret this differently? Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not how the word invasion is generally used. See for example 2003 invasion of Iraq. CMD (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure this is a fair comparison given the invasion in this case started and finished in 2003. Yes, there remained an occupying force afterwards but the invasion element had started and finished in 2003. In contrast Russia’s invasion is ongoing as they’ve neither captured Ukraine or fully retreated by 31 Dec 22 and are still attempting to invade. Tracland (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Not following this attempted distinction. Russia is still there, the US was still there. Invasions don't have to result in the subjugation or an entire country or a full retreat. CMD (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

To add on to your point, I think @Super Dromaeosaurus is confusing the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the Iraq War. The latter covers the entire extent of military operations in Iraq from the initial invasion to the withdrawal of troops in 2011. The former just describes the aforementioned initial invasion. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not even mention Iraq in my comments. Super Ψ Dro 12:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

For Russia, this is moving into the direction of the permanent annexation of the 4 oblasts, with Putin taking the position that any peace talks must keep the question of the permanent annexation of the 4 oblasts as being off the table. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary primary definition of invasion:The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. You can't enter anything interminably, once you are inside (the foreign territory) you HAVE entered, whether you have successfully conquered/subjugated/annexed or not. As others say, invasion is being confused with conquest or war.Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I know this isn't much helpful but I just wanted to note how, while this should be only a superficial change and shouldn't be hard to decide what to do, the problem with articles like this one, is that they are about things very recent and for obvious reasons we can't know how it will be known in future, even a near one. To make myself clear, what I mean is that we can't possibly known if this war will be known as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine or even something else entirely. I mean, who knows, maybe in a couple years this war will actually be known and called something like "East European Post-Soviet war" (I know it's a very improbable name, but it's just to show the problem). And because of this we can't actually know for now certainly how it will be actually known in history until some time passes, maybe even a little, but enough that an actual clear name is used commonly. It's true that the War of 1812 just uses the first year, but we can use it certainly because we now know that it's this the common name and not something like American-British North American war or the Great North American war or whatever for example and indeed we can't be sure that this war will be called this way with time, I mean, by using years or even the names of the different sides and Countries and so indeed something else entirely indeed; like for example the First Punic War isn't called something like 264 BC Roman invasion of Carthage neither the 264 BC-241 BC Roman invasion of Carthage. Now, again, I know this doesn't help much, but considering this, I'd only suggest what it's normal used on Wikipedia in such cases and so following the usual procedure and normal precedent for such cases, whatever it is, to change the title to cover all the years, or not, and then wait until a clear name will come out. Only, I don't know what's normally done in such cases. 84.220.201.133 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by non-ECP user. Not deleting because it was replied to. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the answer here is that if the common name subsequently changes then we change the article name at that time. We don’t have a crystal ball.
The question is what is the most appropriate name for the article as at the current date, based on the common name currently being used. Tracland (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support – as it's 2023 and the invasion is still ongoing, the name makes sense. HOWEVER, I think Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) could also work, as the other may imply that the invasion ends this year. DecafPotato (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for XTheBedrockX: per many other articles (e.g, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), War in Donbas (2014–2022), War in Iraq (2013–2017)) Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I think it should be renamed to Russian invasion of Ukraine (currently a redirect to this page). My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support move to “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-2023)” or “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)”. Invasions can last multiple years, and article titles about invasions tend to reflect this. See for example Swedish invasion of Brandenburg (1674–75), Philippines campaign (1941–1942), or Philippines campaign (1944–1945). --Katangais (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Although the article is titled Swedish invasion of Brandenburg (1674–75), within the article text makes the distinction between invading (forcibly entering territory) and occupying (holding conquered territory). Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion is in chaos and no longer has any value other than a timesink. It should be closed because as it stands nothing productive can come from it continuing. // Timothy :: talk 11:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The invasion started in 2022, and that is all that is needed in the title for disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom similar title with 2022–2023 Peruvian political protests - Jjpachano (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Neither Title Works Best

I don't think there's a solution on how to define the various events since 2014 which would satisfy everybody. It is true that at no point between 2014 and 2022 did hostilities cease along the Donbass frontline for more than a few days, and annual deaths never dropped below several hundred, so it would be silly to consider the Donbass conflict up to February 2022 as anything besides a singular war. However, the enormous intensification that began on February 24th has fundamentally altered the manner and locations in which the war has been fought, crimes against humanity far more numerous and killing or injuring far more people, the economic and societal effects of the conflict for Ukrainians and Russians, and in its effects on global diplomacy and geopolitics. With all of that in mind, it is not unreasonable to say that February 2022 marks the beginning of a war distinct from the intense violence of 2014-2015 and the intermediate 7 years of occasional skirmishes or artillery strikes.

The way I see it, several changes should be made, but changing the title to either "2022-23 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" or "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)" is a highly counterproductive one. At present the article is far too cluttered and far too long, and its title is highly misleading as to its actual contents. Nobody considers the Battles of Ypres to be part of the 'German Invasion of Belgium in WW1', or the Battle of Fallujah to be part of the 'Coalition Invasion of Iraq'. 'Invasion' is almost universally a term reserved for the initial offensive made by the aggressor at war's outbreak, not a war as a whole. So the article concerning all events that happened after February 24th 2022 ought not include 'invasion' in the title.

The current article name must be limited in scope to cover events up to April 7th, and the ramifications thereof. Its other contents should be split off into new articles or integrated into already existing articles as appropriate. The 'Russo-Ukrainian War' page, not the '2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine' page, ought to serve as the central article which encompasses the whole conflict. If we believe there needs to be a single page covering all events since February 24th, it may be titled "Russo-Ukrainian War since the 2022 Russian invasion"

Thereppy (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Support a rename to any suitable title that reflects that the invasion continued into 2023. Zcbeaton (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I think Cinderella157 pretty much said it all. The current title is not ideal, but is preferred to the proposed change. Historians will give a name to this war, but until then, WP:CRITERIA governs. The proposed title is not concise (adding a year range is not necessary for people to identify this article), nor consistent (with other naming conventions), natural or recognizable. What if the war continues till 2024, 2025, or 2026? Do we have to change the title every year? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted on your first point.

On the second, I think (ignoring for now the title of this change thread) the general view from the comments is that, if there is to be a change to cover a range, then “2022 - present” is generally preferred to “2022-23”. Though this is only my view from a brief scan of the comments above and, of course, there is also the option of no change being made. Tracland (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair point, Tracland. I'm thinking that if we follow this line of reasoning, we will still have to rename the title at one point. Because there will come a point where the war ends, and then 2022 - present will have to be changed to 2022 - 20xx. As per WP:Recentism, there should be "an aim toward a long-term, historical view". A name along the lines of 2022-present feels more like a journal entry, than an encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
True enough. The more I read this thread the more I’m not sure there is an answer. I don’t think the current name is correct, I certainly don’t like it starting with “2022”, but all the alternatives proposed also have flaws. A “- present” does have certain precedent - for example “Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)” and “Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)” but is ultimately not the ideal solution for the reasons you rightly raise. Tracland (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
If one considers actual evidence and what the pertinent WP:P&G actually says, what is wrong with Russian invasion of Ukraine? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There are about eight Russian invasions of Ukraine listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, and the redirect with that title is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 01:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, if this can be supported as the primary use of this title then I think “Russian invasion of Ukraine” is the natural title as it’s the common name used in most sources. My understanding was that previous consensus had been reached to disambiguate from other Russian invasions of Ukraine and hence the inclusion of the date. Tracland (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I can see there is a separate discussion on this from the previous comment above. Maybe something will come from that but probably needs to be agreed there first. Tracland (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, as Mr rnddude states: We don't actually require the date in the title. This is simply because not a single other invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, or the Tsardom of Russia is known by the name 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Arguments that other Russian invasions necessitate additional precision flatly contradict established policy (per WP:TITLEDAB, part of a policy document). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Cheers, Tracland. Agree with Cinderella157. It is not as if there are numerous "Russian invasion of Ukraine" titles such that we need a precise [yy to yy] marking on this title to distinguish it from others. As Tracland rightly point out, it's difficult to pinpoint an ideal title for this historic event right now, because the event itself is undergoing changes and flux. Many have raised that what has started as an invasion is turning, or has already turned into a war. The dust has yet to settle. My take is that until the dust settles, we try to minimize changes to the title, unless there is a clear compelling alternative, which at this moment, there is not. Fair? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it depends on consensus, doesn’t it. We agree on a lot of things that “we don’t actually require.” Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a formal title but a descriptive name, which can be applied to a number of events, and good sense could lead us to not make it the primary name for only one of them. —Michael Z. 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Michael Z, I'm not actually proposing to change title of this article to "Russian invasion of Ukraine". I'm proposing to maintain the status quo, i.e to maintain the current title name - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which title already has a date. Unless a more compelling alternative arises, which can be justified by WP:P&G and WP:Criteria. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we have a potential issue with Naturalness and Consistency. The Natural title is “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” as this is the common name used in most sources (without the 2022) and is therefore the most likely search criteria (I believe someone posted a stat above). If a date is required for disambiguation purposes (which is itself debatable based on the above thread) then for Consistency, the general presentation of articles disambiguated by date is for the date to be in brackets at the end of the title (not as the first word of the search unless the most natural search would be by date (e.g. a sports season or an election, being events with regular patterns of recurrence)) Tracland (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Support for XTheBedrockX's proposal: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) seems more reasonable per the above. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. As @Thereppy: and several others pointed out, the current Russian invasion of Ukraine consists of the initial large-scale offensives by the attacking side. While the war—or the current phase of the war—has continued, it isn't convention to include dates other than the year in which the invasion began in WP titles. Lightspecs (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I’d fully agree if the articles coverage was only the initial large-scale offensives. But the article coverage includes the subsequent phase of the war. There’s a separate discussion below on splitting the article such that it only covers the initial large-scale offensives. If, following that discussions, it’s agreed to split such that this article only covers the initial large-scale invasion then I’d agree that the existing title is appropriate. Tracland (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Tracland, I think splitting along the lines you proposed is something we have to do sooner or later. Until then, finding an appropriate title is perhaps impossible. I'm afraid there's no word in the English language that can appropriately describe an invasion and a war at the same time. If you name this event as an invasion, you fail to capture its later evolution into a war. If you name this event as a war, you fail to capture its initial nature of being an invasion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree entirely that there’s no suitable word (at least that I know of) to describe invasion followed by war. I’m not necessarily adverse to splitting the article, but this would need to be a separate discussion (one I believe has been started below and which I’ve not really considered the arguments for in detail). Tracland (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support It's 2023 already and the war is continuing. We should rename the title. We're eight days late! Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem may be this is not a new war, the war started in 2014, and this is the article covering it Russo-Ukrainian War. If anything this is an evolution, with Russia entering an already ongoing war officially (rather than unofficially). Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support renaming to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), per XTheBedrockX and other supporters of this alternative. This is a more accurate title which does not restrict the invasion to 2022, and shows that the invasion is still ongoing. It also makes for more natural searching. 1857a (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support XTheBedrockX's idea as it gets rid of the annoying chore to constantly change the title of the article as the war drags on. I suppose we could do the same for the Mahsa Amini and Peruvian protests, but I say to wait it out on those. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 01:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the renaming, as per War in Afghanistan (2001-2021), the second year refers to the end date. For formatting dates, it is explained in MOS:YEARRANGE. In this case, if the renaming were to occur, the end year of the invasion would be 2023. Due to this, I also Support XTheBedrockX's idea We do not know when the war will end, and we cannot make predictions based off guesses, as in WP:CRYSTALBALL. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Support XTheBedrockX's idea as 2023 is not necessarily the end date. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Support XTheBedrockX's idea. —Legoless (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Support XTheBedrockX's idea Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Support XTheBedrockX's open ended "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)" title Galebazz (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we conduct a poll as to how many people are in favor or in opposition to the idea, or are in favor of the alternative, which is XTheBedrockX's idea. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:VOTE. Discussions are decided on the basis of the merits of arguments, not by majority vote. Policies and guidelines should inform our conclusion, not the sheer number of opinions (in complete disregard of their merits) in favour of a particular option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree (No). WP:VOTE. Nederlandse Leeuw, I also agree that the article title should conform with applicable WP:P&G. How then, do we reconcile that the year in the present title is clearly contrary to WP:TITLEDAB (part of a policy document) - ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed a vote is not the basis for establishing consensus in Wikipedia. Tracland (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: '2022' indicates when the current large-scale invasion began, not for how long it lasted, thus 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an enduring title that will always remain correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw:, the question was whether WP policy permits adding '2022' or not? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'adding'? '2022' has been in the title ever since start of this article, it wasn't 'added' later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding "2022" to the root phrase "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Does policy permit this in this case? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The 15 December 2022 move request was already decided against any of the proposed alternatives. Nothing has changed. '2022' indicates when the current large-scale invasion began, not for how long it lasted, thus 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an enduring title that will always remain correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The 15 December 2022 was a discussion as to whether to move to “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” and was closed as don’t move. From a quick flick though I can’t see that conversation actually reached a consensus on other proposals.

Is one of the issues that “Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022 - present)” has never actually been formally proposed as a name change. From a read of the above it appears this is the title that is most likely to get support if consensus is reached for a change. The topic of this discussion is not that specific title. Does it need to be brought up as a separate proposal or can it be discussed in the round in this conversation (noting the actual title of this conversation would appear, on the whole, to have been opposed as an inappropriate title).

Genuine question as I’m not sure what the policy on these things are. Tracland (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Both the current proposal and XTheBedrockX's alternative have been explicitly discussed and rejected just a week before the current move was requested. To quote myself:

"A. The most important point is that the current name 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually fine. '2022' indicates when the current invasion began, thereby neatly distinguishing it from the far more limited military operations in Crimea and Donbas since 2014 (which technically are/were also "invasions"). Even if the current invasion doesn't end before 2022 is over (which it almost certainly won't, sadly), '2022' remains the correct starting year, and it's useful to keep that the same.

(...)

D. I am open to the alternative suggestions above that we can rename it 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and change the second year every time it enters a new year before it ends, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), but that makes things a bit messy, especially for linking to the article from other pages. Reason A is more compelling to keep the current title than the relatively small advantage that these alternative names would bring.

So on the whole, keeping the current name is best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)"

Nothing has changed just because we have now entered a new year, because the identical proposals of the previous discussion took this into account. There is no need to redo the discussion that has been had already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely fair comments, I wasn't personally involved in the previous discussion and only became aware of the proposed change once this discussion had been created. Whilst by view is a preference to change the title I can understand why there is frustration in rehashing arguments already made if the points have all recently been considered.

My personal view would be for a change of name (as I think the alternative with (2023 - present) at the end is a more accurate reflection of the article contents) but if there is established consensus otherwise then I agree the overall consensus that has been established should be followed. Tracland (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. To be clear, any frustration you might read in my previous comment wasn't directed at you. Your question is a relevant one and I was happy to answer it. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, but there is a fair point that I should probably have looked back at previous discussions before assuming this was the first discussion on the point. Tracland (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh well, now you know. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Tracland (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose WP:CRYSTAL the war will end in 2023. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, can you expand? Are you saying that the proposed title would violate WP:Crystal as would imply the invasion finished in 2023? Tracland (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this argument. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I think Ribbet32 is saying that by including the year '2023' as the last year, it implies the war will end (or has ended, quod non) in 2023, which is something we do not know, therefore in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification, I agree that any inclusion of “-2023” could result in the article being perceived as ending in 2023 and, largely for this reason, don’t support a “-2023 title” (I’d much prefer “-present”, on which view are expressed elsewhere in this chat). Thanks for clarifying. Tracland (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose. "2022-2023" just makes the title way wordier than it needs to be, and as has already been mentioned above, the invasion started in 2022. I think that in the long term, most of the content on this conflict will be under Russo-Ukrainian War, and this article will be related to that article the same way Invasion of Poland is related to World War II. Mover of molehills^{move me} 02:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted on the first point regarding the wordiness of the original proposal made.

I appreciate the long term view and, if and when, the significant editing to achieve this is agreed and done then I agree with you. However, as it currently stands the events from 2022 onwards only make up c.5% of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Predicting the future is hard and the article needs to reflect its current use even if this might subsequently change. Tracland (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Support XTheBedrockX's idea as it removes the need to consistently update the title should the subject drag on for longer. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. If we are going to use the word "invasion", it's the 2022 invasion, because that's when the invasion was. If we want a broader title then it's "2022-2023 special military operation" or whatever. In either case, the proposed alternative doesn't work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak support for XTheBedrockX's proposal as it seems the most reasonable title, but the current title is acceptable. In any case, I oppose the original proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I seriously doubt that such a move will make the article easier to find. People searching are most likely to simply search "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" which will return either article equally well. And if not for access, why change it? A change like this will necessitate changing the title on a yearly basis. When the invasion is effectively over, I could support a change to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-end-year)" but until then I don't see a particular benefit for the move. It can't really be claimed that the is more accurate, as the argument of whether to title by start or time span is semantic. --Lenny Marks (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lenny Marks, given your comment and the policy link WP:TITLEDAB, which tells us not to use unnecessary precision (ie 2022 in the title), do you have a view on the present title with respect to that policy? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Cinderella157.
From what I understood (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're asking if WP:TITLEDAB instructs us to remove 2022 from the title, leaving "Russian Invasion of Ukraine," as 2022 is unnecessarily imprecise. As I read it, WP:TITLEDAB is suggesting that the least amount of extra text necessary to distinguish an article topic be used. More specifically:
As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:
If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.

If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.

Personally, I believe that "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is ambiguous because it may be confused with the Russo-Ukrainian War at large, and it is of unclear primacy. I therefore do not believe it satisfies part one, and we must disambiguate per part two. I suppose that the current title could be revised, however, from "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)," but this seems semantic. In any case, that's how I read the policy there.

-- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

To read WP:TITLEDAB more fully: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. It deals with actual conflicts in title names, not perceived conflicts. Having "2022" in the title appears to be unnecessary precision. I was asking because of your observation: People searching are most likely to simply search "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" ... Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Move to Russian invasion of Ukraine since it already redirects to the page and is a more search-friendly name, with the current note about previous invasions at the top of the page modified to reflect this change. D4R1U5 (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose We should wait until the invasion is over and then move it when we find out what reliable sources call it. Also when the invasion ends nobody will think of the Russo-Ukrainian War as starting in 2014 they will think of the part starting in 2022. So perhaps we would name this article "Russo-Ukrainian War" and the 2014-15 article something else and then the protracted frozen conflict article from 2015-2022 something else as well. PilotSheng (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Titling it with a date range suggests it is over (that it ended in 2023). It should either stay at the current title or be moved to 2022–present Russian invasion of Ukraine. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Typo edit request

In the "Nuclear threats" subsection, at the very end, it says "met with and determined effort". I suspect the "and" should not be there. Ribidag (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{([ˈd̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 13:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear threats date oddity

@ErnestKrause Hey, I was just reading this today and I'm not sure how the section you added on the Graham Allison article makes sense - it's dated a week in the future, currently. KiraLiz1 | she/her 15:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's actually true. Time magazine editors decided some time ago that they would forward date their current print issues of the magazine for purposes related to increasing the shelf life of their weekly magazine for news stand sales; that is, it still appears to look 'current' a week from now. I'm not sure if the digital archives at Time magazine give the actual date of the Allison article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How on God's green earth has Ukraine's "Supported By:" section not been added, still?

OP blocked as a sock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It frankly makes a mockery of Wikipedia that this section has not been added. Anyone with functioning neurons and the most basic understanding of the war in Ukraine knows of the colossal amount of direct monetary and military aid being sent Ukraine from the US & NATO. That this is not reflected in the article almost a year post facto, despite the overwhelming and obvious evidence. Ukraine has received almost four times its 2021 military budget in aid from the US alone, yet it's not even mentioned in the infobox? "Rule by consensus" has utterly failed here. It's akin to saying the moon landings didn't happen or that Earth is flat, just because enough people were loud enough in a "talk" section. How can I take this website seriously when it allows this?

And yes, I know this has been discussed before, and don't care. Doesn't change the reality that a basic, easily verifiable fact is being ignored: Ukraine is supported by the US and NATO, per their own statements.^[1]^[2] Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there is no agreement to add it. By the way, we do say it in the article, in the section headed Foreign involvement. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. If there's no agreement, why is it in the article? If it's in the article, why is it not in the infobox? Complete lack of logical consistency. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

References

@Ars Nova Cadenza please see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military sales and aid, as well as Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). By policy some members of NATO are contributing materiel to Ukraine. but not sending troops to Ukraine. There is a Security Assistance Group-Ukraine (SAGU) that is coordinating the training of soldiers from Ukraine's army in Combined arms maneuver, in member countries. A Ukraine contact group of 50 nations meets monthly, not all of whom are NATO members. If you read the article, a running tally of the aid gets updated as it is announced. By May/June 2023 the training in the use of the materiel should be evident. The flow of materiel from the industrial base ought to show up in 2023 as well (e.g. the HIMARS production should be appearing in Ukraine, unit by unit). --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If the US and NATO were directly sending combat troops they'd no longer be supporters, they'd be belligerents. They are currently supporters, I still do not understand why they are not listed in the infobox, like they ought to be. Whether or not all NATO members are meeting in assistance groups or not is irrelevant. NATO, as an organizational body, has adopted a position of "providing unprecedented support to Ukraine" per the source I cited (NATO's own website). We have accurate figures of the massive amounts monetary and military and monetary aid provided by the US, per State Department press releases, which I also linked. Wikipedia, knowing all this, and still refusing to list the US & NATO as supporters, makes myself (and probably many others) unable to take this website seriously as an accurate repository of knowledge. "Consensus" or not. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Once the infobox software gets updated, you could Be Bold and edit in the values yourself. With any luck the software for 'Infobox military conflict' might be updated before the invasion ends. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Would that even be necessary? WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes already clearly states that the infobox should summarize information in the article, and the article clearly outlines the many ways in which the US & NATO have sent immense amounts of aid to Ukraine. Thus the infobox should list the US & NATO as supporters. I don't know why people are acting so coy about adding something to the infobox that is blatantly stated in the article, and that is such an easily verifiable fact. The US & NATO have literally published official statements extoling their support for Ukraine, yet the fine and intelligent denizens of Wikipedia have apparently not seen fit to list them as supporters. Truly baffling. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No I am not per wp:consensus there needs to be consensus to hance an already agreed consensus. There was (look back through the archives) consensus to not add them. This is not "Complete lack of logical consistency" its obeying WP:RULES. Also (as I said) it is mentioned in the article, so you are asking us to add something already there. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The constant outpouring of objections to whatever questionable "consensus" was formed months ago seems to override said consensus. Thread upon thread, and RfC after RfC has been made to change this for a reason. And frankly, basic already established facts, that are already mentioned in the article, shouldn't (and don't) require consensus. The infobox should be a direct reflection and summary of information contained in the article, nothing more or less. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thread after thread was made obtaining a consensus not to include this. It does indeed require a consensus, and continuing to harangue the masses with this, frankly, is disruptive Andre🚐 20:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And those few threads made many months ago have spawned a number of threads and discussions an order of magnitude greater calling for their inclusion. The "consensus" was to exclude easily verifiable facts (that are mentioned in the body of the article itself) from the infobox, no wonder there has been such backlash. Even if we consider that consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE, I have never once seen a compelling argument for its exclusion. Just the same tired, pathetic argument of "no boots on the ground = not a supporter", despite Belarus having no boots on the ground either, and such a scenario would by definition make them a belligerent, not a supporter. People seem to not understand what "support" in a military conflict is. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If the US and NATO were directly sending combat troops they'd no longer be supporters, they'd be belligerents. They are currently supporters, I still do not understand why they are not listed in the infobox, like they ought to be.

Exactly. Except “ought to be.” Improvising a “Supporters” subhead under “Belligerents” is overloading the field and subverting the infobox. It implies that states that support Ukraine, perhaps only by delivering humanitarian or economic aid, are belligerents. It ought not be done, especially in this article about a war in progress where one side’s propaganda is steeped in self-victimization against “NATO aggression.”

This is easily resolved by adding a “Supporters” row to Template:Infobox military conflict. —Michael Z. 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I went to the infobox where the documentation states 'in complicated cases' leave the field blank. Right now 'belligerent' is the default status for the combatant fields, which makes sense. I suspect that the form is hard-coded for belligerents. Meaning a request to allow 'supporter' is probably the path to take in a hard-coded solution for the Infobox military conflict. Right now the field label is combatant1 to combatant10. So there might need to be a non-combatant_header and 'non-combatant' fields to trigger values of supporter1 to supporter99. Right now I count 76 supporters of Ukraine, including China. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think there needs to be another "solution" when several RFCs have ended without consensus to add this to the infobox here? Andre🚐 22:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean let’s get consensus to edit the template so it has a distinct new heading independent of and below “Belligerents” and above “Commanders and leaders.” A lot of articles do have added supporters setting a precedent, but I believe nesting it as a subhead is potentially misleading (like having China presented as a “belligerent” on Ukraine’s side).

Obviously, China does not belong under Ukrainian supporters either, since it has some kind of “unlimited” partnership with Russia that includes military cooperation. The other problem with supporters is defining the criteria of what kind of support is counted. —Michael Z. 22:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC, a fourth one, would be very wasteful of Wikipedia editor contribution time. Unless there is a banner sized NY Times front page article stating the Ukraine has made a formal military alliance with any other nation, then no changes to the Infobox should be allowed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d expect that any consensus on amending the template would need to be achieved first on the talk page for the info box template. Tracland (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just list the US & NATO as supporters of Ukraine in the infobox, like is clearly stated within the article, and is thus dictated by WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Blindly following "consensus" (or lack thereof) is actively harming this article. Consensus could dictate we lie about something in the infobox, or claim Earth is flat in that article's respective infobox; that doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

And those few threads made many months ago.... Most recent RfC was closed 30 December, less than 2 weeks ago, and was well-attended. There isn't consensus to do the thing that you want to do, which is why it hasn't been done. VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Most recent RfC was closed 30 December, less than 2 weeks ago, and was well-attended.

Obviously it wasn't. I have witnessed multiple RfCs on this issue, and they are why I made this thread in the first place. Every RfC has gone more or less the same from what I have seen. Roughly equal numbers for and against, except that those for the addition of a "Supported By" section provide a mountain of evidence and links demonstrating the vast, truly immense amounts of money and military hardware being funneled into Ukraine by the US & NATO; with those against parroting the asinine argument of "no boots on the ground = not a supporter", which I refuted in a previous comment. Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE and how anyone can look at those discussions and not rule in favor of adding said section is beyond me. It is to the point where I genuinely believe whoever is making these decisions on "consensus" is either an incompetent or acting in bad faith, and I reiterate the second sentence of my original comment. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't less than 2 weeks ago? Or wasn't well-attended because it didn't come to the result you want? That's not how consensus works. Given that you don't seem to be able to discuss this topic area without personal attacks and bad faith accusations, probably you should find a different place to edit. VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

War in Ukraine

Ukraine is supported by whole nato, and nobody is talking about this, without nato, ukraine won't stand still, add this 109.92.154.10 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Whole NATO? It’s arguable whether Hungary is included. But in fact, by much, much more than NATO: I saw an estimate of 70 states.

But that nobody is talking about this is untrue. There’s an article section about it: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement. —Michael Z. 02:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Due weight in the lead section

The lead section has much more on the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Russia than on Ukraine, even though ukraine is its target and much more seriously affected by it.

It implicitly gives agency to Russia and not Ukraine: Russia, Putin, or Russian forces are the subject of 12 sentences, Ukraine of 2 (Zelenskyy and Ukrainians, zero).

This is unbalanced, per WP:DUE. Please review WP:BIAS.

I will start correcting this in a while. Input is welcome. —Michael Z. 01:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead section has not been rewritten for 2-3 months and it might be overdue to possibly shorten and make easier to read. Regarding the Putin neutrality issue, the objective would seem to be to keep the accounts in the Putin bio article at Wikipedia consistent, more or less, with what is said in this 2022 invasion article. Anna B.'s recent book on 'Putin in Syria' seems to say that Putin in being very consistent in what he did in Syria a few years ago and what he is doing now in Ukraine regarding his foreign policy objectives as harsh as they appear to be at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Western backs Ukraine

You should add in the chart that the collective west supports Ukraine. For other pages, i.e. the Vietnam war, it is written that the Soviet Union helped the North Vietnamese army, even though this support was less evident than the Nato support for Ukraine 176.201.187.213 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it, the whole NVA was equipped with Russian kit? It has been acknowledged that roughly 3,000 Soviet soldiers served in North Vietnam during the war, how many Western troops are deployed in Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been acknowledged that roughly 3,000 Soviet soldiers served in North Vietnam during the war^{[Citation needed]} RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

[[7]] [[8]] Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, there were Chinese regulars operating in Viet-Nam. A different situation in Ukraine - Ukrainian soldiers with some volunteers from other countries who officially advise their citizens not to fight in this conflict - only SUPPLIED by the NATO countries and allies.2603:6080:21F0:7880:E417:83F5:B525:16A1 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Analogies between Ukraine and Vietnam are limited since America did have boots on the ground and planes in the air in Vietnam, which Biden has stated is not to happen in the Ukraine invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Putin and Biden both stated that, which gives us not limited, but the inverse. —Michael Z. 01:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like Biden is saying that the analogy, if at all applied, would be a negative one, that is, that America does not want a repeat any of the Vietnam errors. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions about neutrality (let's close this hope it was usefull certainly was for me)

Closing thread by mutual requests from both sides as having sufficiently discussed this issue. The general topic of the consistency of this Wikipedia invasion article and the Wikipedia Putin article can be more extensively and more appropriately be discussed on the Wikipedia Putin biography page, where both the successes and the setbacks of Putin's terms in power can be fully assessed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Firstly, I'm still pretty new, not that I'm using that as a qualifier for the questions I am about to ask, but keep it in mind.

Why are we so against Putin's claims of denazification?

While I understand the falsehoods in certain claims, that have been well fact checked and are known to be disinformation, but why is it phrased as “Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority” (in the 3rd paragraph)

To me personally (with a fairly western english speaking background) saying falsely claimed seems to go against the neutrality of the article, which is mostly balanced as a whole, but certain lines make it seems as though we are mocking or not accurately reporting the situation. I'm sure there is a reason, but I'm do dumb to see it. Could anyone explain?

(also and this is totally unrelated but under “Reactions” why is SWIFT not linked to a page?) DanielΩ (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Because sources widely state that Putin's claims are false. Ultimately this comes down to WP:NOTNEUTRAL - neutrality doesn't mean we give equal weight to claims like these (see WP:FALSEBALANCE), as it's obvious propaganda and, frankly, a blatant lie. — Czello 10:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact probably an atrocity crime. The claim has been cited by reliable sources as part of the Russian state’s incitement to genocide, which is a crime against the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Details at Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Assessments. —Michael Z. 17:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank's for explaining! Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the Eastern world pov a minority and extraordinary view? There are only two sides in this fight, the west and the east, how is it that the other side a minority? Formal governmental announcements aren't extraordinary. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "west = not believing Nazis run Ukraine" and "east = believing Nazis run Ukraine". That was never the case. They aren't equal viewpoints at all. — Czello 18:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Putin is not the “Eastern World.” The Eastern World is not demonizing Ukraine and trying to destroy it. —Michael Z. 18:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No you're not dumb. This article is far far from being nuetral. And I'm pretty sure that you're not the only one who can see that. This article should be added to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

SWIFT isn't linked in "Reactions" because it's linked at its first mention in "Foreign sanctions and ramifications". Generally on Wikipedia we avoid repeating the same link in order to avoid having an overwhelming number of links for readers. Jr8825 • Talk 13:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Because wp:RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

oh i didn't see that Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never been comfortable with the statement being made in a Wiki voice rather than by attribution. While the statement was kind of supported by the body, the sourcing used at the time appeared to exagerate the credentials of those cited. As far as I can see, the present article does not have RSs to support this statement. I'm not saying Putin's claims were other than false but such a statement would fall to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and sourcing should be consistent with that. While there were several discussions on this in the past, the circumstances have change in that the statement is no longer supported by either the body or sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Putin’s claim would be exceptional, indeed it is a WP:FRINGE position. To call it false, while we have consensus that it is false, is not exceptional: it’s not surprising, challenged, reported out of character, and it is the prevailing view among experts on Ukraine and Russia’s war. The links in the sentence support it and you can likely find sources there to support it. —Michael Z. 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To make a statement in a wiki voice is what I have called exceptional and (per WP:RS) a wikilink is not a reliable source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not how the guideline defines exceptional.

I mean that’s where you can find a source to add it to this article. —Michael Z. 00:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Putin's Nazi allegations are false is an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion made by reliable sources", which is why it should "be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". As no serious sources contest the idea that Putin's comments are anything but lies, the sentence "should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested" that Putin's claims are false. (WP:YESPOV) Even if it were proven that Putin genuinely believed his statements to be true, he is not a reliable source/authority, so nothing would change with regards to how to present the unanimous consensus of reliable sources. Jr8825 • Talk 04:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You would be quoting from one of the five dot points at WP:WIKIVOICE (ie Avoid stating facts as opinions). The counterpoint to this is Avoid stating opinions as facts, which has links to elaborate on the distinction between fact and opinion. Nazism (or the degree thereof) is subjective. It cannot be quantified. Asserting a degree of Nazism (or lack of) is an opinion. Putin has expressed an opinion that Nazism justifies his actions. Others have expressed opinions that his assertion lacks credibility (they are not factual assertions). While the latter may be a majority, we are nonetheless dealing with opinions, not facts and the section of WP:WIKIVOICE being used to defend the language of the article is off-point. Furthermore, this is a primary article dealing with this (as the casus bellum for the invasion). We are not exempt from WP:VER in this respect. The significant opinion is that Putin's justifications lack credibility. As such, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. [W]hile we have consensus [among editors] that it is false, that in itself falls to WP:OR. If there is a unanimous consensus of reliable sources, then we are obliged to WP:verify and attribute this. Perhaps by this point in the invasion, there are good quality secondary sources that describe this unanimous consensus. From WP:NPOV: [We] should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I think that in our zeal (and indignation) we have overstepped the mark just a wee bit. We can still make the point quite strongly without the appearance of being partisan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

No. That is WP:FALSEBALANCE. The idea that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is justified by "denazification" is a pro-Russia right-wing talking point. Among the reliable and credible experts there is no credence given to Putin's claim. That is not an opinion. All perspectives are not equal weight: that's not what NPOV calls for. Andre🚐 01:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The opinion of Cinderella157 is extremely unlikely to get consensus. —Michael Z. 02:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To put it into perspective though, let’s look at the converse: at this point it is just a (majority, minority, or fringe?) opinion that Russia is not a fascist state. —Michael Z. 02:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cinderella157. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan, Among the reliable and credible experts there is no credence given to Putin's claim. That is not an opinion. That is opinion. As a statement of fact, it represents a logical fallacy, since it would (necessarily) assert that the opinions of all credible and reliable experts has been examined. It would also assert that anybody that might find Putin's claim credible is neither an expert, reliable and/or credible - all of which would be subjective premises. Furthermore, it is not offered with WP:Verification. It is an editor's opinion and WP:OR. We could be more circumspect (and neutral) and state: that the overwhelming opinion among credible reliable experts is that Putin's claims have no substance (or, if you like, are false). There is no false balance in this but regardless it would still require WP:Verification. We can give appropriate weight without crossing the line of appearing to be partisan. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, verifiability and original research apply to articles. I am not stating an opinion, I'm stating a factual characterization of the sources. An easy way for you to contest my factual statement is to offer a source that says that oh yeah, Putin was right and actually there are neo-Nazis running Ukraine and that's not a made-up claim. If you're saying we should add a source to the statement then I agree with you. Here are a few from 1 page of Googling and I haven't even hit up Jstor or the rest of the Wikipedia Library: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19][20] Those sources aren't all perfect but taken together they all make clear that Putin's nazi claims are simplistic propaganda, lies and whatever else. Andre🚐 06:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm stating a factual characterization of the sources. You (and other editors) have examined a number of sources to arrive at a generalisation expressed in absolute terms as a fact, with the belief (an opinion) that the generalisation is true. All elephants are grey is false but almost every elephant is grey is a defensible statistical syllogism. Representing as a fact that, Among [all] the reliable and credible experts there is no credence given to Putin's claim, is WP:OR. Stating, that the overwhelming opinion among credible reliable experts is that Putin's claims are false is a defensible statistical syllogism. This is precisely the guidance at WP:WIKIVOICE. On the otherhand, if there are good quality, peer reviewed, source|s that state "Putin's claims are false" we might cite these without fear of contravening WP:NPOV and being labeled as partisan. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a flawed argument, basically policy word salad without understanding what the policy means. My characterization of the sources is a generalization yes, but it's not an opinion: it's a falsifiable statement (unlike an opinion, which would be normative or a quality judgment). And you could easily offer a single source (a white elephant) that would poke a hole in my argument but you haven't, because there aren't any reliable sources that say Putin had a good point. It is not OR at all, in fact it is just plain research and following what the sources say. Nothing original about it. If sources tell us almost all elephants are grey, we may say in wikivoice that elephants are generally grey. It's not a glittering generality or a stereotype, it's a plain old generalization with good predictive power. If there is 1 white elephant or 1% of elephants are white it would be FALSEBALANCE to say, "many elephants are grey, many are white, and sources are split about it." That is not what NPOV calls for. Andre🚐 18:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing the Putin's claims are not false (per the sources) but rather, that we should be attributing this. All of the sources we observe express the opinion that the claims are false. The overwhelming balance of opinion is that Putin's claims of false. That does not then transform opinion to fact - it is still the overwhelming opinion. WP:WIKIVOICE at WP:NPOV tells us to treat opinion and fact differently. Stating that Putin's claims are considered false by the overwhelming majority does not create a false balance. Yes, we use the sources but I'm not seeing a good quality source that reports the overwhelming balance of opinion (eg all elephants are grey). Instead, we have a series of individual opinions (individual sightings of elephants) from which editors have formed the generalisation that Putin's claims are false and represented as a fact (all elephants are grey). Further, even if we never see a white or a pink elephant, it is always better to phrase a generalisation as a statistical syllogism that represents the degree of confidence in the generalisation - eg the overwhelming balance of opinion. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not what policy says to do. The policy says if a fact is uncontested in reliable sources it should be reported as a fact. Again, these are not opinions. They are not coming from op-eds or from sources that consensus says to treat as marginally reliable or biased. They are reliable sources that describe simple true or false facts. WP:YESPOV, WP:SPADE (essay) Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Andre🚐 23:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Therein lies the crux of the matter. You would characterise each source that states "Putin's claims are false" to be a fact. It would be a fact that the claim can be verified as existing in the source. What is claimed though, is opinion, even if does use the term false. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Straight from the Ministry of Truth: we should attribute that 1 + 1 = 2, because that’s just the opinion of most sources and there is no such thing as a “fact.”

So to whom should we attribute the opinion that Hitler’s “Untermensch” didn’t really deserve to be exterminated?

It looks like some people will rhetorically bend over backwards to prove their favourite genocidaire might be justified. —Michael Z. 00:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael, please, do not make WP:Personal attacks and WP:assume good faith. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway the crux is that you are refusing to accept it’s a fact that Ukraine is not a gay Jewish Nazi satanist nation as Putin insists. —Michael Z. 16:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The "false" label originated very early on in the article's history. I worked on relevant part of the article body, I may have even been the one who added "false" to the lead, I can't remember. It came out of a collaborative close reading of sources (not off-the-cuff OR), and has been discussed previously on this talk page as well. The article has been rejigged many times since it was added, and some of the specific sources cited may have been moved or cut. The important thing is there's no disagreement among reliable sources that Putin's claim is untrue, and there is great educational value in clearly stating this in the lead. You can take a philosophical lens and say no statement or fact can ever be unquestionably certain, particularly as labels and words are socially constructed, but even scientific facts possess uncertainty -- at this point you've left the practical task of building an encyclopedia and entered the realms of ontology. Jr8825 • Talk 07:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The overwhelming opinion among experts [or such] is that Putin's claims are false, conveys the same message but complies with the advice at WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV generally that we don't appear partisan - provided we don't try to guild the lily too much in how we describe the credentials of our sources. It is a case of following WP:P&G without letting our outrage getting the better of us and it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to follow this guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You can take a philosophical lens and say no statement or fact can ever be unquestionably certain, particularly as labels and words are socially constructed, but even scientific facts possess uncertainty

The problem is not with facts being "unquestionably certain." The problem is that the said piece of information is not a fact in the first place -- it's an opinion!

Anyways, I've found these sources that says there are neo-nazist groups in Ukraine: [21], [22], [23]. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The existence of neo-nazi groups in Ukraine is well recorded. It does not make Putin's statement that Ukraine is run by neo-nazis any less of a lie. The relevant policy is WP:YESPOV. There are no reliable sources which say Putin's claim was not false. Jr8825 • Talk 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

These groups have influence on Ukrainian politics, so this claim is not entirely false. Anyways, his statement is open to interpretation, and wether it's true or false depends on the reader. That's why it should be free of any additions from editors. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Wikipedia represents what reliable sources say, and they say it's a lie. Because it is. — Czello 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are fascists and neo-Nazis in every country. They belong to political parties and see politicians pander to them in every country. That is not what Putin is saying, and not what you are implying, which is false.

In many Western countries they have significant representation in government, which such groups do not have in Ukraine. And, in fact, many competent sources tell us that Putin is fascist and that his accusation is directly related to deflecting blame and even inciting genocide. —Michael Z. 16:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring any epistemological arguments, Putin's claim is evidently false. Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority - there are no "neo-Nazis" in the government or in any local governmental body. We should only treat Putin's claim literally, and not metaphorically, because the latter approach is open to interpretation. By metaphorically I mean, for instance, claiming that the far-right in Ukraine, despite lacking popular support, has some sort of influence on Ukrainian politics, and therefore the country "is governed by neo-nazis". BeŻet (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

because it's open to interpretations, it should be left as he said it without adding anything. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no. That is not the standard we use. Andre🚐 18:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

But it's not "open to interpretation", it's a very clear statement. You could argue every utterance is "open to implementation". BeŻet (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cinderella157. I also think that his opinion is, sadly, unlikely to get consensus.

To state without citing sources that Putin's claim is false is inherently POV, all rationalizations and sophistry notwithstanding.

You can be completely correct and simultaneously be biased and partisan.

How you convey information matters.

Furthermore, there are better ways to convey that Putin's specific claim here is what Snopes would call "mostly false" ("

the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate

").

"Inaccurately" comes to mind. (IRL I typically use that word a lot as it's less provocative.)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No. The assertion is so far beyond “pants on fire” that Snopes hasn’t bothered to fact-check it, but it does list some “Nazi Ukraine” propaganda as just false.[24] Fact-check.org says it is misleading and that the “details” have been given disproportionate media attention.[25] DW says “false.”[26]

So cite it if you want: lots of sources say Putin lied. But it doesn’t need attribution. —Michael Z. 16:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

)

I think the word "falsely" in the lead helps the reader to understand the background and events of this war. One important point here is that a cornerstone of Russian propaganda efforts has traditionally been to undermine faith in truth as such, and reliable sources of information, in order to obfuscate, confuse, and undermine trust as such. "Your 'experts' say Ukraine is not ruled by Nazis - well, ours says it is!" I also want to point out that the subject of this article is an ongoing war where people are killed, and what is written on this page is not an epistemological game. It is a false claim so the WP:NPOV thing to do is to state that fact, in my opinion. Yakikaki (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Lets also raise WP:FALSEBALANCE do any RS treat Putin's claims as serious? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC

I've said it once and I'll repeat it again. WP:FALSEBALANCE does not apply here as there are only two sides in this conflict: the west and the east. How is the other side a minority? Saying that representing one side's POV and treating it equally being false balance does not make any sense! Formal announcements of the president of one country aren't extraordinary. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, if all RS say X we say X. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RS are biased and opinionated. They are not required to be neutral but we are required to attribute their claims to them. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some are in certain situations but not in this case, they are pretty much all quite clear about this fact. Andre🚐 06:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all of them. As I've said earlier that by Nazis he meant the Azov Battalion, these sources emphasize what I've said.

The Hindu:

When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” to carry out a “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, he appeared to be referring to the neo-Nazi militias such as the Azov, who – with the blessings of the Ukrainian state – have been at the forefront of Kyiv’s military campaign against the Russia-backed separatist groups.

Al Jazeera:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has referenced the presence of such units [Azov Battalion] within the Ukrainian military as a reason for launching his so-called “special military operation … to de-militarise and de-Nazify Ukraine”

And I've found this source that is implying that he might right.

EurAsian Times:

Russian President Vladimir Putin, prior to ordering a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made a fiery speech, saying that the “special military operation” was aimed at “de-Nazifying” the neighboring country. A video released recently shows what Putin was perhaps insinuating The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The existence of Azov battalion doesn't mean Ukraine is under the rule of Nazis, though, which is what Putin has said. He's called Zelenskyy and the government Nazis, which is a lie. — Czello 08:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS above say that he didn't mean that Ukraine was ruled by Nazis but he was referring to the existence of Azov Battalion. Other RS interpret his statement differently. That means RS are in conflict in regards to what he meant. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

When Putin has said he wanted to denazify Ukraine, he meant the leadership. That's why he called the leadership "drug addicted Nazis", and it's why he tried to march on Kyiv. — Czello 08:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We repeat what RS say. We don't interpret things ourselves. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And that is what RSs say. See source 60. — Czello 09:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, RS are interpreting his statement differently. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And the majority conclude that he's lying about the Ukrainian leadership being controlled by Nazis. — Czello 09:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

By the majority, you mean western media? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean the majority. — Czello 11:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

From the source "On February 25, Putin urged Ukrainians to rise up against their government, which he said was made up of “neo-Nazis”, a charge Kyiv strongly rejected." So yes he is saying the goverment is neo-nazi, in his words. Also the mentions of Azov do not say they are the reason for the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a minority view. On the one side you have the majority of governments in the world, analysts, and academics who agree that it's a lie. On the other side you have the Kremlin propaganda machine. It is false balance to represent these views equally. — Czello 16:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are only two sides in this conflict. How is the other side a minority? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

False balance again. The majority of reliable sources do not consider it a binary proposition. Andre🚐 06:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

By the majority, you mean the western sources?[27], [28] The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece and a magazine whose quality/reputation I can't ascertain quickly. Not exactly top tier current affairs sources. You're WP:CHERRYPICKING, and it's clear from the low quality of what you're bringing up, especially their tenuous relation to Putin's actual false claim (basically, you're pointing to articles critical of Ukrainian actions/Azov or Western media, not articles that say Putin's "Nazi Ukrainian government" lie isn't a lie), that there are no reliable sources that back up your points. While Wikipedia does have a Western bias, your argument that this is the "West" vs. "East" and that only Western sources point out Putin's claim is false is wrong. Here are three actually reliable/mostly reliable newspapers based outside the US/EU with good reputations, note how they report Putin's Nazi claim as being widely rejected/false: [29] [30] [31]. Beyond news coverage, what's significant is that there's unanimity among academics, historians and experts that Putin's Nazi claim is false; it's this consensus of experts that makes the wikivoice label "false" appropriate and correct. Jr8825 • Talk 10:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think only "western sources" are critical of Putin's statements, you are very very mistaken. 1 2 BeŻet (talk) BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. The false balance that you are promoting is between reliable sources on the one side, and Putin’s imperialist, anti-Ukrainian propaganda on the other. WP:FALSEBALANCE says NPOV means “we do not take a stand,” but instead “we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.” Labelling lies as “false” is exactly that. —Michael Z. 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And even only saying “false” is omitting the full context. A report by 35 legal and genocide experts says that Putin’s allegations of Ukrainian “Nazism” are part of “Russia’s State-orchestrated Incitement to Genocide,” an atrocity crime itself, and feature directly in denial of existence of Ukrainian identity, dehumanization of Ukrainians, construction of Ukrainians as an existential threat, and conditioning Russians to condone and commit atrocities.[32] —Michael Z. 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything but labeling, if we aren't to take a stand shouldnt that mean not puting labels on things and giving the reader all the information relevent to come to their own conclusion? by portraing an element as a "lie" rather than "unbacked statement" or a fallacy does that not violate WP:BALANCE? and if protected by false balance should we not at least mention that a fairly large group gave that line and argued for it, even if it is a lie? Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't call Putin's statement a "lie" in wikivoice (which would be attributing motive), we call the substance of his statement "false" (Ukraine's government is not run by Nazis, duh) -- there's quite a big difference between these two things. Jr8825 • Talk 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Reminder that talk page behavior can be disruptive if repeatedly refusing to WP:HEAR the point being made. That is starting to be the case here. Many users have very patiently tried to explain over and over to SuperNinja2 how WP policies work. Regardless of whether SuperNinja2 is refusing to understand the policies or honestly cannot understand them, the discussion seems to have run its course and is not advancing any more. It would probably better be closed to avoid further disruption. Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Do not attempt to intimidate editors who hold a minority opinion, Jeppiz. Nothing that has been discussed or disputed over here is even remotely out-of-line, with the notable exception of your own comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any intimidation in Jeppiz's comment. I agree that we're starting to go round in circles here, and we're starting to enter WP:IDHT territory. — Czello 11:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Reminder Sources must explicitly say what you are using them for, in this case, they must say "Putin's claim of de-Nazification was not a lie". Not "but Azov are nazi" or "Not everything Putin said was untrue", it must explicitly say this one claim had some validity. Can users please read wp:or and wp:v (and (frankly) wp:cherry). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It’s hard not to find sources that say Putin lies about “Nazi” Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency:

Similar to Putin’s Ukrainian neo-Nazi narrative, much of the US narrative about Hussein was false or distorted, but grains of truth also existed

Politika (in Serbian)

Maybe Putin was right about Nazism in Ukraine - Lviv authorities banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"Subsequently, when I hear Vladimir Putin falsely asserting that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis", did you read that line? Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I read it. But it also said it has "grains of truth". I think this is more than enough to conclude that different RS have different POVs on the subject. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It says it is a false narrative, it as a false justification. No one has ever denied there are no neo-nazi's in Ukraine, the issue is whether were they powerful enough to justify a war (was Ukraine a neo-nazi state that needed denazification), and RS say that justification was a lie, your sources all seem to say that justification was a lie. You have just one source that actually says MAYBE "Putin was right about Nazism in Ukraine" (over a post-invasion incident). This does not convince me there are "two sides to this", rather just some post-invasion propaganda to justify it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The source says that his statement has some truth in it, meaning it's not completely false, meaning it's half false half true. You can't ignore that by saying it's plain false in the lead section. You either say sources are split about it or remove the word "false". The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "grains of truth" does it have? Ukraine is objectively not "run by neo-Nazis". — Czello 18:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
We repeat what the RS say. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Which say that Putin's claims are false, I'm glad you agree. — Czello 19:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Those insisting Ukraine doesn't have a serious issue with neonazi organizations, check this source: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946

You might argue that Putin doesn't want to eradicate Neonazism in Ukraine, but Ukraine's neonazi problem is real. Melaneas (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No one has said that Ukraine does not have neo-nazis, they have said that "even if Putin's 'denazification' claim isn't". Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand, I meant that the neonazi movements are enjoying MASSIVE support from a majority of the Ukrainian people, even if they refuse to vote for neonazi parties. Melaneas (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read this link, it clearly says that Putin's claim is false Andre🚐 18:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not only false, it is reinforcing Putin’s propaganda lies. Nazi symbols are illegal in Ukraine. All the hard-right (not neo-Nazi) parties banded together and still couldn’t get enough votes for official status, and only have a single deputy of 450 sitting as an independent. In comparison, states all over Europe have hard-right and extreme-right populist parties in parliament, in government, and even ruling. —Michael Z. 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

How so? 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but - have you even read the conversation above? Literally no one is denying there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine. We're saying that Ukraine is not run by/under the control of a Nazi regime. — Czello 18:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Read my reply above Melaneas (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The opinion piece (a backhanded hit piece) by someone who “runs a press relations firm in New York” literally says Putin’s claim isn’t real in its title. It says it’s a distortion, bizarre claim, absurd smear, and propaganda.

(Bizarrely, the editorial ends by implying that Putin “truly deserves the N-word.”) —Michael Z. 18:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I will not be responding to anymore to smoking guns that literally back up our content, that the claim this war is "denazification" is a lie. This has run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d like to point out that we just spent thousands of words debating whether to accept the possible factuality of Putin’s racist denigration of Ukraine and incitement to genocide. Who thinks this is okay in Wikipedia, much less in a topic subject to general sanctions? —Michael Z. 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Naming conventions

Has anyone considered adding the terminology section of this article? The terms in Ukraine and other countries include "Russian aggression in Ukraine", "heroic resistance against full-scale Russian aggression", etc… while Russia and some of its allies uses "special military operation". Neutral wise it is "Russo–Ukrainian War" and "conflict in Ukraine". -184.145.53.53 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Russian aggression in Ukraine" is neutral too by the way. But yes this could be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 14:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Following RS is the central issue here. The article generally uses the wording as applied by the journalists reporting the events that Wikipedia has included in this article. Putin and Lavrov call it 'special military operations', while others like Biden call it 'Russia's invasion of Ukraine'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are we keeping this title?

A formal move request has now been opened following on from this discussion (see Requested move 18 January 2023) – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 16:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I know the most recent discussion about this was marked as "no consensus." At the same time, though, I've seen a fair number of opinions that say it should be changed to something else now, even if it isn't the one I suggested in the discussion. Any thoughts? XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on the past discussion, there's maybe a slim chance that Russian invasion of Ukraine could win consensus as a new title, but the proportion of editors supporting the status quo is large enough that unless editors are able to make arguments that win significant defections from the former Oppose camp, this is likely going to continue resulting in no consensus results if called to question. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Kind of goofy IMHO. Basically every other contemporary article has shifted to a 2022-present or 2022-2023 name by now (e.g, 2022–2023 North Kosovo crisis). Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it would get good to get consistency on these sort of things. As you rightly point out there is inconsistency with other articles. However there has been a lengthy discussion here where no consensus was reached. Whilst I appreciate it’s not ideal (and potentially confusing) to have this lack of consistency between articles I think it will be difficult to get consensus in this talk page.

The long term solution might be to have an agreed policy / procedure / default precedent for events spanning multiple years but this is a discussion for another page. Tracland (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is not a requirement. Andre🚐 23:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I mean, it's the fifth bullet point in WP:CRITERIA. But there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, OK, I should clarify. Inasmuch as there are topic-specific naming conventions we should follow those and be consistent with those. But consistency is listed last for a reason and it's not to do with alphabetical, IMHO. The most important requirement is recognizability or WP:COMMONNAME, followed by naturalness. Precision, concision, recognizableness, naturalness, and the lack of there being a rush in my view, justify leaving it at "2022 invasion" and we can wait until 2023 has elapsed more than 10 days to determine how to proceed. Andre🚐 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan Well, it's definitely been more than 10 days now, and if we're going by WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME listed, I still think putting the year near the end of the title would work better than at the beginning. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the average person would more likely search for "Russian invasion, etc." instead of "2022 Russian, etc." if they're typing this in the search bar. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it’s not a requirement as such and I specifically didn’t say it should be a requirement but that it would be ‘good to get consistency’. Consistency is one of the five goals in WP:Criteria that are recommended but not mandated. In any case, my main point is that to get an agreed position on a consistent precedent would probably require a wider discussion than just on this talk page (which deals with a single article). Tracland (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favor of renaming this the "Russo-Ukrainian War," perhaps with the years added. The page currently holding that name, which discusses events such as the occupation of Crimea, and the Donbass war, needs its own discussion/renaming. The Second Sino-Japanese War is generally considered to have begun in 1937, despite hostilities and armed combat between the Kwangtung Army and Chinese factions since 1931, because 1937 was when Japan launched a war of conquest with their conventional army. There are many parallels between that conflict and the current Russo-Ukrainian situation. Prior to 2022 Russian aims were achieved with proxy forces (the "republics" and volunteers), or with unmarked units as in Crimea.

I would also point out while the Russians are invaders, the invasion as a military operation ended months ago. For some time now the Russians have been on the defensive, with Ukraine holding the initiative. The invasion has turned into an occupation. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Knightoftheswords281 that this is goofy and there's simply no reason why the current title has not been changed. It's a current event and now it's 2023 - I do not understand the logic behind this at all.

Having said that I already long before the end of December discussions talked about suggestions of what the article name should be in 2023. I maintain my position to split this article between:

the initial invasion "phase", with the existing title
the continuation of the war since, under the neutral and balanced name of War in Ukraine (2022-present)

--WR 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What you call neutral and balanced to me sounds like it's a civil war, or some kind of internal uprising. Something wrong with naming the aggressor? Besides, the war isn't exactly limited to Ukraine, there's been action and impacts on what is undisputedly Russian terrain, even deaths in Poland--already that is. I suggest proposals follow an update on your part. -82.83.169.131 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland isn't relevant - the deaths there were due to an accidental hit from a missile's debris. 2603:6080:21F0:7880:E417:83F5:B525:16A1 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have an article on the war (Russo-Ukrainian War). If we wanted to split that article into parts based on pre- and post-invasion, that would be reasonable, though it's not really clear what the best way to do that would be (we should keep an article on the overall war, of course). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move 18 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Prior discussion, which can be found here was closed just 9 days ago. While the originally proposed title of that request was distinct from the current proposed title, the currently-proposed title was extensively discussed in the prior discussion as "XTheBedrockX's proposal". No novel arguments have been introduced here, and there is consequently no reason to expect any outcome other than no consensus. This closure is not a general moratorium against further move discussions, but does not preclude the discussion of a moratorium. Further move proposals that reopen suggestions that have already received significant discussion (as of this writing: Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-2023) and Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)) less than a month after the prior discussion's close without significant new arguments or evidence will be closed with prejudice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) – Considering we're now halfway through January 2023, a change in title seems warranted at this point. Based on WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME, I think a change to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) works well for what we have right now. "Russian invasion, etc." is far more likely to be searched for instead of "2022 Russian, etc.," and keeping 2022 in the title deals with the issue of ambiguity. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would rather have this option be applied. As far as I know, it was proven that this set of words mostly referred to the current invasion. Though the proposed title is still preferable to the current one. Just be aware there's some articles we are not going to be able to put the parentheses in. Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) does not seem like a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like that big an issue to me, personally. At the very least, having sub-articles with "(20xx-20xx)" isn't unprecedented. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good enough reason to make a move, I will say that over at War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and it's sub-articles, keeping the years at the end doesn't seem to be a big problem from what I've seen, i.e. Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Aftermath of the Afghanistan War (2001–2021), Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021), etc. (will disclose I've been involved in creating some of these pages, so I've pick the ones I didn't create and were there before I got involved). XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
procedural oppose We discussed this on 31 December 2022, which only closed 9 days ago. We should not have to discuss this again less than a month after that close. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The single year "2022" being directly in the title implies the war is limited to that year (when in obviously isn't), and even in that last discussion, despite the disagreements about a new title, I didn't see a whole lot of people arguing in favour of keeping this current one. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it implies that this phase of Russo-Ukrainian War is limited to this year, its not out fault some people want to pretend this is a new war, and not an escalation of the one stared in 2014. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed; opening repeated discussions because you disagree with the previous recent outcomes is disruptive. // Timothy :: talk 15:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What outcome? The result of that RM was "no consensus". Super Ψ Dro 15:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it was disruptive to point out that this war is still happening (that Ukraine is still being invaded) and should have a title that better reflects that. To keep this title at the risk of potentially misleading folks about that seems very unhelpful. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In other words, the deadline is WP:NOW. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Since the invasion is still going on, why not include that in the title? Galebazz (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support: This title literally makes the most sense, as I stated on the previous move request. Consistency is best. People keep trying to use articles like 2003 invasion of Iraq as a "gotcha" clause even though that particular invasion was actually successful and led to the beginning of the Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011) within that same year — both of these articles are tagged as being part of the Iraq War. As far as Ukraine goes, Russia is clearly not done with the invasion phase, and it's obviously not 2022 anymore. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support move to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). The invasion is ongoing. Having only "2022" in the title could imply that it has ended. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. The invasion is ongoing and it will not end in the coming month. MarcusTraianus (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. The invasion did not prove successful in 2022, thus it is not over yet and continues in 2023. CapLiber (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support - The proposed title makes more sense by reflecting the ongoing status of the war. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment None of the editors that opposed the move in the preceding discussions (see below) have switched their position. Since these discussions were recent, it is hard to see how this will find consensus. // Timothy :: talk 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The invasion happened in early 2022. What we've had since April is the repulsion of that invasion. NoLongerBreathedIn (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to close this request

This should be closed since there have been ~~four~~ five closed discussions in the last month and a one year moratorium should against moves implemented.

This is a timesink.

Support // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support and add we need a moratorium on any move requests. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Support how many proposals can we have within the last two months? Yeoutie (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Most of the previous suggestions were poorly worded. This one finally makes sense. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the same name change and none of the previous opposing editors in previously discussions have switched to support. // Timothy :: talk 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't the same proposal. The last proposal was to rename it "2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine". Then, midway thru discussion, "(2022–present)" was suggested and gained a lot of support. So people were voting for and against three different names. It ended with no consensus, and I believe that was partly because of the confusion. This move request is clear-cut and I think it should be allowed to run its course. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
(Posthumous comment) Exactly. I shied away from most of the earlier discussions because I neither liked the original title nor the proposed title, and I doubt that I'm the only one who felt that way. It's a shame that this proposal was prematurely closed on the basis that it was "extensively discussed". I believe that to have been the wrong decision. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

2023

Lets see if this idea works

War in Ukraine 2023‎. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We can add content about this year, here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, the one line I can find in this article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note War in Ukraine 2023‎ has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023. Please discuss at the deletion page. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Template discussion for Infobox: "(no military alliances)"

Is this a joke? Does anyone think NATO does not play a predominant role here? AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We have a section on it [[33]], maybe people need to read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Added a footnote that links directly to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military sales and aid, if that helps. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NATO is an alliance. Ukraine’s not in it. Predominant role is played by Ukrainian defenders and no NATO forces. Military provisions come from dozens of NATO and non-NATO states, not from the NATO organization. —Michael Z. 17:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that the three newest threads in this talk page are about Western support to Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Support for Michael and Slatersteven on this. Ukraine has no military alliances. Ukraine is not a member state of NATO. The template and the article should make this plain, as Michael and Slatersteven have stated. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree, though the edit might be tweaked. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean about the template? All 163 articles about UN states that are non-NATO members should have “non-NATO member” explicitly stated in their infobox? Or Ukraine’s infobox should list every international organization it’s not a member of?

The infobox doesn’t mention NATO, so there’s nothing to make plainer. —Michael Z. 00:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NATO only supplies Ukraine. Ukraine isn't in NATO and NATO has no troops in Ukraine. Just diplomatic support and military aid. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The solution currently used in Russo-Ukrainian War seems reasonable and unlikely to be inflammatory. It runs something like this:

Supplied by: For a list of countries providing aid to Ukraine, see Foreign aid to Ukraine

Should I go and WP:BRD it?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really matter, the outcome of the war is inevitable. I can understand people not wanting NATO to appear explicitly as a combatant per "success has many fathers, failure is an orphan". AnyDosMilVint (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WHat? Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies, although I like the implicit invocation of wikiality. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

M'kay. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

NO, as we are already at the D stage, you know you will be reverted already, hell we have had (yet another) RFC on this within the last few weeks. Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It is clutter, and not a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that only belligerents belong under “Belligerents.” WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says “avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.” —Michael Z. 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole "(no military alliances)" thing looks clumsy as sin though. I would rather see it reverted to the simple, if misleading, way it was before. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The article should not ever be made misleading which seems to be your intent. Accuracy is the best approach here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The way it is now could also be construed as misleading, as it ignores the massive and probably essential support from the West.

Furthermore, the "military alliance with Belarus" part, while technically accurate in terms of the de jure situation with the Union State, is also somewhat misleading. Belarus has not taken an active part in the conflict. Providing bases is normally considered support, not an indicator of the alliance which happens to exist. (For instance, provision of air bases to the United States by third countries in recent conflicts is sometimes not even considered significant support in infoboxes.)

Are you personally against the way it's done in the Russo-Ukrainian War article? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is also listed because it’s a legal aggressor state by providing its territory, airspace, and 1,000-km border with Ukraine for land invasion and aerial attack. —Michael Z. 15:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to me like a (sophisticated) rationalization.

For the purposes of military history (and I think we usually treat infoboxes of even ongoing conflicts as such, although this is entirely debatable), whether an invasion is or was legal or not is irrelevant for determining de facto belligerency.

Belarus has provided basing, transit, and reportedly materiel to Russia. To date, the Belarusian military has not directly participated.

This should fall under "support".

Besides, Wikipedia is not a court of international law and is limited to reporting others' statements based on RS. These contentious high-profile changes/issues appear to be based on subjective editor opinions (regardless of their correctness).

As an illustration of what your argument is actually suggesting, from a purely technical and legalistic point of view, the countries which provided analogous support for the Iraq War may well be "legal aggressor states" as well. (Funny enough, Turkey, Kuwait, and the others aren't even mentioned in the 2003 invasion of Iraq infobox. Should they be?)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked is sparse, but nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t support your view or mention “de facto belligerency.”

We shouldn’t put states conducting activities such as international aid that do not create a state of international conflict into a list labelled “belligerents,” especially in this article about an ongoing war where the lies of “retaliation” against “NATO aggression” have been used as justification for an unprovoked attack by the aggressors.

Right, Belarus has not participated in hostilities. It is not a legal belligerent but is guilty of the international crime of aggression by enabling attacks from its territory. No other state has committed this crime during this war. There is consensus to include it under “supported by,” and not directly under belligerents.

I don’t know about that Iraq War article. Maybe you can improve it. —Michael Z. 04:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

NATO does not really play any role. NATO countries are individually helping Ukraine. BeŻet (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Support removal – I agree with the concern voiced by others about this addition to the infobox. Most importantly, it's unnecessary. Why would it need to be specified that a sole combatant has "no military alliances"? Because of its needlessness, I can see how the note could be reasonably construed as an attempt to minimise international military assistance to Ukraine, even if that wasn't the real motive for its addition. I suspect the intention is to emphasise that NATO is not directly involved, but adding the equivalent of "Not NATO" to the infobox is unnecessary and problematic editorialisation: simply not listing NATO in the infobox combatants is entirely sufficient to convey that NATO is not involved.

"No military alliances" is problematic because while NATO as an organisation is of course uninvolved, individual countries provide extensive military support to Ukraine. "No military alliances" suggests Ukraine is fighting the conflict without external support, a convenient fiction of international diplomacy no different from "Taiwan is part of China"; senior officials from Ukraine's Western allies meet regularly and publicly to discuss Ukraine's supply requirements^[1] and some regularly provide battlefield intelligence.^[2] Personally, I liked XTheBedrockX's new footnote (effectively, "see § Foreign military sales and aid" for details about military assistance to Ukraine"), but if others feel a need to emphasise the informal nature of this support, I'm fine with excluding this from the infobox. However, it's one thing not listing arms suppliers in the infobox (as established by previous RfCs, and something I agree with) and quite another saying (or appearing to say) "Ukraine has no allies". It does have allies, just informal ones. Jr8825 • Talk 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Support removal - I agree with the above that it's a redundant addition that clutters the infobox. If Ukraine isn't part of any military alliance there's no need to mention the fact in the infobox. The Russian side of the infobox should also be restored to the previous revision with Belarus as a supporter rather than the unconventional wording of a military alliance. Lightspecs (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and to remove the incorrect “previous allies” for the former puppet states. —Michael Z. 02:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Jr8825 • Talk 11:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As fair disclosure, I've discussed this with XBedrock as well on his Talk page and he is in agreement with the above comments overnight. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't be discussing to remove ErnestKrause's unilateral additions but that they should instead seek the support to add them on the first place. I personally see no reason why we should have two sentences in bold on the infobox with information already included in a note. I will also ask them not to claim support from several editors when I see these editors have been stating precisely that their additions could get tweaked, and that they refrain from accusations such as The article should not ever be made misleading which seems to be your intent. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The support for stating that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no military alliance with America is supported by Michael, Slatersteven, Cinderella, etc. Nothing misleading about this. Your aspersions here appear odd. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Huh? This Michael does not support stating that in the infobox. —Michael Z. 16:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In this very thread, another editor opened this thread by objecting to my adding the phrase "No military alliances" in the Infobox, as an objection to my edit. You, Michael, then appeared to further rebuff him with the following words: "NATO is an alliance. Ukraine’s not in it. Predominant role is played by Ukrainian defenders and no NATO forces. Military provisions come from dozens of NATO and non-NATO states, not from the NATO organization." Those are your words, and you appeared to be rebuffing an editor objecting to my edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to the first comment, which says nothing about any specific edit. I was objecting to the apparent complaint that NATO was absent from the infobox list of belligerents. Later I did respond explicitly in opposition to the idea of putting “no NATO” in the infobox. —Michael Z. 22:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I also am unsure how they decided I support this addition. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In this very thread, at the very start, another editor opened this thread by objecting to my adding the phrase "No military alliances" in parenthesis in the Infobox. You then rebuffed that editor by stating: "We have a section on it, maybe people need to read the article." Those were your own words. You appeared to be critical of the editor who was opposing my addition to the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157, have you stated your support for this by any chance? [34] Super Ψ Dro 16:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My comment for Cinderella is that I support the edit which was made by Cinderella before you again tried to force your edit into the article without consensus on the Talk page being made first. You have no support for your anachronistic use of the old Infobox from 3-4 months ago against Cinderella and myself. Please stop edit warring to force your edit into the Template. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what to reply at this point. What I would advise you is to stop wasting other editors' valuable time. Super Ψ Dro 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Three of you appear to have been edit warring to force your version of the edit into the Template while Talk page discussion was underway. My own edits were to support several other editors who were supporting the new version of the Infobox Template which you and your edit companions were reverting. Mr rnddude's suggestion for a new thread which he described below has been opened as a new discussion this morning for any further comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven and Michael. Has anyone actually agreed to the extremely weird changes by ErnestKrause? I cannot find anyone who has expressed support for their addition of a large chunk of text into the Belligerents section, yet they somehow claim to have received support for their change. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Michael can both speak for themselves, and I've added a note to them to remind them of their previous edits. Your statement "extremely weird changes" appears to be intentionally crude. Do you intend it to be intentionally crude? I'm supporting Cinderella's version of the edit which Cinderella made in the last day. There are other editors in agreement with Cinderella's edit as well. If Michael and Slatersteven wish to change their position then they can each decide for themselves if they want to keep the new version of the Template as edited by Cinderella or if they would like to go back to the anachronistic old version from 3-4 months ago. Its entirely their own call, and not your call to tell them what their choice is. All you need to do is wait for their responses. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You have made an extremely weird leap in assessing my intentions, which I expressed clearly and consistently. —Michael Z. 22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about; if you did not know that the thread was opened by someone responding to my edit on the Infobox then you can say that. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve made it clear I didn’t know that. There’s no way anyone would anyone know that from the OP’s comment. Your edit wasn’t mentioned until after my comment, and even then not connected to the OP’s comment. We get it already. There was a misunderstanding, now let’s move on. —Michael Z. 17:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I have reverted Ernest Krause's unilateral changes and left a warning on their talk page regarding disruptive editing and edit-warring. I have also checked Cinderella157's contributions to the template, and the only edit remotely relevant to this discussion is a removal of NATO from the template performed at 22:29, 27 December 2022. They did not instate the changes that are being discussed here. Indeed, I can't find any evidence that Cinderella157 knows about these changes at all. The edit that Cinderella made yesterday was to remove Wagner Group from the infobox, which is a completely unrelated edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Updated comment - I have now spent over an hour examining the discussion here and edits at the template regarding the revision Ernest Krause initially made at 15:43, 15 January 2023. The following will examine the actions/comments of the editors that Ernest Krause has invoked as supporters: Slatersteven, Mzajac, Cinderella157, Radioactive Boulevadier, and XtheBedrockX. This thread was opened at 17:39 by AnyDosMilVint in response to that revision.
Slatersteven and Mzajaca responded within the hour. Slatersteven mentioned that the involvement of NATO nations is discussed in detail in a section of the article; Mzajac stated that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Neither editor indicates awareness of the alterations, and indeed Mzajac responds to Ernest Krause with: What do you mean about the template? Cinderella157 also made one comment within a few hours stating that they [t]end to agree, though the edit might be tweaked which, I think, is what Ernest Krause is referring to.
Radioactive Boulevadier weighed in after 07:59, 16 January 2023. They suggest including a note akin to that found in Russo-Ukrainian War and oppose the clumsy as sin addition of 'no military alliance'. They later edited the template to remove that line, to revert 'military alliance' back to 'supported by', and to alter the wording of the 'previous allies' line.
XtheBedrockX's participation is confusingly spread across this talk page, their own user talk page, and the template. As far as I can deduce, XtheBedrockX is okay with NATO support being mentioned in the infobox, prefers the 'previous allies' line to be shortened, and does not want not a member nation of NATO in the infobox.
This leaves the reversions to status quo ante-bellum. As of writing, Super Dromaeosaurus, Ylogm, Appolodion, CapLiber (they also removed DPR and LPR in one edit), and now myself have undone these changes. Other editors involved in this discussion have not made direct alterations.
Where does that leave us? With about half-a-dozen alterations to the infobox and a complex variety of opinions regarding them. These changes are: 1) The conversion of 'supported by' to 'military alliance with'. 2) Moving DPR and LPR from subjects of Russia to annexed by Russia, with the addition of the line: 3a) Previous allies annexed after 30 September 2022 or; 3b) Proxies annexed after 30 September 2022. 4) The addition of (no military alliances) beneath Ukraine. 5) A new proposal to add the line Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no military alliance with America. These should be discussed and implemented with consensus, not prior to it.
Note: I've authored this comment in an attempt to decipher the meaning of the, in my honest view, random invocations of support for the 15:43, 15 January 2023 revision. If I have mischaracterized anyone's view or if you are endorsing that revision, please let me know so that I can make the appropriate alterations. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work and this summary, Mr rnddude.
To clarify my own position: I support the status quo regarding the DPR and LPR, as I feel adding "annexed after X" or "former" to them is misleading, as both proto-/proxy states still exist within Russia and keep fielding troops. Regarding the question on Ukraine: I would support for this article to mirror the Russo-Ukrainian War version, i.e. something like "Supported by: See foreign aid to Ukraine". Applodion (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I have been away from Wiki for a few days attending to RW matters and return to see my name being used in vein. My edit to the infobox last night (local) had nothing to do with this subject! My comment at about the start of this section was: Tend to agree [with the edit by ErnestKrause], though the edit might be tweaked. My agreement was with the principle but not the wording. I had thought this might be a relatively uncontentious way of clarifying how the infobox had been populated. It is now evident that that is not the case. I withdraw my initial support. If we really need to do something with DPR and LPR, just put former in brackets after each along with the existing footnote. 23:20, 18 January 2023 Cinderella157

Restarting thread of relevant portion of discussion as suggested and started by Mr rnddude below on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, e.g. "UK offers tanks in Ukraine's hour of need, but will Germany follow suit?". France 24. 16 January 2023. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
^ notably, "US intelligence told to keep quiet over role in Ukraine military triumphs". The Guardian. 7 May 2022. Retrieved 18 January 2023.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

the estimated Russian fatalities are less than what are shown by using mediazona there is an estimated 5,159 dead for Luhansk and Donetsk militia because they have not been shown in recent fighting But for the AFR there is an estimate of 10,229 not including the wagner PMC witch was last estimated to be 800 but must have increased during the battle of soledar. Thank you for reading and reviewing Wagmermerc (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your assertions so that they can be used in the article. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about neutrality discussion closure

ErnestKrause, why did you close the discussion above? How is it that the appropriate discussion page is in Putin’s article? The discussion is about the invasion not about Putin! We didn't reach a consensus yet. Can you explain why did you make that unilateral decision without asking for our opinion? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The close was at the request of multiple editors on both sides of the discussion. You can restart a thread about Putin's opinions on the Putin Talk page or in the thread just above this one recently opened by an IP editor yesterday; for example, that Putin prefers to call it 'special military operations'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't have consensus to close the discussion! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

People going around in circles isn't productive for an article talk page, which is what was happening there, even the starter of the thread requested it be closed. I see nothing wrong with ErnestKrause's decision. TylerBurden (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

His problem wasn't that we were going in circles. He said that the appropriate talk page was in Putin’s article although we weren't discussing Putin in the first place! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent list of 13 countries that DON'T support Ukraine

Since Ukraine's "Supported By:" section not been added, I would like to present 13 countries which in last few days made NO pledge to deliver following equipment and have no intention to support Ukraine in any way:

Extended list

USA

— 100 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles

— 55 armored vehicles

— 100 M113 armored personnel carriers

— 18 M109A6 self-propelled guns

— 250 BOR M1117

— 138 HMMWV armored vehicles

— 100 Stryker APCs

— GLSDB

— 36 105mm howitzers

UK

— 14 Challenger 2 tanks

— 30 AS90 self-propelled guns

— 200 BMP/APC

— 600 Brimstone rounds

— 100 modern shells (?)

Canada

— 200 Senator armored vehicles

— 1 NASAMS air defense battery

Poland

— 14 Leopard 2 tanks

— S60 anti-aircraft complexes

Germany

— 40 Marder BMP

— 1 Patriot A/A battery

France

— 40 AMX-10 wheeled tanks

Sweden

— 50 CV-90 BMP

— 12 Archer self-propelled guns

Czech Republic

— 26-30 Dana-M2 self-propelled guns

Estonia

— 10+ 155mm FH70 howitzers

— 10+ 122mm D30 howitzers

Latvia

— Stinger MANPADS

— 2 Mi-17 helicopters

- submachine guns

— UAVs

Lithuania

— dozens of L-70 anti-aircraft guns

— 2 Mi-8 helicopters

Denmark

— 19 Caesar self-propelled guns

Also coalition help:

— 16 Zuzana-2 self-propelled guns

— 90 T-72 tanks

— 1 anti-aircraft/PRO SAMP/T battery

In addition, there are tens of thousands of bullets for this type of weapon.

Does it look like support to you? There were no troops on the ground which means support DOESN'T exist. Editors on wikipedia MADE CONSENSUS. Let me repeat that - CONSENSUS. Kindly STOP repeating Russian propaganda that West is supporting Ukraine in this war, will you? Thank you. Cheers Mintus590 (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, this is the proper place for material on this subject. // Timothy :: talk 07:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussions in which the consensus was formed, you'd find that no one is denying that the West is sending that equipment. Do you have a point? HappyWith (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Inviting contributions at 2023 Zaporizhzhia offensive

Inviting contributions at 2023 Zaporizhzhia offensive 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I merged that article. It's an insignificant offensive. They took two villages if I am not mistaken. They tried to advance towards Orikhiv and failed. Not notable. Super Ψ Dro 09:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates to Infobox after several months; version on display now seems to be getting old

Another editor (Mrnddude) has suggested that several of the issues about the Infobox be discussed for possible updates. Given the large changes in geopolitical organization of Southeastern Ukraine since the annexation of DPR and LPR last September, then this type of review seems timely. The points presented by the other editor are:

1) The conversion of 'supported by' to 'military alliance with'.

2) Moving DPR and LPR from subjects of Russia to annexed by Russia, with the addition of the line:

3a) Previous allies annexed after 30 September 2022 or;

3b) Proxies annexed after 30 September 2022.

4) The addition of (no military alliances) beneath Ukraine.

5) A new proposal to add the line Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no military alliance with America. These should be discussed and implemented with consensus, not prior to it.

Mrrndude's request for informal comments I assume means that editors can pick and choose which topics they wish to discuss or comment on from the above list. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Weakly support #1, oppose everything else. None of these are that ideal, and aside from maybe #1, all of these seem either unnecessary or too wordy. Almost all of these proposed changes are either already in the footnotes, or can be added to the footnotes without the infobox looking too cluttered. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support for #5. After reading through the 3 inconclusive RfCs from last year in 2022, then one of the major difficulties with the comments from drive-through editors leaving comments was that they did not know that Ukraine was not a member of NATO and that Ukraine had no military alliances with any member state of NATO, and no military alliance with the United States. If this information could be added to the Infobox, then a great deal of wasted time on 2022's three inconclusive RfCs could have been avoided. A repetition of those 3 inconclusive RfCs in 2023 would seem wasteful of Wikipedia contributor time and effort. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What? Do you think those discussions were unsuccessful because several editors were not aware of this basic fact? Super Ψ Dro 17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprized by the number of editors who do not appear to know that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and that Ukraine does not have a military alliance with any member state of NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Support for #3a. Per discussion above, it’s long past due for the strength numbers to be updated. There’s been a big mobilization in Russia. There’s tens of thousands of Wagner mercenaries. It’s a very different situation than in February and having an outdated infobox is a huge disservice to our readers. It’s basically like leaving out United States out of the WW1 infobox.

Having said that, I don’t think 1) or 2) would make sense although 3b would. I don’t see that much importance in 4 or 5. Volunteer Marek 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added support for 3A above for format consistency and you can change it to any format you prefer. I'd ask you to mention if stating that Ukraine has no military allies in the Infobox is either relevant or not. It seems that many drive through editors do not know this or appreciate its relevance when they leave comments here on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Re the alliances thing, I appreciate and understand the intent. I’m not sure if this is the best way to do it, purely for stylistic reasons. Right now I’m neutral on that. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all. I don't see why would we need any of these and I don't see why there's a timely need for an update after 30 September 2022. Super Ψ Dro 17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose all. As I have said in the previous disputes, the DPR and LPR still exist within Russia, they still field tens of thousands of troops, and remain active belligerents in this war. The current version already makes it clear that both have to be treated as Russian proxies. The notes explain all other details. Adding a shortened comment outside the notes and thus treating them as no longer existing is plainly false. In addition, ErnestKrause's proposed chunk of text looks (at least in my opinion) clunky, confusing, and ugly. Regarding the "military alliance" part, this would also be a major oversimplification. Applodion (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose #1 – per WP:OR, Belarus' support and acquiescence is a grey area that probably falls below the standard most people would consider a "military alliance" (although by allowing Russian troops to invade Ukraine from its territory, it likely doesn't fall below the standard of belligerent under intl law). I'd only support #1 if sources were brought here to show that Belarus' relationship to Russia is called a "military alliance" by RS. I read a pretty wide range of expert commentary about Ukraine daily and this doesn't match my experience.

No strong preference with regards to #2. I'm sympathetic to the idea of mentioning their annexation, but as others have pointed out the reality on the ground seems to be that they retain similar autonomy to before. If others are in favour of #2, I support #3b and Oppose #3a for the same reasons as #1 (WP:OR – what sources have called it an "alliance"? They are proxies/puppets, not partners).

Strong oppose #4 and #5 – unnecessary and problematic. I explained my rationale at length here. Jr8825 • Talk 17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all. 1) makes it seem like Belarus is actively fighting, supported by is much more reflective of the situation. 2), 3), and 4) are not needed due to the notes already included there. 5) would just be a strange thing to add. Yeoutie (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Belarus is listed because it is guilty of aggression by allowing attacks and invasion through and from its territory. Russia’s formal military allies include members of the CSTO, and they certainly don’t belong in the infobox for it. DLNR should probably be removed or qualified with some label, since the pretence that they were sovereign belligerent parties has been abandoned, but this proposal is too non-specific (what is “moving from subjects” in terms of concrete text changes?). The other bits I’ve responded to elsewhere. These things should be discussed separately and worked out before a vote. WP:SNOW close for this 5-part proposal may be appropriate. —Michael Z. 06:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all - None of these seem necessary or improvements to the article. #5 seems particularly odd. Agree with Michael Z there is reasonable cause for a close with WP:SNOW. BogLogs (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment. No comment from Mr rnddude? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the request for input from Ernest Krause and direct ping here.

Neutral #1 - Supported by is standard usage in such templates for non-belligerents that have substantial involvement (in this case allowing belligerent troops to invade from their soil) in an action. Military alliance with has a problem because it ignores whether an allied state is a belligerent or not and vice-versa whether a belligerent is in an alliance.

Oppose #2 - This implicitly provides legitimacy or potential legitimacy to the actions of Russia in seizing Ukraine's land (Донецьк [Donets'k] and Пуганськ [Luhans'k] Oblasts in 2022). Caution should be exerted when labeling these illegal annexations. That said, mention of the DPR and LPR is unavoidable and footnote [a] does a decent job of providing context. Consequently, #3a and #3b are unnecessary, though if #2 is implemented, I prefer the concise wording of #3b, with some clarification that these are not legitimate annexations (either a separate footnote or just the word 'illegitimate' or 'illegal').

Oppose #4 and #5 as also unnecessary. The majority of readers can comprehend that Russia and Ukraine are the only belligerent participants in this war, and that part of the invasion started from Belarus (Russia has no easy way of getting to Чорнобиль [Chornobyl'] or Київ [Kyiv] otherwise). That said, I don't mind introducing footnotes into the infobox akin to those at Russo-Ukrainian War linking to the list of materiel, medical, and humanitarian supplies suppliers which is List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It's reasonable for en.wiki to acknowledge the billions of dollars of materiel being supplied to the belligerents (Russia is receiving materiel support from Iran, for example ; Ukraine from ... pretty much everyone else, for all other examples). At the very least, it should stop further complaints asking Why is Western support not mentioned? and accusing You guys are POV pushing. on this talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all - I had thought that indicating military alliance/no military alliance might have been relatively non-controversial but there is enough opposition (with reasons given) to not support this as a way forward. As for the DNP and LNP, they were belligerents at the start of the invasion. Their international status is not a reason for omitting them. The footnote made their status clear. That their status has changed in the course of events is equally covered by the amended footnote. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

LNP, Cinderella157? I didn't know the coalition had joined the invasion. DPR/LPR or DNR/LNR are the two proxy states, which was probably intended. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, everybody is allowed to have a good laugh at the slip of my fingers. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

NATO

Should NATO be listed in the infobox on the right side? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

See Q2 of the #FAQ above. — Czello 22:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

So the belligerents section states under Russia: "Supported by: Belarus". If you're going to say this, then you need to list the USA and UK underneath Ukraine too, because they are giving them funding and weapons systems. Poland are even allowing themselves to be used for staging, exactly like the Belarus source states Apeholder (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, people talking about this. It is a matter of time until Western support to Ukraine is added. Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And once again, the solution is to add a row for “Supporters” to template:Infobox military conflict that’s separate from “Belligerents.” —Michael Z. 18:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that once again, a drive-by editor or anon has requested this while making a ridiculous assertion like Poland is the mirror image of Belarus, both sides are the same, or Russia is defending itself from aggressive Ukrainian hospitals and kindergartens with its ballistic missiles. They’re going to keep doing this as long as Russian propaganda propagates and probably longer. Get used to seeing it another million times, and please don’t suggest that after just one more we should start treating this as a rationale to start representing something differently in the encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 18:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No, in Poland no armed Ukrainian forces have been present, none have conducted military operations into Russian or Belarusian territory, and none have launched cruise or ballistic missiles or drones at Russian or Belarusian civilian infrastructure. Belarus is a legal aggressor state. Poland has not even participated in defensive operations.

Humanitarian and military supplies have come to both Russia and Ukraine through a number of states. That does not warrant listing them under “Belligerents.” —Michael Z. 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Watching news that keep talking about massive amount of vehicles, weapons, ammunition and other aid makes people confused. How about adding "not supported by" section to Ukraine? And then we would list all of the countries that don't support Ukraine like USA, UK, Germany, Poland Mintus590 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See wp:soap and wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See all the talk page entries above, and in the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

I understand the number of those killed/wounded varies greatly but shouldn't we write something like "at least 100,000 killed" in the infobox? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Was discussed at length at the start of the conflict and compromise editor consensus was that it will only be said the numbers of casualties varies greatly, while linking to the casualties section, due to the high number of various estimates by Western officials, Western and anti-Russian tracking groups, UN, Ukraine and Russia. Personally, I advocated that at least the lowest and highest figures be presented as an orientational range, but general consensus was against including any figures, until established literary reliable sources confirm the numbers of casualties, which will probably happen only after the conflict has ended. EkoGraf (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We should definitely reconsider that before this war is a year old. We don’t have to omit what sources report because of a ridiculous arbitrary threshold. “Until established literary reliable sources confirm the numbers” is complete BS, because look at every single war ever. All figures at every stage of a war and for the rest of history will have some degree of error.

To arbitrarily decide that it will ever improve at all is to look in WP:CRYSTAL balls. To

commit to not conveying this fundamental information clearly where readers will look for it is to minimize the apparent scale of the war. —Michael Z. 01:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd require WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to provide an ultimately false estimate just for the sake of reader convenience. Further, it'd require constant updates to be remotely relevant. Figures vary so widely that our estimates for total civilian deaths in the course of the war (~ 33,000 to ~ 40,000 on the high end) as of January 2023 is less than half that speculated for the city of Мариуполь [Mariupol'] alone (~ 87,000 according to Euromaidan Press and up to ~75,000 according to AP News) in August and December of 2022 respectively. The infobox would be better served and more honestly representative if it simply said 'we don't know' than if it held some editor fabricated figure. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mr rnddude and the points they have made. These are essentially the reasons why consensus was reached through discussion to remove casualties from the infobox. There is too much nuance to casualty reports for it to be simply summarised and the infobox is unsuited for such nuanced material. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both Mr rnddude and Cinderella157. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

When trying to find more precise numbers, I tried searching for an image I saw of "dead russian soldiers in numbered coffins being unloaded from 2xKamAZ truck ukraine invasion 2022". The handwritten numbers on the coffins were in the 3999x to 4000x range. I have not yet recovered that image. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Better information may be forthcoming: why is russia finally admitting to losses --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion the most precise "confirmed" numbers of Russian dead at least may be those by the BBC News Russia/Mediazona project, but as they said their research is still ongoing and they got hundreds of deaths yet to confirm. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If that’s intended to be a reason to offer nothing, I say 1) research on this war will be ongoing for the rest of our lives, and 2) at every point in that period Wikipedia should offer the best information available, with an indication of how good it is. —Michael Z. 22:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No, like I said, I was just offering my personal comment regarding the research being conducted. As for the infobox, like I said, I am in agreement with Mr rnddude and Cinderella157 that the previously established editor consensus is the correct one. EkoGraf (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

These are the statistics from Reuters which are updated daily:

Estimated losses

From Reuters · Updated 1 day ago

Deaths

At least 42,295 people

Non-fatal injuries

At least 54,132 people

Missing

At least 15,000 people

Displaced

Approximately 14M people

Buildings destroyed

At least 140,000

Property damage

Approximately $350B

Are these numbers consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's version of the numbers? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

New article: List of foreign leaders that have visited Ukraine during the invasion

Please feel free to add more to this relatively new article. Thanks. Compusolus (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(The actual article link is List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine) HappyWith (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias in Various Sections

"Putin... falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority."

Casus belli and rationale "Putin... falsely claimed that "for eight years now, [had] been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime"

The claim that Putin "falsely" claimed that the country is run by neo-Nazis is questionable - we have no idea who is pulling the strings in Ukraine, and neo-Nazis have had a strong influence in the past, as evidenced by https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary/commentary-ukraines-neo-nazi-problem-idUSKBN1GV2TY. Also, the fact that neo-Nazis have been persecuting the ethnic Russian minority is not in doubt. See https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda/, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955, https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/,

Also, the bombings of civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022, which caused thousands of civilian deaths, clearly meet the UN definition of genocide. The word "falsely" should be taken out of this section. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, so your personal speculations about "who is pulling the strings" is purely disruptive and has no place here. As for the claim about bias, it was addressed just days ago. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The Hill opinion piece, unreliable, Reuters opinion piece, attributed RSOPINION by a former USAID project officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union., The Nation piece, attributed for bias, David Stern 2014, reliable, outdated but might be useful on some level. Regardless, even if all sources were standard high-quality reliable sources requiring no attribution (and they aren't), none of these imply that neo-Nazis run Ukraine or even are close to it. In fact, reliable expert sources have roundly stated that Putin's assertion of genocide in Ukraine is without factual basis. Andre🚐 01:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If you paste links to ten or fifteen articles by Lev Golinkin about Nazi Ukraine it would make your case so much stronger. Anyway, even though we’re somewhere between WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE here, none of it says Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis. Furthermore, I can find you a dozen solid sources that say Putin’s statement is inciting genocide,^[1] but you can read an overview in Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 06:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Users like Ianbrettcooper promoting rhetoric like that Ukraine is a genocidal country run by neo-Nazis should get blocked on the spot. Super Ψ Dro 09:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a good argument against. —Michael Z. 17:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Although we went there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theory spread by Keith-264, and all it led to was an admin reinforcing anti-Ukrainian disinformation and then announcing they’d “warned” the offender but didn’t even bother. Maybe we’d get a different closer. At least the hubbub may have put a damper on the offending speech. —Michael Z. 17:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Some kind of general practice or policy should be achieved in my opinion. I imagine nobody would get past denying the Holocaust in Wikipedia for example. Maybe there's some kind of thing similar to WP:NONAZIS were we could include "don't say stupid trash about Ukraine". Super Ψ Dro 22:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, when this irrelevant and offensive forum-post was first posted, I removed it as per WP:NOTAFORUM. It adds no content to the talk page (the alleged bias was already under discussion), and is just a poor excuse to use WP a forum for absurd claims. For reasons only they can know, Cinderella157 saw fit to revert me and reinsert the policy violation. Jeppiz (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need this trash in here. Kremlin propaganda deserves zero attention. Next threads like this should be deleted as nothing good can come from discussing whether Ukraine is actually neo-Nazi or not. Super Ψ Dro 09:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ "Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation's Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent" (PDF). New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. 27 May 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-06-16. Retrieved 2022-07-22.

Is it ethical to display dead bodies on Wikipedia?

An image of a person, who has died because of being partially burnt due to an attack, has been displayed on this page under Air strikes. It is in contravention of media ethics to display mutilated bodies, without being blurred. So does the aforesaid image deserve to be on a Wikipedia page? 112.134.217.9 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the encyclopedia is not censored. Objectionable material or images may appear in an article in an appropriate context – as is the case here. This file page indicates that this particular image was published by the київ [Kyiv] SES under the CC-by-4.0 license. I can't verify that as the website throws up a 1020 'access denied' error. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Q1 of the #FAQ answers this pretty clearly as well "A1: Wikipedia is not censored, and articles may include content that some readers may find objectionable if it is relevant and adds value to the article. See the Content Disclaimer for further information." BogLogs (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@112.134.217.9 Wikipedia respects human dignity, and such images that violate human dignity will be removed. The Sri Lanka (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not entail censorship of otherwise enyclopedic and free-use images, like this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

DatGuy and DrKay - Pinging as a courtesy to blocking admins. The Sri Lanka, you've already received a block for sockpuppeting in December with express warning that further incidents will result in an indefinite block. You were then blocked two weeks ago by Dr. Kay for editing while logged out from this IP in Colombo. That IP geolocates to the exact same location as the IP that opened this thread, whilst you were blocked. Indeed, the IPs are near identical. This is now the third instance in the past two months in which you have engaged in apparent sockpuppetry via 'editing while logged out'. In this instance, it's also block evasion. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Strengths in infobox

It makes absolutely zero sense to remove Wagner Group out of the infoboxes as they are one of the largest groupings of Russian forces and the ones participating in the most active fighting. Oh. And the info is sourced too. Please stop trying to remove them. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn’t make much sense either to have only the numbers at the beginning of the invasion. Why is only that relevant? Why aren’t we informing our readers of the forces that are actually taking part i. The fight? Who decided that it must be this way? Volunteer Marek 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Agree. —Michael Z. 23:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems off-topic, but Wagner is not a sovereign belligerent power, it is a component of Russian forces. It shouldn’t be there unless we start listing military and paramilitary units. DLNR should probably be removed too. —Michael Z. 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, after a closer look I see it is broken down by major services, although Russian paramilitaries are missing (Russian Guard, OMON, SOBR, border guards, &c), and probably Kadyrovites.

Is the Wagner number right? Recently I saw 10k mercenaries and 30k convicts estimated in a source somewhere. Or are these numbers as of February 24, 2022? —Michael Z. 23:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s why it should be in the “Strength” section rather than the “Belligerents” section. Btw, is Russia still officially denying that Wagner is unaffiliated with the Russian state? In terms of numbers, this is what the source says though there may be different estimates out there. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well now we have the problem that there are sources for different strength figures from February 2021, and January, February, and December 2022. The figures should be comparable, or if they’re not then at least with an indication of time frame and potential change. —Michael Z. 01:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Most obvious problem: it’s missing 300k Russian mobiks. Etcetera. —Michael Z. 01:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We could list both initial and current or just current. Just initial makes no sense though. It’s like omitting US from the WW1 infoboxes. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this infobox doesn't make sense. I could support this idea however I disagree with Wagner being listed separately. How about we list "Russian paramilitaries" and then have a note with all Russian military units not part of the Russian Armed Forces fighting in Ukraine? There is no reason only Wagner should be given relevance. Super Ψ Dro 14:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There’s a very obvious reason why Wagner should be given relevance. Several actually. First, and most importantly, they are the mercenary group most discussed in sources. Second, they are by far the largest mercenary group, bigger than many of the regular Russian army formations. They are also the most active, taking part in the most intense fighting around Bakhmut and Soledad. Fourth, they are also the most notorious and well known, given their record of war crimes and links to neo Nazi organizations. But really, the first reason is sufficient. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And then someone else will come and say the second most relevant mercenary group should also be mentioned for X reasons. If we're to add this kind of organization I say we add them all. The Wagner Group can be mentioned, but in a note I say. The aim of this infobox should be to be comprehensive and include all Russian military units of any kind and we clearly shouldn't list all of these separately. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, your edit to the infobox re adding Wagner to the strength has been contested. Per WP:ONUS, a consensus to add this information should be established before reinstating your edit. There are no reliable sources that give comparable strengths of the two belligerents except at or about the start of the invasion. For this reason, it is the standing consensus to report the strength at that time. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not “standing consensus”, it’s just something that you just invented. There are several users who reverted you and several users who agree that it makes no sense to only have initial strengths in the info box. It makes absolutely zero sense to exclude the biggest and most active formation fighting on the Russian side from the infobox. And yes there are reliable sources. I added one (for Wagner group). You just removed it. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

PS - Given the standing of the existing consensus (it has been stable for a considerable period), an agreement between two editors without a reasonable chance for others to contribute really isn't enough to establish consensus for the change and accusing others of edit warring probably isn't civil. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no “standing of the existing consensus”. “We’ve always done it this way” is not an argument. The only reason this info was in the box as you want it is because ***it was outdated*** and nobody has bothered to update it. You are basically edit warring to keep the info outdated. Why? Volunteer Marek 07:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, we (editors here collectively) have chosen to report the initial strength of the two combatant sides as at the start of the invasion since this is the only point in time for which we have a comparison of the two strengths. I stated this above: There are no reliable sources that give comparable strengths [empasis added] of the two belligerents except at or about the start of the invasion. The source you give (or at least your edit) does not establish a comparison as at December 2022, since it reflects only one side (and then only one part of one side). Over the course of time, some additional figures have been added and removed - ~~upon discussion and without anybody getting their knickers in a twist~~ upon collegiate civil discussion. [revised since it is alleged that the initial characterisation of these those discussions was uncivil. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)] The number of Ukraine reservist was removed because these were not mobilised and did not form part of the initial strength. Volunteers have also been added and then removed for the same reason. We have FAQ 5 on this point. It explains the consensus and acknowledges that things can change. It would be wrong to assert that this hasn't been changed because nobody has bothered to update it. As far as I can see, you are the only person that has reinstated your edit, so several editors (more than two) would be incorrect. Also, as far as I can see, Michael is the only other editor that has expressed any support for your edit - again, a couple of editors that agree is not several. WP:ONUS (part of a policy) and WP:BRD are quite clear on the need to establish a consensus (through civil discussion) once an edit is challenged. Casting aspersions (it’s just something that you just invented) and making allegations of disruptive behavior (You are basically edit warring), are neither civil nor a collaborative way to build consensus. However, if you believe that my conduct in reverting your edits was disruptive, this is not the place to make such an allegation. It should be raised at ANI or similar (or redacted). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157, you are trying to speak collectively for “we, the editors” which you simply cannot do. Show me the discussion or RfC where it was decided “only initial strengths go into infobox”. If such a discussion exists I’m not aware of it.

Regarding FAQ #5, it only concerns reservist. And frankly I have no idea why that’s there. There is no discussion anywhere which decided that this is how we’re going to do things. There are two discussions in the archives (Archive 9 and 10 I believe) where someone basically says “why are we doing this?” and then YOU and ONLY YOU disagreeing with them. The FAQ itself was added on March 1st (also without discussion), a bit more than a week into the invasion. The “initial strengths only” thing made sense back then. It doesn’t make sense now, almost a year into the invasion. Indeed, the FAQ clearly states This may change in future when more information becomes available.. Guess what? It’s changed.

Likewise your insistence that “there are no sources” is simply false. I added a source for Wagner. You removed it. Sure, “there are no sources” if you remove them. But please don’t pretend that such sources don’t exist.

It’s likewise false that saying “you are editing warring” is “making allegations”. You made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. Of three different editors! [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. That’s “edit warring” under even the most charitable interpretation of “edit warring”. If you had made one more revert I would have simply reported you. And yes, I will do that if you continue (as is standard procedure, you get a warning first).

Finally, your assertion that I’m the only one who is trying to make these changes and only Michael supports me (which would still be more support than you have) is likewise false. Here are three other editors restoring my changes in whole in part [40], [41], [42], [43]. If I’m the “only one” here, how exactly did you manage to revert three different editors in less than 24 hours?

And WP:ONUS can be abused. If I “challenge” having strengths in the info box at all, does that mean that you’ll have to start an RfC to restore it? By omitting important information - like the fact that the Wagner Group is currently the strongest and most active Russian force in the war, which seems kind of, you know, pertinent - we are simply misinforming our readers. Volunteer Marek 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And speaking of incivility, you don’t think that expressions like telling an editor that they’re, quote, “getting their knickers in a twist”, isn’t uncivil? Volunteer Marek

No I don't think that characterising the past discussions that way is uncivil but since you allege that it is, I have struck the phrase. As far as I can see, you are the only editor that has inserted the Wagner Group material. You may not like WP:ONUS but it is part of policy that does require discussion to achieve consensus before the re-addition of contested material. What I actually said re sources was: There are no reliable sources that give comparable strengths ... The source you give (or at least your edit) does not establish a comparison as at December 2022. It is a misrepresentation to say Likewise your insistence that “there are no sources” is simply false. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap, I just noticed that three of the five sources for “strength” in the infobox are from… 2021! So it’s not even “initial strength” but “strength one year before the invasion”. This is really really sloppy and bad. Desperately needs updating. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And ooops, the two other sources are from Feb 2022 but they’re 2021 data. So this is just pure original research and the claim that these are “initial numbers” is just a misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Strength update

The infobox “Strength” section is pre-invasion and rightly tagged as “needs update.” Here’s a proposed update that adds uncontroversial figures for widely known changes, helping convey the dynamics of the last year.

Strength
Russia Pre-invasion: 169,000–190,000 (including military, paramilitary, and 34,000 separatist militias)^[1]^[2] Partial mobilization Sep 2022: +300,000^[3] As of late 2022: +50,000 mercenaries^[3]	Ukraine: Pre-invasion: 196,600 military^[4] 102,000 paramilitary^[4] Active strength Jul 2022: 700,000^[5]

References

^ Bengali, Shashank (18 February 2022). "The U.S. says Russia's troop buildup could be as high as 190,000 in and near Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
^ Hackett, James, ed. (February 2021). The Military Balance 2021 (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-1-03-201227-8. OCLC 1292198893. OL 32226712M.
^ ^a ^b "Russia", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2023-01-18, retrieved 2023-01-19
^ ^a ^b The Military Balance 2022. International Institute for Strategic Studies. February 2022. ISBN 9781000620030 – via Google Books.
^ "Ukraine", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2023-01-18, retrieved 2023-01-19

Better sources are welcome, but I think these are considered reliable and get across the gist of what is knowable about committed strengths (losses are a separate issue and a separate table row). —Michael Z. 17:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A minor point in interpretation: the Russian pre-invasion figures are the estimates of forces that were positioned in and around Ukraine in a ready posture one week before the invasion. The Ukrainian pre-invasion figures are active forces in 2021, but given that Ukraine mobilized on invasion+1, it is a reasonable start number. I believe there may be sources that improve on the Ukrainian figure more specifically on Ukrainian forces’ status and numbers in Jan–Feb 2022, including Territorial Defence forces that were training intensively at the time (but please offer numbers in service, not anticipated numbers to be recruited). —Michael Z. 17:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Volunteer Marek, we could add a note next to "+50,000 mercenaries" listing all of these kind of groups, or at least the major ones. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That should work. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and implement this? Current infobox is kind of ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I support it. Also, since my comment about commanders was left unreplied, I will take the liberty to add some relevant commanders. I'm expecting a revert in a few hours. Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This not a summary per se but a collation of information. There is nuance to these figures which is best dealt with in the body of the article. Suitable infobox entries would report "peak strength" or the total which has|was committed. We have no knowledge of either of these figures. The tabulation gives us no comparison at a particular point in time. Per FAQ 5, the only comparison we have at a particular point is at or about the beginning of the invasion (and the figures are reported as such). Unless there are other sources giving revised figures as at that point in time, these figures for the starting strengths are not requiring an update. In my opinion, the tagging serves no useful purpose in respect to building a consensus for change. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We're still listing almost one-year old figures that have doubled or tripled ever since. Of course the tags are necessary. Super Ψ Dro 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Per FAQ 5 This may change in future when more information becomes available. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, I have added an excerpt of the strength section of the infobox representative of the long-standing way strengths have been reported per this version of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made a request at WT:MILHIST here for further input on the change made. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Commanders

Since we're discussing parts of the infobox that have been left untouched for months, I was wondering if we could get something out of discussing the commanders section. There are several other figures we could add. Denys Pushylin, Leonid Pasichnyk, Sergei Shoigu or Oleksandr Syrskyi come to my mind. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War lists commanders, and so do Southern Ukraine campaign or Kyiv offensive (2022) for example. Super Ψ Dro 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pushilin and Pasichnyk are civilian occupation officials. I don’t believe they are in the military chain of command, and I highly doubt they have any influence on military operations apart from having to manage civilian adjuncts like conscription and PR in the colonies. Absent references supporting that they actually influence command of the DLNR formations (which are under command of the 8th Combined Arms Army), I would not include them.

“Commanders” should certainly have the soldiers with the highest profiles:

AFU C-in-C Valerii Zaluzhnyi.

Zaluzhnyi’s counterpart as armed forces commander is Russian CoGS Valery Gerasimov.

And his counterparts as commander of military operations have been Russian “SMO” commanders Valery Gerasimov (appointed Jan 11), Sergey Surovikin (Oct 8), Aleksandr Dvornikov (c. April 10,[44] possibly sacked in June)[45], and before that no overall command of the four separate military districts.[46] —Michael Z. 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Command is vital to military success and in this case an important explanation for the overall Ukrainian success and Russian failure. It is an egregious omission that this overview is still missing from the infobox eleven months in. —Michael Z. 17:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added all those you mentioned, plus Syrskyi for commanding the defence of Kyiv and organising the Kharkiv counteroffensive. I thought of adding the DLPR leaders since Putin and Zelenskyy are both included, but really I am not sure of the official (not de facto) powers the DLPR leaders have in comparison to the other two. Are there other commanders we could add? Super Ψ Dro 21:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War includes Prigozhin in the list of Russian commanders. Which is a bit strange in my opinion. We should either include him here or exclude him from there. Super Ψ Dro 21:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to Prigozhin, I think he has potential to be included someday, but not yet. He's only really been important in Soledar and Bakhmut so far, I believe. I'd exclude him from both articles for now, but be open to adding him back in if he continues to be consistently relevant. HappyWith (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment There is an RfC awaiting close that directly relates to this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict. It would be prudent to pause this discussion until the RfC is closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You've removed information based on a two-month old RfC with five participants? Sorry but no. The relevance of some of the added commanders is reflected on the article, exactly as you want it to be. There is no reason to remove anything. Super Ψ Dro 09:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, you added the content with a statement here: I'm expecting a revert in a few hours. You are aware of at least the most recent discussion on this and a position that: in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and Template:Infobox military conflict, the body of the article should evidence how/why a particular leaders/commander was key or significant to a conflict through more than a passing mention that they simply held a position. (quoted from the RfC with punctuation amended) You have reinstated edits to the template prior to posting here. You have also made some minor edits to the article with respect to the names you would add (also before your initial edit to the template for them). You initial edit was reverted, citing WP:ONUS, which places a burden to establish consensus. By your actions, I am not seeing that you are engaging in a collegiate way to establish consensus. In the earlier discussion, I stated that inclusion of Aleksandr Dvornikov might meet the threshold because one mention did suggest something of some substance, but nobody was actually prepared to consider and discuss this specific case as an exception among the others.

I agree with Mzajac when he states; Command is vital to military success and in this case an important explanation for the overall Ukrainian success and Russian failure. I also agree with what follows but for different reasons. It is an egregious omission that the article does not address how [c]ommand is vital to military success and in this case an important explanation for the overall Ukrainian success and Russian failure. We should focus on remedying the body of the article rather than trying to write the article in the infobox. Name-dropping to create passing mentions is not a solution to the fundamental issue identified by Michael. Improve the article and the rest will follow naturally without disruption, conflict or a need to force the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC) PS you still haven't established a consensus exists for the material reinstated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I made that statement because I imagined someone would object for some reason, as happens with literally any change in the infobox. I opened this subsection for discussing the issue days prior to me including the commanders on the infobox, and there was no objection, even though there was enough time to express so. I did seek consensus, and anyway, now that we're discussing this the process is continuing. By the way, through my initial comment in this subsection you can realise I was not aware of earlier discussions on commanders.

I am willing to improve the article to support the inclusion of commanders here, but I would like to receive an example from you. What is an article supposed to say about commanders for them to be included? There isn't really any appropriate place to do so here. I added a second mention to Syrskyi in the main body, he could be the first focus of this effort. Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok Super Dromaeosaurus, let's start with a clean slate, though it would be nice to revert the changes to the infobox until we come to a consensus. It is getting late here but basically it is what Michael said, explaining how command (and commanders) have been vital to success or failure. This would then evidence why particular commanders have been key or significant to a conflict and justify their inclusion in the infobox. This is the short version. I will get back to you with more detail. Good night and regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted. I am not sure how could this be explained. We have several sources discussing the importance of Syrskyi. He quite literally came up with the Kharkiv counteroffensive ("Since at least the spring, Syrsky had been considering the Kharkiv region", "When orders went out from the Ukrainian General Staff last summer for commanders to come up with possible diversionary operations to draw Russian forces away from the defense of Kherson, Syrsky knew what he would propose."). We also know some tactics he used in Kharkiv were replicated by Ukrainian commanders in Kherson ("Tarnavsky, the new commander, said he applied some of the principles he and Syrsky had used in Kharkiv, attacking where the Russians least expected it."). He is even said to be "the most successful general of the 21st century so far" [47]. Do you propose I add information of this kind into the article? Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I posted a request for closure. IMO this is ridiculous: posting an obtuse RFC about a template that affects thousands of articles, letting that discussion sit stale, and demanding that progress halt here indefinitely. It’s disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, the longer version. King George was an important and significant leader of the UK during WW2 but he is neither mentioned in the infobox nor the article at all and without detriment. I said that Aleksandr Dvornikov might meet the threshold. This is because the article states: They also benefited from centralising command under General Dvornikov. This is a pretty thin statement but at least it [begins to] shows that his command was in some way significant and he isn't just a talking head. If the source allowed us to attribute the changes reported in the preceding sentence to his leadership, then we would be closer. This counteroffensive was led by general Syrskyi, the one mention in the body is a passing mention. It is telling us nothing about the significance of his leadership, only that he was there. Zaluzhnyi is mentioned once for reporting that an explosion was caused by a missile attack. That could have been done by anybody in government. Describing him as a major Ukrainian commander during the war tells us nothing of substance. Surovikin is mentioned thrice but in reality, the prose could be rewritten to one mention without any loss of information. How is the Gerasimov doctrine relevent to this article or is it just there to mention his name again?. That is why the status quo really doesn't support adding others than the two presidents. To the type of things you suggest - yes. The aim is to show (critically) how their command has influenced the course of the battle (good or bad) and thereby establish for the reader why they have been key or significant to the conflict. Closely paraphasing Michael, The aim is to show how command has been vital to military success (or failure) and in this case an important explanation for the overall Ukrainian success and Russian failure. This might actually become a section. I do hope that this is helpful. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Images of commanders

Note: This is a discussion fork not directly related to the discussion of commanders in the infobox. I have moved the image from where it was dropped in mid discussion to where it is actually being commented on. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations in 2022), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Valery Gerasimov (current Commander of Field Operations and author of the Gerasimov doctrine, assigned in 2023 after Dvornikov)

@User:ErnestKrause, regarding the image box above, Zhuravlev was commander of the Western MD, never of the overall campaign as far as I can tell from sources. —Michael Z. 18:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Out with Zhuravlyov and in with Gerasimov. Images updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So how about one box with Reznikov and Zaluzhnyi, and another with Shoigu and Gerasimov? These are the people at the highest level, they are recognizable and in the news, and they have been constant throughout the conflict.

An alternative would be to contrast one with just Zaluzhnyi, to another with the parade of Russian supreme theatre commanders Dvornikov, Surovikin, and Gerasimov. —Michael Z. 06:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There was, a few months ago, an image of Putin with Shoigu in the prefatory sections here which has since been archived. I'm thinking that it might make sense to include in the Phase 3 section an image of Gerasimov since he is currently the one in charge for Russia. Possibly Cinderella and Super Dro may have an opinion if you ping them. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there an actual proposal to go with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the approach is either to revive the Putin-Shoigu image which was released, or to include some version of Michael's suggestion about the Russian big-3 multi-image, or to just add an image of Gerasimov to the Phase 3 section. Any preferences from other editors about which images might improve the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If Michael would like to restore the previous image of Putin with Shoigu, then I'll likely support him. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Location

In the Russo-Ukrainian War page it lists Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus as the location of the war. Curently the 2022 Russian invasion page just lists Ukraine plus a lengthy footnote including information on donbas, crimea, poland, and moldova. Should it be updated to simply state: Ukraine, Russia (with a link to 2022 Western Russia Attacks wikipedia article), and spillover into Poland and Moldova? BogLogs (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Vietnam War article does list Cambodia and Loas as part of the warfare which took place there. I'm not sure that Ukraine has any real plans to invade Russia at this time, and to turn Russian territory into war zones. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This article already lists Russia and a number of other places in a footnote. My question is wether it would be better for readers if it is written succinctly and clearly rather than placed in an easily missable footnote.

Again, The general Russo-Ukrainian War page lists clearly Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus as the location of the war (with a link to 2022 Western Russia attacks). Wether the war expands wider in Russia or not is not the issue as it is already included across both articles. BogLogs (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support+ Russia should be added in open text, for obvious reasons: multiple, prominent attacks on objectives in Russia.

Belarus was recently added there based on events covered in this article, after a discussion and consensus. It should be added here too, based on the same rationale and for consistency.

The “spillover” can remain in the footnote. Although it is serious, it is still not an intentional part of invasion or of a large enough scale to occupy such a prominent place. —Michael Z. 03:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was actually slightly unsure about Belarus, if the level of activity there was enough to include it as a war location, but with those points I'd find it fine to include them as well. BogLogs (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure, to be honest. Like the Vietnam War, it does list Cambodia and Laos being involved in the war, but it's not like that with the Russo-Ukrainian War. Military aid and missile attacks don't really count as invading(In Poland and other countries, not Ukraine). Unless military forces invade these countries, it does not count(At least for me). I'm going to be Neutral for now... ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox docs tell us location is “the location of the conflict,” not only “objective of the invader.” There have been advances and withrawals across two international borders. There have been strikes crossing one of them one way, and the other both ways. There have been infiltrations in both directions.

Launching a ballistic missile over Russia or Belarus is part of the conflict. Blowing up a strategic bomber in Russia is part of the conflict. The location we give should not pretend otherwise. —Michael Z. 22:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

But then would it be the same for the Vietnam War and other famous wars then? Cuba and a few other countries were sending military aid to North Vietnam, so what does that make for the U. S. and NATO for Ukraine, right?

What if like Russia just suddenly uses missiles on the U. S.? They would not really be involved until the U. S. declares war(Like in WW2), correct? Military aid, missile attacks on different countries and declaring war are very different.

I don't want to start a argument, I don't want to start a war, I'm sticking to my comment, and that's final. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and including your reasoning. I think you are correct when it comes to belligerents, that it requires them to be fighting (though the great majority of conflicts since WWII have not had declarations of war). But the location of the war is just the physical location of the areas involved. The Vietnam War article you mentioned even lists all of these locations rather than just Vietnam "South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South China Sea, Gulf of Thailand". Maybe you are thinking of previous discussions about listing supporters in the infobox?

Also again, and sorry if this is repeating myself a lot, the location is already accepted as including Ukraine, Russia, and others on both the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page and the this page. If anything this is just a format change for consistency, clarity, and the benefit of article readers. BogLogs (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment as well. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright it's been about a week and the issue seems relatively uncontentious so I will follow WP:BOLD and make the proposed changes for the location. BogLogs (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Losses on both sides

Russian losses 23 planes, 56 helicopters, 200 drones, 889 tanks and armored vehicles, 427 artillery pieces, 12 anti-aircraft systems, 18,480 dead, 44,500 wounded, 323 captured. number of soldiers in the field 418,000, reserve 3,500,000 a massive influx of salarymen from abroad was observed in the Wagner unit Ukrainians lost 302 planes, 212 helicopters, 2750 drones, 6320 tanks and armored vehicles, 7360 artillery pieces, 497 anti-aircraft systems, 157,000 dead, 234,000 wounded 17230 prisoners, the number of soldiers on the ground 734000 mobilization for the filling of military units in the amount of 100,000 soldiers is underway.. 234 dead NATO soldiers (officers, instructors, operatives, US GB,) 2458 dead NATO soldiers (Poland, Germany, Lithuania...) 5360 dead mercenaries

data from 14.01.2023. 178.237.218.40 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is the citation for this? Is it substantiated? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

From the best intelligence service in the world... The rest about the great Russian losses is for your simple world in the so-called west, but the reality is much different from what you want. 178.237.216.109 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

New articles are needed

New articles are needed because new battles broke out during December and January. There are at least five new current and potential hotspots, and one new hotspot in the south was opened by the Russians today, which should be monitored in the coming days. It is the offensive near Orihiv. However, there are three or more battles in Donbas that are worth mentioning.

1. Battle of Bilogorovka - A very serious and active front that lasts for a long time from November or December. Active and heavy fighting is on the edge of that city.

2. Battle of Serebyanka - The front was opened on Tuesday, January 17, after the Russian capture of Soledar with the aim of approaching Seversk from the north.

3. Battle of Velyka Novosilka - I drafted that article in the DRAFT category, and the Russians launched an offensive against this town in early January. I'm not sure the battle gained momentum, but the fighting intensified.

4. Battle of Orikhiv - The Russians launched an offensive today. We will know whether it will continue in the coming days.

5. Second Battle of Siversk - The first two battles that I consider to be active and ripe for a new article are aimed precisely at the Battle of Siversk. Whether that battle will take place depends on how strong the Ukrainian side will be to resist Russian pressure at Bilogorovka and Serebyanka. — Baba Mica (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct spelling would be Bilohorivka, Luhansk Oblast, Serebrianka, Donetsk Oblast. —Michael Z. 06:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. I am terribly annoyed by this violent Ukrainization of Russophone cities in Donbas where I can't manage now with the grammar of changing letters (from "o" and "e" to Latin "i" which has nothing to do with the old Ukrainian language). These linguistic laboratory experiments cause me a lot of problems in the English language as well, because Wikipedia, following the anti-Russian hysteria of the political elites, tries to adjust itself with grammatical corrections, which leads me to write "wrongly" because the old names remained in my memory, and now they are being changed artificially on the fly .

Belogorovka = Bilohorivka

Avdeevka = Avdiivka

Orehov = Orihiv

Makeevka = Makiivka

Severodonetsk = Siverdonetsk

Seversk = Sieversk

What grammatical hell. Especially on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, where I don't know what is Cyrillic and what is Latin when I want to translate something from Ukrainian sources and find more detailed information about an event because there is a war going on there. This whole Ukrainian cliché is followed by the Wikipedias of Western countries (especially in English) and then the names are changed on the fly, and if I write an old name, then I am criticized because I write "incorrectly". Unfortunately, everything is politics. And Wikipedia is an instrument of daily politics which is changing on the fly. Yesterday one rule applies, today another rule applies, and tomorrow the third rule applies or it will go back to the first rules. It all depends on the results and the final outcome of the war. Until I recover my health, I will not be able to create new articles and someone should try to dig up the english, ukrainian and russian sources of the start of the battle of Bilohorivka. I think it started in late November or early December last year. The Russians are there non stop at the entrance to that little place but they can't take it at all for two or even three months while the Ukrainians dug in there with the aim of having from there a springboard for an attack on Lysychansk and Sieverdonietsk. God grant that I spelled these last names correctly. — Baba Mica (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Countries and cities change names based on events. The cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad are examples that quickly come to mind. Granted everyone can be cut a little slack when the names are changed very recently. BogLogs (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a pretty big difference between cities formally given entirely new names (as with Leningrad/St. Petersburg and Stalingrad/Volgograd), and the less-organized adoption of new spellings of the same name on the fly, not least because some of the Ukrainicized corrections may not enjoy WP:COMMONNAME status in English press yet. It's a messy situation complicated by the ongoing war, as the long-term COMMONNAME may well end up dictated by which country ends up holding a given location once the dust settles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see your point but that sounds like reasoning for not updating names until the end of war (which would require quite a crystal ball to forsee). For now if Ukraine changes the names/spellings we should do our best to follow them as they become theWP:COMMONNAME.Or at the very least to mention both the new and previous ones in articles introductions. BogLogs (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The solution is that we follow COMMONNAME, which may well mean that some places get spelled one way today and another way next year. There's no sense waiting because we don't even know what to wait for: the needs of the encyclopedia's readers dictate that we should use the most recognizable names to the readership. Recognizability is also context-dependent, which is why we still write Chicken Kiev or Battle of Lemberg while articles about modern topics will use modern spellings. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s nonsense. There’s a standardized system for romanization of Ukrainian place names, and it’s almost identical to the most widely used other system in the English language (ALA-LC), unlike in Russian. Ukrainian-derived names are practically all widely accepted now except like two: Chornobyl and Prypiat.

You can complain about the “messiness” to the Russian and Soviet colonizers and to the Russian invaders, because we can’t do anything about that. —Michael Z. 00:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Orikhiv (х = kh, г = h, ґ = g), Sievierodonetsk (Сєвєродонецьк, an exonym from Russian), and Siversk. Just deal with it. —Michael Z. 00:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the fight for Orikhiv, and the whole abortive Zaporizhzhia offensive by Russia didn't go anywhere. I'd wait on that. HappyWith (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be the case for now as far as the southern front is concerned, but we will know in the coming days and weeks. However, two battles began for two strategic cities on the Zaporizhzhya-Donbass line in the west-east direction. These are the cities and the Battle of Kamenskoe (January 22 - ongoing) and yesterday's long-awaited Battle of Vuhledar (January 24 - ongoing). Special articles with special attention should definitely be opened for these cities. For this second battle, there is already my draft from last year with certain additions to be placed in the context of the BACKGROUND and PRELUDE. If fighting breaks out for the city of Orikhiv, then there is also my draft that can be easily supplemented under the title Battle of Orikhiv (January 19 - today). Since the fighting for Orihiv has subsided compared to the period 19 - 24 January, all attention should be directed to Kamenskoe, for which a new article or draft is needed, and of course to Vuhledar, for which there is already a draft, and it is in danger of falling quickly like Berdyansk and Kherson, which the Russians captured in the first days of the war, or such as Balakleya, Kupyansk and Liman during the Ukrainian eastern counter-offensive in the fall. If the fighting continues, the article "Battle of the line Kamenskoe - Vuhledar" (January 19, 2023 -?) can be made if the Russian forces do nothing in this uproar until the German Leopards and American Abrams arrive. It can develop into real tank battles, the likes of which have not been seen in this war. The latter is a total hypothesis and we will see in the spring. Before spring, it is necessary to open at least one or two articles that can easily be merged into one big article "The Zaporizhia Offensive" (if the Russians quickly defeat the AFU) or "The Battle of Kamenskoe - Vuhledar Line" or "The Battle of the Zaporizhzhya - Donetsk Line" ( if the fighting escalates like in the western suburbs of Donetsk or on the Svatovo-Kremina line). — Baba Mica (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Bilohorivka, Serebryanka, and Siversk, those three towns are within such a close proximity to each other that the articles would overlap too much. Outside of Siversk, it is hard to find information about the two towns worth noting. Ukrainian general staff posts repulsed attacks, Russian MoD posts successes in the area, and it is very hard to paint a clear picture of any notability in the area since September simply due to the ping-pong back and forth of information and the impossibility of discerning what is true or not. If more information comes out regarding the status of Bilohorivka, a page titled Bilohorivka in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would work best for the numerous battles that have taken place and to encase the school bombing back in June, similar to the page Shire in the Tigray War.

The talk page on the Battle of Huliaipole actually references your question about Orikhiv, and a user proposed the idea of shifting the page towards a battle about the Zaporizhzhia frontline as a whole instead of certain cities. Huliaipole and Orikhiv both had fighting inside the town back in March, but Ukraine won although the contact line has been frozen just miles from the towns. Regarding Velyka Novosilka, Russia has claimed multiple offensives all with little tangible success since the frontline stalled south of the area in March, and unless something truly major and notable occurs, it isn't worth it's own article.

On Vuhledar, unless the recent Russian offensive in the town achieves tangible success or other importance, it may be best to shift it and the battle of Pavlivka into a page about the southern Donetsk campaign stretching from Velyka Novosilka to southern Marinka. Small towns like Kamianske, Novomykhailivka, and Krasnohorivka (both of them) are too small too deserve their own pages due to a lack of notability outside of general staff and MoD reports. Jebiguess (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The second battle for Siversk has not even started yet, even though it is a significant city. However, Russian troops are still 30 km away from that city. Bilohorivka is a small place, but it is twice as big as Vuhledar and Marinko and Popasnaj and Toškivka, while its population is almost similar to Soledar. In contrast to the larger cities of Kreminna, Rubizhne, Liman, Severodonetsk and Lysichansk, Bilohorivka turned out to be a much stronger point of resistance of the armed forces of Ukraine and that in two phases. At the same time, many more people died in the fighting for the small town of Bilohorivka than for Kremenna, which in the first phase fell in 1 day, Liman in 4 days, Lisichansk in 8 days, Siverodonetsk in 50 days and Rubizhne in 70 days of fighting. In the battles for Bilohorivka, unlike the other fronts, mostly Russian casualties were much higher during the first Russian offensive in May and June and if we take into account the Kharkov counter-offensive (September - October 2022) when the Ukrainians regained the city in a blitz and when we take into account taking into account the heavy fighting in the city after the Ukrainian return of Bilohorivka and the heavy fighting in November. The number of victims is huge, and the level of destruction is terrifying. Bilohorivka is very important both politically and militarily for both sides. Why? For the Ukrainian side, Bilohorivka politically serves their, but also the world's public opinion that Ukraine is still militarily present in the Luhansk Oblast south of the Donetsk River. Militarily, it is significant as a strong military base and fortress and a springboard for eventual offensive actions in the direction of the much larger cities mentioned above, among which Lisichansk is the closest, but also the cities of Severodonetsk, across the Donetsk River. Compare those small battles in the Kiev region, e.g. Slavotuč, Ivankiv and Makariv in relation to Bilohorivka, which took thousands or tens of thousands of lives, is ridiculous. The second is that Ukrainians attach so much importance to those places, but the battles near Kiev, when added together, are not even a fifth of the number of victims near Bilohorivka. Baba Mica (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that Bilohorivka has seen more casualties on both sides than many earlier battles like Makariv and Slavutych, the difference is the information output we have from both of those. We can map the battles of Makariv and other earlier ones down to an hour-by-hour basis, but the going on seven months of fighting in Bilohorivka and the inability for any sources to truly assess the situation means we know, and consequently have, very little to go off of regarding the battle and how and when it panned out. In other words, while a page is necessary for Bilohorivka, it is not necessary at the moment, and should be created when the war is over and it is possible to gather stories and evidence determining the notability of the town.

Not to mention, pre-war Bilohorivka had a population of 818, down to 30 last I checked (which was in November), and probably less now. Marinka pre-war was 9,400, down to none, and Popasna and Toshkivka both had 10-15k inhabitants. The only determinant of Bilohorivka's notability is the fact it was the last town in Luhansk Obl. under Ukrainian control for a while and the holdout in the oblast for months.

Overall, the situation on the frontlines is slumbered compared to previous months, and there is no need for any new pages as there are no major offensive operations ongoing; only planned by both sides. Jebiguess (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Change word 'illegal' in annexations for POV

Change the line

'Soon after, Russia announced the illegal annexation of four partly occupied oblasts.'

to

'Soon after, Russia announced the internationally unrecognised annexation of four partly occupied oblasts.'

(Or some similar equivalent)

The word 'illegal' is POV since under Russian law the annexations were legal. Sources also seem to stress that the 'west' specifically finds the referendums illegal. I am aware that some sources such as the BBC do outright call the referendums illegal, but it seems far more stress the west finds them illegal.

The following were not cherrypicked, they were taken straight from the top of my google search when I searched for 'Russian Annexations'

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-kyiv-moscow-0e7634dcfc648276b9af1ee19535cd3f " Russia positioned itself Wednesday to formally annex parts of Ukraine where occupied areas held a Kremlin-orchestrated “referendum” on living under Moscow’s rule that the Ukrainian government and the West denounced as illegal and rigged. "

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-international-law-donetsk-9fcd11c11936dd700db94ab725f2b7d6 "The annexation followed Kremlin-orchestrated “referendums” in Ukraine that the Ukrainian government and the West have dismissed as illegitimate."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/30/putin-announces-russian-annexation-of-four-ukrainian-regions " Western governments and Kyiv have dismissed the hastily organised votes as breaching international law, and charge they were coercive and wholly unrepresentative." - notably the source does not explicitly use the word 'illegal'

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-lower-house-approves-annexation-four-ukrainian-regions-2022-10-03/ " The lower house of Russia's parliament approved laws on Monday on annexing four occupied Ukrainian territories into Russia, following hastily organised votes that Ukraine and the West denounced as coercive and illegitimate "

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-30/russia-ukraine-annex-is-it-legitimate-world-reactions/101485414 "Moscow is poised to annex parts of Ukraine, following what Kyiv and the West have denounced as illegal, sham referendums held at gunpoint."

I think Wikipedia should refrain from automatically taking a Western POV as an objective truth. However it is an objective fact that the UN general assembly overwhelmingly called the annexations illegal, so I think it is fair to call the annexations internationally unrecognised. 120.154.39.104 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

However it is an objective fact that the UN general assembly overwhelmingly called the annexations illegal, so I think it is fair to call the annexations internationally unrecognised - I don't understand this logic. If the UN calls it illegal, why would we use different phrasing? Indeed, the fact that the UN has called it illegal shows that it's not just a western viewpoint. — Czello 08:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The UN did not call it illegal (since the 'UN' does not have the power to do this). The UN General Assembly called it illegal, which is an assembly of inherently political nations.

The United Nations general assembly is not an objective arbiter of law - it is a political force just as any other. As can be seen from the map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/4 although the internationally community overwhelmingly called it illegal, large chunks of the third world (notably the two major powers of India and China) abstained, and is a small minority that do not believe it is illegal.

The fact that not only the government of Russia, but also the government China and the government of India clearly do not see the invasion as illegal means that calling it illegal is POV. This is in addition to the sources that often state that the annexations are viewed as illegal by the west rather than outright calling them illegal. 120.154.39.104 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that China and India didn't vote against calling it illegal, they only abstained. Furthermore, positioning this as a west vs east thing (where illegality is concerned) isn't accurate. There's plenty of non-western nations that consider the invasion illegal. Most of Africa and the Middle-East, south and south-east Asia, pacific islands, Japan and Korea - the list goes on. With 143 nations calling it illegal and only 5 against, I don't think it's POV to label the annexations as illegal. — Czello 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A dose of common sense is required. The referendums were blatantly illegal under international law (one country invading then annexing land from another) and you won't find any serious experts saying otherwise. In the UN General Assembly, only Russia (the aggressor) and a handful of its most corrupt, outcast and dependent allied dictatorships (e.g. Syria, North Korea, Belarus) voted against condemning the obvious crime. That Russia's other allies and partners (China, India) abstained is in fact interpreted by experts as a rejection of the annexations: an indication they were so blatantly unjustifiable that they couldn't be supported without damage to other countries' reputations. A refusal to condemn (abstention), while a poor reflection on the governments which do so, isn't a sign that these governments' position is that the referendums were legal. Jr8825 • Talk 09:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

' The referendums were blatantly illegal under international law '

I agree with this, However as the article currently stands that sentence does not specify international law - it just claims its illegality in absolute terms. The annexations were objectively legal under any reasonable interpretation of Russian law, and objectively illegal under any reasonable interpretation of Ukranian law, thus saying 'illegal' is POV favouring one side.

The rest of your comment appears to be mostly speculation. 120.154.39.104 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting. The Criminal Code of Russia ch 34 defines Crimes Against Peace and Mankind’s Security:[48]

353. Planning, Preparing, Unleashing, or Waging on Aggressive War
354. Public Appeals to Unleash an Aggressive War
356. Use of Banned Means and Methods of Warfare
357. Genocide
358. Ecocide
359. Mercenarism

—Michael Z. 19:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article I posted above, this is what I believe a clear summary of that resolution:

'Resolution ES‑11/4 declares that Russia's so-called referendums in the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts and the subsequent attempted annexation are invalid and illegal under international law'

Since China and India (As well as Russia) did not vote yes, they definitionally must have had at least some objection to its illegality, however minor. The question was very straightforward.

Also this is getting a little bit sidetracked but making it appear as 143v5 is slightly biased language, the opposite end of bias could say 143 countries believed it was illegal, while 50 countries did not entirely support its illegality (note this is not my specific view, this is just pointing out it is easy to twist numbers to suit an agenda, not to accuse you of specifically trying to be biased).

In terms of 'Furthermore, positioning this as a west vs east thing (where illegality is concerned) isn't accurate', I personally agree with this stance, however my personal views on this shouldn't get in the way of the fact that most reliable sources tend to paint this as a West vs Russia thing.

The word 'illegal' is definitive, and Wikipedia and its objective voice (I believe ) should not use that word specifically until there is no clear opposing view as to the absolute nature of the illegality of those referendums. 120.154.39.104 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you're making the (common) mistake of thinking that governments' official positions shape the "truth" as we on Wikipedia record it. We don't treat officials, politicians and diplomats as subject-matter experts, and therefore we don't value them to the same extent as academic or (high reputation-) journalistic sources. Because those types of sources say Russia's annexation is illegal, that's what we say too. Also, Resolution ES‑11/4 demanded Russia's immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, which is a reason why India or China could justify abstaining while still saying they don't endorse the annexations − such is the twisted world of international diplomacy. Jr8825 • Talk 09:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"I think you're making the (common) mistake of thinking that governments' official positions shape the "truth" as we on Wikipedia record it. We don't treat official politicians and diplomats as subject-matter experts, and therefore we don't value them to the same extent as academic or (high reputation-) journalistic sources."

Under normal circumstances you are correct, but as this topic relates to international law, and as international law is determined by countries and their inherently political governments, I would argue it is at least tangentially valuable to determining whether the word 'illegal' should be used.

As per the comment " Because those types of sources say Russia's annexation is illegal, that's what we say too ", i believe i have supplied many reliable sources that show the annexations are phrased as illegal from a western POV rather than outright illegal. 120.154.39.104 (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Support - The unqualified word "illegal" doesn't make sense in this kind of context, particularly not before any kind of postmortem war crimes tribunal has taken place. There are plenty of more accurate terms that could be squeezed in there somewhere, like "widely condemned" or "widely recognized as illegal". Honestly though, those terms have already been covered elsewhere in the lead, so I would just recommend removing the word "illegal" and keeping the rest of the sentence as-is. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose there is no POV, it is objectively illegal under international law. Although you can add those three words to clarify. Synotia (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and close discussion. These annexations are illegal (under international law, Russian law can say pigs fly for all we care) and we should not spend one single minute having to discuss to prove this. It is definitively not "Western POV". Super Ψ Dro 14:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose blatant ignorance of international law, favoring Russian law over international law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galebazz (talk • contribs)

Well its illegal where I come from. RS say it was illegal. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The proposal’s argument is flawed. Many statements rely on false logic, for example, that because China abstained from voting in a resolution, that proves that China disagrees with a specific statement in the resolution (can you count the ways in which that is wrong?).

I believe the UN generally doesn’t say something is legal or not until proven in court. But the UNGA does make certain key statements in its resolutions, and UN agencies use them as a basis for their operations. For example, a 2017 report[49] by the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights refers specifically to two UNGA resolutions on Ukraine, and uses their language, including “temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),” Russia is the “occupying power,” etc. In case you don’t know, occupying sovereign territory is illegal.

Within its own area of competence, the OHCHR report also notes many, many Russian violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), UN resolutions, international treaties, and Ukraine’s constitution and laws (which the report says the occupying power is obligated to uphold according to IHL). It also notes that in 2016 the International Criminal Court found that the RF occupies Crimea.

On March 7, 2022, the UN’s International Court of Justice issued a binding order on the Russian Federation to “immediately suspend the military operations” (Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)). Russia illegally continued military operations. On of the judges also noted that the UNGA designated Russia the perpetrator of aggression against Ukraine.

By the way, the annexations were even against the Russian Federation’s constitution and laws, which prohibit wars of aggression and a lot of other crimes that the gangsters in the Kremlin routinely commit not only with impunity, but through direct control of Russian courts.

The wording can probably be improved, since Russia didn’t literally announce “illegal annexation” in those words. But this proposal doesn’t address that. —Michael Z. 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Support while a great number of countries and their media consider Russia's annexations "illegal", Wikipedia must remain neutral as per its policies. So therefore the wording should be changed. --WR 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter of neutrality, but of fact. Though I believe we should specify under international law. Synotia (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Under international law, under Ukrainian law in Ukraine, and I’m pretty sure it’s illegal under Russian law (even if you call the war of aggression an “SMO”). Every applicable law. You can qualify it if you like, but less wordy to name all of the laws under which it’s legal, which is none. —Michael Z. 00:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has committed at least 7 of the 8 crimes against peace and mankind’s security in Russian law.[50] —Michael Z. 20:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The "Russian POV" also says that Ukraine is run by gay satanist Nazis, but we don't need to give that POV "fair coverage", per WP:FALSEBALANCE. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources call the "annexations" illegal, we don't need to cover the WP:FRINGE viewpoint that they weren't. HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment The lead presently reads: ... Russia announced the illegal annexation .... The purpose of the lead is to summarise key points of the article. Content in the lead should therefore be supported by the body. A citation is generally not required in the lead on the premise that citations exist within the body to support the summarised statement in the lead. The statement in the lead may also be done in a Wiki voice if this is supported by the body of the article that the overwhelming prevailing opinion (supported by good quality sources) is that the act was illegal. Turning to the body of the article, the legality of the annexations is not raised at all. The best we have (at the Annexations section) is: Ukraine, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations all condemned the annexation. The body of the article, as it stands (stood), does not support us summarising the annexations as illegal in the lead. We have not complied with prevailing WP:P&G, permitting us to make such a statement in the lead and it might be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV. Hovever, I have now edited the body so it reads: Ukraine, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations all condemned the annexation as illegal. The body of the article now reflects the illegality of the annexations and goes some way to evidence this is the overwhelming prevailing opinion. We now have a leg to stand on but it might be stronger, since it is supported by a news source, albeit one reporting the opinions of the bodies mentioned. We would be on firmer ground by adding a note such to establish this the overwhelming prevailing opinion expressed in good quality secondary sources. Beyond this, I don't think that we need to add to the readable prose in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable news sources like the Globe and Mail[51] and WaPo[52] say it was illegal in their own voice. That was 2 minutes of effort, and I’m sure one can find better sources, but these are sufficient. If it needs to be cited in the lead, fine with me. If the respective article section doesn’t say “illegal,” then it should be improved, because illegality is pretty much a defining quality of the invasion, occupation, sham referendum, and “treaty of annexation” signed with installed puppets in partly controlled territory of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 03:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, we are confusing an overwhelmingly held opinion with fact. It is a fact that the UNGA has condemned it as illegal by resolution. However, the illegality itself is not a fact as would need to be determined by a competent body (ie a court with jurisdiction). Per WP:NEWSORG, the reliability of news sources is limited to fact or to attributed opinion - even then, not all news sources are considered reliable. The news sources you give are WP:RS for facts but they are only reporting the same events as the basis for their content. They are adding nothing new above that which is already cited. What I said above was: We would be on firmer ground by adding a note such to establish this the overwhelming prevailing opinion expressed in good quality secondary sources. If we are going to summarise this (and similar) in a Wiki voice in the lead, we need to hold ourselves to (and be meeting) a high standard to avoid the appearance of bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, stating that something is illegal under international law is NOT an opinion. That is a falsifiable statement, it is either legal, or illegal, depending on what the laws and courts say. Our job is NOT to state everything as an opinion to avoid the possible appearance of bias. Our job is to summarize what the reliable sources say are factual statements. If reliable sources say that the invasions are illegal under international law, and no reliable sources contest that statement, that makes it a FACT, not an OPINION. Andre🚐 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

[S]tating that something is illegal under international law is NOT an opinion while true, misses the point entirely. Murder is illegal is a factual statement. X committed murder is an opinion until it is confirmed in a court of law. The Associated Press, Reuters, and ABC (USA) articles cited above are treating it as being the opinion of 'the West' and of Ukraine that the referendums are illegitimate and that the annexations are illegal.

Further, [s]oon after, Russia announced the illegal annexation of four partly occupied oblasts is poor writing that is not supported by the body of the article. For one, Russia certainly did not announce it being illegal. For two, the body of the article doesn't mention Russia (the nation state), but Putin: On 30 September 2022, Vladimir Putin announced the annexation of Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions in an address to both houses of the Russian parliament. For three, the body does not explicitly claim that the annexations are illegal, but that Ukraine, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations all condemned the annexation as illegal. There is a distinct difference between x is illegal and x has been condemned by y as illegal. The lede must summarise the article accurately.

Lastly, [i]f reliable sources say that the invasions are illegal under international law, and no reliable sources contest that statement, that makes it a FACT, not an OPINION is fallacious reasoning that I cannot overlook. An opinion does not become a fact by being widely or even universally held, nor does a fact become an opinion by being contested. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources given by Michael Z. above already provide the reliable factual statement. Russia is seeking to solidify its illegal annexation[53] Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed that four regions in Ukraine will become part of Russia, an illegal land grab that dramatically escalates Russia’s war in Ukraine and further isolates Russia from the rest of the world.[54] Andre🚐 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a falsifiable statement, it is either legal, or illegal, depending on what the laws and courts say. I have already said as much but also noted that this has not happened. The courts have not adjudicated. To the rest ... It was once the overwhelming view (belief, opinion, theory) without dissent (the church saw to that) that the Earth was flat and the universe was geocentric. Overwhelming belief in a particular view does not transmute opinion into fact. However, if one reads what I have said, I believe we might state in the lead that it is illegal in the lead in a WP:WIKIVOICE because this is [almost] a reasonable summary of the body of the article. My only reservation is that we might make the position (the body of the article) stronger. I never implied that our job was to state everything as an opinion to avoid the possible appearance of bias. The appearance of bias is like the perception of justice attributed to Lord Hewart: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." We should be holding ourselves to a similar standard to avoid the appearance of bias, which is just as damaging to WP as actual bias. If we are asserting that a particular view is overwhlingly held, not only should we be able to demonstrate that it is, it behooves us to demonstrate that it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The courts don't need to adjudicate. All that matters is that reliable sources have made the statement. And it has been demonstrated that they stated this. It is not a view, it is a fact, because RS stated as such. Andre🚐 02:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

PS There was something close to an edit conflict between Mr rnddude's post above and my post. I largely agree with Mr rnddude, though my conclusion is slightly different. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have said, ... we need to hold ourselves to (and be meeting) a high standard to avoid the appearance of bias. Please see WP:OUTRAGE Cinderella157 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea how you think that pertains to this. Andre🚐 05:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

[I]f we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Again, all we need to do is see if the following conditions are true 1) multiple high-quality reliable sources state fact X, 2) no other high-quality reliable sources contradict statement X. It is not a view, it is not a belief, it has nothing to do with morality or bias -- and I can't imagine a way it would. Andre🚐 06:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement 1 contains a premise not established: that X is a fact. Opinions are qualitative and subjective. If, in determining X we must make qualitative assessments to reach a conclusion, or exercise any degree of judgement, the conclusion is a belief or opinion. The statement: ... it is either legal, or illegal, depending on what the laws and courts say, and then, [t]he courts don't need to adjudicate appears to me to be quite contradictory. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if the courts have made a final ruling on criminality. What matters is what reliable sources state about the laws and/or courts. The UN and international courts have already stated that the invasion is illegal and ordered Russia to stop or whatever. So as a result of that reliable sources as already stated, are calling the invasion illegal. It is not qualitative, it is not subjective, and it does not require us to use any amount of judgment. We just parrot the statement made as fact in reliable sources. Andre🚐 19:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The UN and international courts have already stated that the invasion is illegal and ordered Russia to stop or whatever. The article does not evidence that international courts have stated that the invasion is illegal and ordered Russia to stop or whatever. Nor am I seeing such evidence in related articles. If such sources exist, why haven't we used them? Yes, we somewhat parrot sources but sources report both facts and opinions. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It IS already in the article but here is a basic source from our competition: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the top court of the United Nations, has ordered Russia to “immediately suspend” its military operations in Ukraine. What does the decision mean, and what happens next? We already knew Russia’s invasion was illegal in international law. But the ICJ decision now makes it virtually impossible for anyone, including Russia, to deny that illegality. [55] Andre🚐 00:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend military operations is in the lead of the article but is unsourced nor is it supported elsewhere in the article (the IJC, either in full or abbreviated is not mentioned elsewhere). The link you cite is not cited in the article. The material linked was written in March 2022 and predates these annexations. The IJC order was made in March 2022 and in respect to Russia's invasion. One may conclude that because of the IJC order, the non-compliance and anything that follows is illegal but that is clearly WP:SYNTH. Sorry, but we all are appearing to be too liberal in how we choose to apply core WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, but one assumes that the statement in the lead is or was sourced in a previous version of the article. If you want to improve the article, WP:SOFIXIT. The fact remains that a court already told Russia that their actions were illegal. Russia's invasion doesn't stop when the next round of annexations start. That whole thing is the invasion (and then some). Sorry, but like I said, all that matters is how reliable sources describe Russia's actions. I already provided 3 sources that state it clearly and I'm sure more could easily be found. It is not SYNTH to simply summarize what reliable sources say. You are reaching and have a very tenuous grasp of how policies are applied and what they refer to. Andre🚐 02:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact [empasis added] remains that a court already told Russia that their actions were illegal. Where has a court told Russia that their actions were illegal - either in respect to the annexations specifically or the invasion more generally? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Already given. Here's another source. [56] The UN’s international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, Is it your contention that the annexations are legal? Because no source asserts that. Andre🚐 16:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My original post in this thread makes my views quite clear. The matter presented to the IJC by Ukraine is, whether the Russian claims of genocide can be substantiated and thereby form a legal basis for the invasion. The first source you would refer to (see original publication) is by Rowan Nicholson, it is to effect an expert legal opinion on the matter presented to the IJC. Nicholson makes it quite clear that the order made by the IJC is a preliminary order: This was what is called a “provisional measures” order – an emergency ruling made before the court hears the whole case; and, All the ICJ has done so far is to order provisional measures. It has not even found conclusively that it has jurisdiction in the case. It might be a long time before it decides the case as a whole. News sources, such as your second are often more liberal (not as circumspect) in their reporting and would report (attributing to the court president): the court “is not in possession of evidence substantiating” Russian allegations of genocide on Ukrainian territory. From the order made: The Court can only take a decision on the Applicant’s claims if the case proceeds to the merits. At the present stage of the proceedings, it suffices to observe that the Court is not in possession of evidence substantiating the allegation. In fuller context the meaning is somewhat different. The IJC is not asserting at that time that such evidence does not exist but (as Nicholson concludes) hint[ing] it is receptive to Ukraine’s arguments. At para 77 of the order: In light of these circumstances, the Court concludes that disregard of the right deemed plausible [empasis added] by the Court (see paragraph 60 above) could cause irreparable prejudice to this right and that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that such prejudice will be caused before the Court makes a final decision in the case. There is no finding by the IJC that Russia's invasion is illegal. To assert there has been is either a gross misunderstanding of process or a gross misrepresentation of fact. The court has not already told Russia that their actions were illegal. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, and that is your original research and WP:SYNTH. Plenty of reliable sources state the invasion is illegal. Yours is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and to emphasize would be WP:UNDUE weight. Andre🚐 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is precisely what the sources say. Everything in green (save the last, a partial quote from the previous post made for emphasis) is a faithful quote from the sources indicate. The common ground is, it is either legal, or illegal, depending on what the laws and courts say. The courts determine, as a fact, whether a particular matter is legal or illegal. Similarly Mr rnddude would say, X committed murder is an opinion until it is confirmed in a court. The only conclusion I reach is that the ICJ has not pronounced that either the invasion or the annexations are illegal. That is simply because the sources don't say that. There is no WP:OR in that at all. Saying: A says X and B says Y therefore I say Z would be synth but I have said noting of this sort. On the other hand, saying: the courts say the invasion is illegal, the annexations occurred in the course of the invasion therefore the annexations are illegal would be synth (not withstanding that the first premise is not a fact) only if a single source explicitly joined each premise. The argument concluding, That whole thing is the invasion (and then some) appears to be saying just that and is not supported by a source that joins those dots. I am not purporting that the invasion was legal, only that it illegality is opinion (an overwhelming opinion) and not a fact that has been stated by a court. Consequently, we should establish in the body (through good quality sources) that the illegality is the overwhelming opinion if we are to summarise the lead with a categorical statement (the opinion of a WP:NEWSORG is not a WP:RS). This can be done without mentioning the counter opinion that it might be legal. So, there is nothing fringe or undue to my position. Putting up a lot of links to WP:P&G without establishing a context for their relevance is unhelpful and appears to me to be a fallacious appeal to authority. Citing WP:SOFIXIT appears to me to be a bit WP:POTish since I have actually edited to improve this somewhat but I don't think it is enough and Mr rnddude points to a number of concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You're the one misreading the connection of the dots and relying on outdated sources to make an original argument that the invasion is not yet illegal despite courts and RSs already ruling it is. The RS clearly state the court ruled it DID have jurisdiction, which directly contradicts your statement, and that the invasion was illegal. Your completely tortured argument and accusing me of various nonsensical claims does not further any point. Here are more sources. Putin announces annexation of Ukrainian regions in defiance of international law. Under the annexation process, which is illegal under international law,...[57] Russia begins annexation vote, illegal under international law, in occupied Ukraine [58] Putin’s statements that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk, although a thinly veiled effort to justify Russia’s use of force in the language of international law, are also not supported by the facts and would not, in any case, give Russia a right to launch an invasion of Ukraine [59] The invasion and the recent annexation are illegal under international law — as was the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. These actions threaten not only Ukraine but also the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that form the basis for the peaceful coexistence of nations. [60] I can go on and on. The RS have it, Putin has nothing but bluster and lies. Andre🚐 00:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We both agree that a court rules on a particular matter and determines as a fact that it is illegal (or legal). Only a court can make a ruling, as Mr rnddude has also observed. It is was stated above: despite courts ... already ruling it is. Verification of this was requested and two particular sources provided. If those sources are now claimed to be outdated, that is no fault of mine. Neither of the sources (nor those subsequently provided) evidence that a court ruled that the invasion is illegal. The sources make it quite clear that the court has issued a preliminary (protection) order and not a ruling on the legality of the matter. Nicholson did state: All the ICJ has done so far is to order provisional measures. It has not even found conclusively that it has jurisdiction in the case. It might be a long time before it decides the case as a whole. That this a statement was made is a verifiable fact. To say: The RS clearly state the court ruled it DID have jurisdiction is therefore a false statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The ICJ is different from two other international courts investigating Russia’s actions in Ukraine: the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals accused of violating international criminal law, such as committing war crimes, but the ECHR has jurisdiction over countries within the Council of Europe that are accused of violating human rights as set out in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Those include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech. Russia recently threatened to leave the council but was expelled before it could do so. The ICJ’s mandate is broader: It has jurisdiction over governments accused of violations under several bodies of international law. [61] In the ruling, judges confirmed the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute and said they would rule on its core substance at a later date. However, the presiding judge, Joan E. Donoghue did note that the court has not seen evidence to substantiate Russia’s claim that Ukraine has committed genocide. Wrong again, please retract your false claims. Andre🚐 03:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

At section 24 of the ICJ order: The Court may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, but it need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case.[62] At section 85 (the conclusions): The Court further reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case ... What was actually stated at section 48: In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, prima facie, it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention to entertain the case [emphasis added]. It is not a ruling that they have jurisdiction to rule on Ukraine's application that the invasion is illegal. It is only that they are satisfied sufficiently that they probably have authority to issue the preliminary emergency order. The article by Thompson[63] is an expert analysis that specifically deals with the matter of the ICJ's jurisdiction and closely follows what is stated in the order. He clearly states that the ICJ has not even found conclusively that it has jurisdiction in the case. So, based on the sources originally provided, The RS [plural, since two were provided] clearly [emphasis added] state the court ruled it DID have jurisdiction is a false statement. The Washington Post, now just supplied as a source to be considered, does state: judges confirmed the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute. The Washington Post would continue: At this stage, ICJ judges simply had to decide whether Ukraine’s complaint is plausible. Now, one could say that the Washington Post has been a little loose in its terminology since it does not coincide with the court's order, which is a RS too and not surprisingly, very clear in its statements. This additional source, creates at face value a contradiction between sources. It is therefore still false to say that the sources provide [collectively] clearly state the court ruled it DID have jurisdiction. For the life of me, I do not see what I should retract or why? However, the recent issue was more than jurisdiction - The RS clearly state the court ruled it DID have jurisdiction, which directly contradicts your statement, and [that the courts have ruled] that the invasion was illegal. [emphasis added] It is still not shown that the courts have ruled (establishing a fact) the invasion was illegal. That is a falsifiable statement, it [the annexations] is either legal, or illegal, depending on what the laws and courts say. It is still not shown that the courts have ruled (establishing a fact) the annexations were illegal. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You are technically correct that the courts have not issued a final ruling in the case, but that doesn't prevent us from being able to describe the annexations as illegal in wikivoice given that RS have done so. As far as the article by Thompson [sic] which I think you meant is by Rowan Nicholson, a lecturer and a writer on international law from Australia, and it does not say the annexations are legal, and it appears to contradict the Washington Post account in the extent that it says the court hadn't determine if it had jurisdiction. In this case, an examination of the sources shows that Rowan Nicholson was in error. Perhaps an attempt could be made to contact him to let him know that the court did find it had jurisdiction. Andre🚐 23:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

At least we now have some semblance of agreement that the courts have not made a ruling in the case that would ipso facto make either the invasion or the annexations a legal fact. I have never said (per my OP) that we could not say in the lead that the annexations were illegal (effectively in a Wiki voice) only that there were certain conditions to be met under P&G before we could (see also my comment below). You are correct in that I was referring to Rowan Nicholson. I would ask if you have actually read the ICJ order as it is a WP:RS? I never said that Nicholson said the annexations were legal, only that the ICJ had not ruled on the legality of the invasions nor ruled (as a legal fact) on its jurisdiction. The ICJ found that it could "entertain the case", the hearing of which (plainly stated in the order) would ultimately determine (as a legal fact) both the jurisdiction of the court and the legality of the invasion. I am quite tempted to contact Nicholson with your assertion he is in error. I am sure he would enquire as to your qualifications to make such a unequivocal assertion?

I admit I haven’t read all of the above. But invading another country is illegal. Declaring your own laws in another country after invading it is illegal. Declaring part of another country that you’ve only partly occupied yours is illegal. (As I’ve demonstrated above, it’s literally illegal throughout the world, in Ukraine, and it’s illegal in Russia, but Russia is not now a rule-of-law country.)

Counterpoint: all of the sources that say it is legal:

[ crickets ]

Even without the court rulings and statements that it is illegal, it is still the bluest deep WP:BLUESKY that it is illegal. By the guideline’s definition, because no one here is arguing that it is legal. No one is challenging the fact that it is illegal, only nitpicking that it is not officially, certifiably illegal illegal, or some wiki-legalistic businesses. (It’s your prerogative, but if we ignore you, then the result will be the same.)

There is no chance it will be challenged as a fact.

There’s no consensus to remove “illegal.” This discussion is a huge time sink. If it goes to an RFC or something it will just be a bigger waste.

Let’s just leave it already. Let’s abandon this conversation. —Michael Z. 03:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I admit I haven’t read all of the above. But invading another country is illegal. Declaring your own laws in another country after invading it is illegal. Declaring part of another country that you’ve only partly occupied yours is illegal.

This is not made illegal by a countries domestic laws, only internationally. I replied in another comment as well further down in this thread, here as the sources showing its undisputed legality from a Russian perspective.

https://tass.ru/politika/15932643

https://www.currenttime.tv/a/gosduma-odobrila-prisoedinenie-k-rossii-ukrainskih-territoriy-/32062595.html

https://zn.ua/eng/constitutional-court-of-russia-accomplice-of-state-terrorism.html

The word illegal as it currently stands does NOT specify 'internationally' illegal. Dungoshi (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine’s laws are effective in Ukraine, Russia’s are not. —Michael Z. 08:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian laws and administration are effective in parts of: Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk PR, Lugansk PR. Given Russian control of that, Russia is absolutely a stakeholder in defining the word 'illegal' as it relates to those four regions. Dungoshi (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the annexation is legal? —Michael Z. 00:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is that the article lede must be supported by the article body and by the sources cited in it. Currently, it is still unsupported by either. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, you don’t have to write and cite the sky is blue in the body to say it in the lead. —Michael Z. 08:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You are falsely invoking bluesky (an essay) against verifiability (a policy). The lede has been modified to introduce two citations, I didn't check for that since citations don't generally appear in the lede. So now we have one statement in the body cited to Reuters and another statement in the lede cited to CNN and the Intercept. Why not just put the citations in the body, fix the statement in the body, and leave citations out of the lede? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds alright. —Michael Z. 00:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean “falsely invoking”? The policy says “quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.” BLUESKY only helps explain that. Linking to it is an aid for editors not familiar or who need a refresher. I invoked it truly. —Michael Z. 00:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you think thing could be simpler if we just remove illegal all together? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Andre🚐 21:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like if you add the single word "politically" to the mention of 'denounced', then the issue would be largely addressed towards making that sentence unobjectionable. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If enough RS say it’s illegal then we say illegal. That’s it. That’s the policy. Volunteer Marek 08:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Cite the WP:P&G that explicitly says this please. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. WP:PROFRINGE The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. WP:VALID While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Andre🚐 01:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Referring to WP:YESPOV, factual is of or relating to facts. A matter does not become a fact because it is uncontested and uncontroversial. The phrase is referring to what is firstly a fact and then, a fact which is uncontested and uncontroversial (such as, the Earth is round [spheroid]). As discussed above, the legality of a particular matter only becomes fact through the ruling of a court. Otherwise, it is opinion or an allegation - even if it is the overwhelming prevailing opinion. The counterpoint at WP:YESPOV is: Avoid stating opinions as facts. At WP:TRUTHMATTERS: A long-standing summary of NPOV was "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves.".^[5] At WP:VNT, it is observed that: Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts ... It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice ... If an opinion is the overwhelming prevailing opinion we should provide RSs to verify it is the overwhelming prevailing opinion. If other opinions or viewpoints are held by an extremely small minority, that does not mean that they should be reported in the course of verifying the the overwhelming prevailing opinion. In such a case, there is no issue of WP:PROFRINGE, WP:VALID or WP:UNDUE.

The best way to evidence that an assertion is the overwhelming prevailing opinion is to cite a good quality (ie peer reviewed) RS that explicitly reports it to be the overwhelming prevailing opinion. The lead is to summarise key points of the article (ie it should be explicitly supported by the body). I believe this is the point that Mr rnddude would make in their post above. My position has been that, if the body of the article establishes an overwhelming prevailing opinion, then we might be at liberty to summarise the body of the article in unequivocal terms. Others might opine that we should remain circumspect. As to citing WP:BLUESKY, it states that: many things that "everyone knows" turn out to be false. Facts are independent of opinion, belief or view. Regardless of what we believe to be true, we should not appear partisan but rely on the sources to speak for themselves. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

TRUTHMATTERS is an essay. Again, the statements that the annexations are illegal are not opinions. They are facts according to laws, courts, and RS. No sources have been provided that the annexations are legal. The only fringe POV that annexations are legal is a pro-Kremlin propaganda POV which should not be included or should be attributed to pro-Russian agents. Andre🚐 19:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The laws tell us that a type of offence is illegal. Only the courts can determine that a particular matter is illegal as a legal fact. No such ruling has been made by the courts on the matter of the annexations. Sources may opine that a particular matter is illegal. Stating this categorically with the appearance of being a fact does not make it a legal fact. If everybody holds to a particular belief it does not make that belief a fact - rather, the overwhelming prevailing opinion, which would be a fact about an opinion. The resolution would appear quite simple. Establish in the body that the illegality of the annexations is the overwhelming prevailing opinion, recognising that doing so does not require us to give any credence to a proposition that the annexations might be legal. Then the lead would be ok. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. We have the guidelines.

Now when the “not illegal” proponents bring reliable sources to the table that say the invasion is legal, we can judge how much due weight to afford them. Until then, the annexation is illegal as the WP:SKYISBLUE. —Michael Z. 02:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here you go

https://tass.ru/politika/15932643

https://www.currenttime.tv/a/gosduma-odobrila-prisoedinenie-k-rossii-ukrainskih-territoriy-/32062595.html

Even pro Ukrainian sources recognise this fact

https://zn.ua/eng/constitutional-court-of-russia-accomplice-of-state-terrorism.html

Under Russian law the invasion is indisputably legal - there is no source that denies this

You can argue - as you previously did - that under your interpretation of Russian law it is illegal but that is completely irrelevant - if the legislative, judicial and executive bodies of the Russian federation deem it legal - then under Russian law it is legal.

So the options are either

1. Remove the word 'illegal' entirely

2. Preface the word 'illegal' with something to denote its undisputed illegality internationally (and from perhaps a Ukrainian/western perspective as well since that follows RS)

3. Have the word 'illegal' with a caveat explaining it is legality under Russia

4. Keep the status quo (despite the fact with it is indisputably incorrect from a Russian law interpretation)

Since there isn't much point muddling the lead I think option 1 is the best option and then expanding on the different perspectives later. However since some feel so strongly about this issue, option 2 would also be sufficient.

(Note I am the same user that created this issue, I just created an account now) Dungoshi (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a few sources to Talk:Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Some sources on legality, and the more recent ones talk about the September 30 “annexation.” —Michael Z. 05:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Dungoshi, Russian law is utterly irrelevant here so your argument is moot. The Holocaust was "legal" under Nazi Germany's law, that certainly didn't stop the stop it from being illegal under international law. A genocidal dictatorship, whether Hitler's Germany or Putin's Russia, cannot render its crimes "legal" simply by claiming they are legal under their own laws. Jeppiz (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Russian law is utterly irrelevant here"

What is this claim based on? the word 'illegal' is not prefaced by 'internationally' so it is not specific which illegality.

The annexations are:

100% Illegal under Ukrainian law

99-100% Illegal under International Law (Depending how you define international law since afaik there isn't a solid definition - but since the UN general assembly overwhelmingly denounced it I think it is fair to call it illegal in the article)

0% Illegal under Russian Law

Unless all parties to the conflict find it illegal, it is dishonest to paint it fully as such

"The Holocaust was "legal" under Nazi Germany's law, that certainly didn't stop the stop it from being illegal under international law"

I don't see your point here? The Holocaust was completely legal under German law, this feels like an attempt at Godwins Law.

"A genocidal dictatorship, whether Hitler's Germany or Putin's Russia, cannot render its crimes "legal" simply by claiming they are legal under their own laws."

By any definition of national laws and legality they can.

You seem to be conflating legality with morality 120.154.39.104 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

First, decide which account you are going to use. Using different accounts in the same discussion is a sock-issue. Second, Russian law is utterly irrelevant here. The invasion takes place in Ukraine. Jeppiz (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not sure why the comment wasn't sent on this account since I was signed in, regardless it is not sockpuppetting since I explicitly wrote in another comment that I created an account so that IP is mine and the defintion of sockpuppetting is inherently malicious.

Secondly, I wrote this in response to a comment higher in this thread so I will put it here in response to this

"Russian laws and administration are effective in parts of: Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk PR, Lugansk PR. Given Russian control of that, Russia is absolutely a stakeholder in defining the word 'illegal' as it relates to those four regions" Dungoshi (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. Even if we accepted that view (and WP does not) it would still be irrelevant, as the invasion predates the claimed annexation. Jeppiz (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Not saying they are illegal is a pro-Russia viewpoint. A country seizing territory and holding supposed "referendums" at gunpoint(with a substantial portion of the population having fled) has no international legal basis. Russia can consider whatever they do within their own territory as legal if they wish- if they want to force people in Moscow to vote at gunpoint, that's their business- but not in territory that they occupy and whose status is disputed. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The argument for removing or "contextualizing" the word illegal is laughable on its face at best and an attempt at Russian propaganda at worst. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There is a correction to be noted on the usage and reference here. The Reuters source being used here does not use the word 'condemned', it uses the word 'denounced' instead. Updating text to match source given as Reuters. Discussion about 'illegal' currently taking place in this thread can continue, though the context is not 'condemned', which is not in the Reuters source, but 'denounced'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Those words are synonyms. Collins Dictionary, one of many available, even uses 'condemn' in its definition of 'denounce': to deplore or condemn openly or vehemently. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
When the Nuremburg trial ended then German leaders were condemned to a death sentence for crimes commited; they were not 'denounced' to a death sentence. The words are not synonyms. This thread here is about the distinction of the political use of 'denouncing' as opposed to a legal tribunals purported use of 'condemning'; the Reuters article used to source this had nothing to do with legal condemnation or tribunal condemnation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not the meaning of 'condemn' being used in that sentence or anywhere in this thread. Some sources, such as Reuters chose 'denounced', other sources like DW, CBS, and also Reuters (in a different article) chose 'condemned'.1 2 3 The words in this context are synonyms. Either is fine as used. The definition you're invoking (known as a 'sentence') relates to a punishment imposed upon a subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It might help if you used the OED. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Please, help yourself. Wikipedians have access to the OED (among other dictionaries and thesauri) through the the library. From the OED 3rd edition (2010) entry for 'condemn': 1. express complete disapproval of; censure with the example most leaders roundly condemned the attack. Referencing the Oxford Paperback Thesaurus 4th edition (2012) entry for 'denounced' it provides [t]he Pope denounced abortion with synonyms condemn, criticize, attack, censure ... (emphasis added).
The other definition of 'condemn' is present in the OED too: 2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death. That's the definition I provided in my second comment and equated to meaning 'to sentence'. Checking against the Oxford Thesaurus: he was condemned to death with synonyms sentence; convict, find guilty.
Any quality English dictionary (Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Macquarie, Merriam-Webster) will provide similar definitions for those words. I didn't guess at 'denounced' and 'condemned' being synonyms in the relevant context. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Mr rnddude is quite correct that, in this context, denounced and condemned are synonyms with no discernable difference in meaning. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The Reuters article which is the sole citation for that sentence uses it in only in a political context; it does not make any claims that a tribunal or legal judgment has been made. That's a pertinent distinction based on what the Reuters article says. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Like most users above, I oppose the proposed change, as it contradicts WP:RS and would introduce WP:POV by reproducing the Kremlin's false claims. Also think it is time to close this long and tedious discussion. It has been ten days already, consensus is clearance, and no new arguments were added in the past five days. Jeppiz (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose As per the above. The annexations are not legal under international law, as there is no proper basis for what the Kremlin has done in annexing occupied or partially occupied parts of Ukraine. Compusolus (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Barnes, Julian E.; Crowley, Michael; Schmitt, Eric (10 January 2022). "Russia Positioning Helicopters, in Possible Sign of Ukraine Plans". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
^ Bengali, Shashank (18 February 2022). "The U.S. says Russia's troop buildup could be as high as 190,000 in and near Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
^ ^a ^b Hackett, James, ed. (February 2021). The Military Balance 2021 (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-1-03-201227-8. OCLC 1292198893. OL 32226712M.
^ The Military Balance 2022. International Institute for Strategic Studies. February 2022. ISBN 9781000620030 – via Google Books.
^ This is still the main thrust of the policy, though now it's expressed in a bulleted list that says (combining two items): Avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion.

Update article name to 2022-2023 russian invasion of Ukraine

Discuss updating the article title Ben Dyson 64 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See above, this has been discussed at considerable length in the last month and consensus couldn’t be achieved. Tracland (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12#Requested move 31 December 2022 with what appears to be exactly the same proposal and closed as "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict map resolution

Even at the highest resolution available in details section, many location names are totally unreadable. Suggest that even higher resolutions be provided in the details section as to provide complete readability. Oceanic84 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several maps used in this article, which ones are you pointing out? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The main map is a rendering of a (resolution-free) vector SVG file. If you click through it to the file page File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, then select “Original file,”[64] you will be viewing the vector file that you can zoom in on without limits. —Michael Z. 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. This proposal is identical to the last proposal from December-January. In particular, while the overall result of that discussion was no consensus, there was clear consensus against the specific "2022-2023" formulation, with a plurality of pro-move editors favoring "2022-present" even before wholesale opposition to the move is considered. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC) ~~~~

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine – The invasion has lasted into 2023. I propose renaming the article to avoid implying it was only in 2022. Quarl ^(talk) 21:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy close the same move proposal was closed less than a month ago [65] with no consensus reached. There is no reasonable reason to believe that there will be a different result. While I do not believe this to be other than well intended, to continue might reasonably be seen as disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Close per Cinderella157 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Losses on both side

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Obviously made-up figures/misinformation. Please use WP:RS and focus on discussing improvements to the article itself. Jr8825 • Talk 15:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

As the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war is approaching, the war losses claimed by Israeli intelligence reveal the terrible dimensions of the war. Allegedly, the field data of January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence, is listed as follows: RUSSIA: Russian losses in the field with 418 thousand soldiers (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and the increasing number of Wagner mercenaries: 23 Planes 56 helicopter 200 (S)UAV 889 Tanks and armored vehicles 427 Howitzer (Artillery systems) 12 Air defense system 18,480 dead 44,500 Injured 323 Captive

UKRAINE: The casualties of Ukraine, which was in the field with 734 thousand soldiers (plus 100 thousand reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries, are as follows: 302 Aircraft 212 Helicopter 2.750 (S)UAV 6,320 Tanks and armored vehicles 7.360 Howitzer (Artillery systems) 497 Air defense system 157,000 Dead 234,000 injured 17,230 Captive 234 Dead – NATO military trainers (US and UK) 2,458 Dead – NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, ...) 5,360 Dead – Mercenaries

Source: 188.120.100.28 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice argument, but can you provide a source, and are you sure it's accurate? You say it's claimed by Israeli intelligence but I have trouble finding such statistics from Jan 14. Please link said report or at least link where you got the statistics from to make it easier to find said report.

I also have to question the accuracy of said statistics given it states literally almost a quarter of Ukraine's entire military force is KIA and almost half their entire military force is out of commission (including KIA). I'm not saying it's impossible this is the case, but it is extremely unlikely due to the fact a military that can't use half its troops would be lucky to still be on the defensive, much less still be capable of offensive action like we're seeing in practice. Not to mention it states only 18K dead on Russia's side. If there were 10 Ukrainians KIA for every 1 Russian KIA, this would be among the most (if not the most) objectively one sided wars in history involving a conflict of this size and length, only outdone by conflicts fought in the times of ancient Rome.

Given all the circumstances, either there isn't a report, you misread the report, or the report is heavily inaccurate. Nice argument (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

"Since September 2022:" should be removed as minisformation and original research and replaced by total estimates and claims not involving any original-research calculations whatsoever

This is somewhat unclear in its comment and request; almost to the point of being a wall of text. Possibly you can simplify it and start a new thread with the links to sources presented first. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Right now the infobox is really badly misinforming anyone looking for information and not knowing better. One reason is Russian forces have received all sorts of reinforcements other than the mobilized (and there were also notoriously massive mobilizations in the People's Republics, separate from the so-called Partial Mobilization and going for very long before the annexation, since day 1 and actually having started even earlier).

Reason two, even the actual number of the Partially Mobilized is really unknown and 300,000 is just an official claim (this isn't being noted) - and the very same official claim says most of them haven't been deployed yet but are training in Belarus and elsewhere (which isnt being noted too, while using the official number). Also for example according to Ukraine (Reznikov) it's 500,000 and not 300,000 (and they are the backbone of the 500,000 that Ukraine days are now concentrated in Belarus poised to attack again from the north). And Wagner are not just a part of the 50,000 merc reinforcement s (the infobox's "including"), but there are 50,000 Wagner in Ukraine [66], Wagner alone, not including the other Russian mercenary groups.

Then there were other reinforcements, plus there were also replacements, which either could replace the losses or could not (in which case the total umber decreased), and still then again there were unit withdrawals, and unit rotations. All sorts of factors, which are not covered by the current simplistic original research adding just Wagner (incomplete) and the Partially Mobilized (probably incomplete), but it doesn't mean this should not be tried to be calculated by more original research. Just don't do any original research at all. So, remove all this misleading original research and use only the available total estimates of the total strenght (and losses), clearly attributing the estimates and claims to their sources and noting the timing of these (with "(as of [date])").

And also remember to remove all such original research by Wikipedia editors trying to figure out any (any whatsoever) figures on their own from every operation and battle. If there are no total estimates/claims available (from reliable sources or official sources), for both strenght and losses (also with dates), wrote just "Unknown" truthfully instead of any original-research calculating attempts. For example: the current American intelligence estimate as of 31/1/2023 is 188,000 Russian blood casualties since 24/1/2022 ([67] - and here the article talks about "soldiers", and mentions the Russian defense ministry, but the estimate is about all the Russian personnel, both soldiers and any other other gunmen). ONLY ever use the total estimates and claims like that's, without ever trying to calculated ANYTHING on your own. Otherwise: "Unknown". And since we talk about the wording here, it wasn't just "armed forces". It's a minunderstanding, as if the "Special Military Operation" was really just an exclusively "military operation", which it was never at all. Instead Russia has been using lots of personnel not belonging to the defense ministry but to other ministries and others still, among them private armies even besides Wagner - such as the many various formations of Kadyrov men, the Redut mercenaries, a small contingent of South Ossetian separatists, or the Russian-Cossack militias, and so on, and all of which aren't even mentioned in the infobox. And the People's Republic's "militias" (various forces including armed forces, the Armed Forces of Novorossiya) have since all became official Russian forces (too various ministries, not just the armed forces - such as the LNR and DNR police forces being now the Russian police units officially). 94.254.153.61 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I just checked the reference used for the "Since September" claims in the infobox ([68] twice) - it's falsification, the numbers "50,000" and "300,000" can't be even found in the source at all (shich is not surprising, since these numbers are wrong). There's no mention of neither "Wagner" or "mercenaries" in ge eral in this source too - just a total (100%) falsicification by whoever out it there, and no one ever checked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

New article relating to the invasion—Zelenskyy visit to the UK

Posting here to notify interested editors that there is a new article on Zelenskyy's visit to the United Kingdom. Compusolus (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing title

I suggest changing the title from “2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine” to “Russo-Ukrainian War” because the russo-ukrainian war started in 2022 with the invasion that ended in April 2022 with the Southeastern phase of the war. We should create another page for the 2022 invasion! Check out my talk section on the “Russo-Ukrainian War” page. TankDude2000 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

See the umpteen threads we have already had about this, and WP:JUSTDROPIT. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be useful to add a new top item in "Frequently asked" above which states that any editor must first read all 3 "no consensus" RFCs from last year before posting a name change request yet again. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with ErnestKrause, this probably needs to be added to the FAQs as it is a recurring request and could probably be better dealt with as a FAQ rather than having to continually have the same debate. However, not sure how that interacts with the fact that consensus could not be achieved last time this was debated. I believe this is a well intentioned comment and I don't think WP:JUSTDROPIT is really in point as the various requests have been from different users and there is no evidence that these are not honest separate requests. It's just one of those things that will come up a lot unless a consensus is reached and / or something is included in the FAQs to guide people not to make the same request.Tracland (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and maybe a moratorium. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The just drop it was because they are also making the same requests elsewhere on the same topic. So I was confused as to which one this was. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly needed unless we want these requests to keep happening every five minutes. TylerBurden (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would support a moratorium on RMs/related discussions here and at Russo-Ukrainian War‎ (though notification would be needed to include the latter). I don't see that any good reason to change the titles is likely to arise in the foreseeable future and certainly not for the types of proposals we have already seen. The significant issue is for how long and how we might deal with an exceptional case? Do we continue this discussion here or do we start a new section/subsection? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The article title definitely shouldn't be changed to 'Russo-Ukrainian War'—that started in 2014, and details a longer conflict, which for a number of years until 2022 was a 'frozen' conflict. Compusolus (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But, how were Russia and Ukraine in a direct war in 2014? And also, the Crimean Crisis in 2014 was an invasion only, since there was no Ukrainian resistance against the illegal invasion. TankDude2000 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dude, read the old discussions. They have the answers. HappyWith (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-03-15-expert-comment-putin-s-war-how-did-we-get-here-ukraine-2014 "Russian armed groups had seized parts of the Donbas – Ukraine’s easternmost provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk on the Russian border. The ensuing armed conflict led to at least 15,000 people being killed, 30,000 wounded,". Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested of adding year to the date

I got very confused of which year the animations of border changes. This is exceptionally so that it is going to be the first anniversary of the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war. 103.252.202.37 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, the year is in the legend of all the animations. CMD (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't NATO listed as a supporter of Ukraine, but Belarus listed as supporting Russia?

Why is NATO omitted from the Beligerent section, but Belarus isn't? NATO has been deeply involved and should be listed as a belligerent the same way Belarus is. If NATO can't be listed then Belarus shouldn't either HybridHigh (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ and talk page archives. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Typo with a wrong year in "Foreign involvement"

Just one small typo (wrong year), that I am not allowed to fix. In the section "Foreign involvement" at reference 395 it is stated, that from February 2022 to 11. January 2022 the US has provided 24.8 billion. It should be from Feb 2022 to Jan 2023. No real discussion, so I dont know if this is the right place, but I saw no other option for this. MatsUndSo (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Done Thanks. I have also updated it with a better source.[69] —Michael Z. 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. RM was opened by a non-ECP user contrary to WP:GS/RUSUKR. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine – The common name for the topic is Russian invasion of Ukraine. But we need somehow to disambiguate from 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, therefore the year is now added. I propose to use the word full-scale as a disambiguator instead of the year. 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not a full-scale one, Russian invaded only part of Ukraine then: Crimea and Donbas. I read the last proposal from December-January and think that my proposal is better. Hope it will find support. Onlk (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Pointless. ollyhinge11 (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Completely unnecessary given the other article also has the year in the title. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the other editors. The years are good enough. --Killuminator (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WTF? First 8 2022-2023 and now full-scale WTF??? Jishiboka1 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought there were talks of a moratorium. Super Ψ Dro 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with other editors that the change in the title would be largely useless as the years quite easily differentiate between them. CIN I&II (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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

"Syria" in infobox

Thanks for the advice! I’ve started an RFC below. HappyWith (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Syria keeps getting added to belligerents sections of tons of articles about this war, and their only reference are a couple reports from July and October by a Syria-focused human rights group (SOHR) about single-digits numbers of Syrian army members dying. The article itself (link) calls them "mercenaries" and gives zero indication they are fighting on behalf of the Assad regime. Is this really enough to justify putting " Syria", complete with flag and everything, as a supporter in the infobox? HappyWith (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Entries of this sort in the infobox are inherently contensious and have been discussed in the past without reaching a consensus. I particularly agree with your observation re Syria. I have some reservations about Iran too, since it is "not acknowledged" and largely based on a single report (ie a report attributed to a single primary source). Placing a country in the infobox is to effect making an allegation in a Wiki voice (even if there is a footnote). IMHO, we should be treating this as WP:EXCEPTIONAL if we are going to place it in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, Iran and Syria are different when it comes to this infobox, Iran has sent drones and other equipment to Russia, as well as personnel to assist in training of Russian drone pilots, while Syria has sent nothing, the soldiers killed were Syrian Mercenaries, not soldiers, no reason to really add them in, although id agree with adding Iran, as its not "only 1 source", numerous sources documented use of Iranian drones by the Russian Armed Forces, so, adding it as supporting Russia on the infobox is appropiate. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate. It has been repeatedly determined in discussion that listing arms suppliers (there are dozens of them) as supporters on either side is beyond the scope intended for the belligerent section of the infobox. Belarus is included because it was used as a staging ground for the invasion. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That has not been the outcome of the most recent RfCs. It was of the early ones, when Western support was less significant than it has been now. Super Ψ Dro 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The most recent RfC, closed December 30th, 2022, states: [t]o, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. Had there been a change in consensus, it would have been implemented. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like everyone is agreeing with this. Cinderella157 has removed Syria from this page's infobox, which is great, but this misleading kind of thing occurs across a ton of articles relating to the invasion. I don't think consensus from a few editors on this page alone can be used to justify removing it from dozens of other articles, so I'm wondering: How would I go about getting consensus about Syria in the war in general? Is this the kind of thing that I would need to start an RfC for? HappyWith (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably an RfC here with notifications to as many pages as can be found where it is being reported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the thing before where you can place a thing on talk pages that says "there's a discussion at X page that affects this one", I assume that's what I would do here. Is that an automated process, or is there some sort of template I need to manually place on all the Uk-Ru war articles that bring up Syria? I'm trying to find the guidelines or template name, but can't seem to find it. HappyWith (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have only seen that with a multi-page RM. Sorry, but I can only suggest a manual cut-and-paste. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is occurring on a ton of articles? Is Syria being added to the infobox on, e.g., Battle of Bakhmut, &c? I have not seen this. —Michael Z. 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

On second check, it appears that it's already been removed (if it was ever there) from all of them except Battle of Donbas (2022–present). HappyWith (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: It's also in Southern Ukraine campaign. HappyWith (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

I think the Syrian flags and the named Syrian units should be removed, both from the infoboxes and the orders of battle in the article body.

I don’t mind leaving the article body in that Arestovych said that there were Syrian fighters in Ukraine, if it has due weight. —Michael Z. 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Syrians were fighting as part of the Russian Wagner Group. So no reason to add Syria as a supporter to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

New article for Ukrainian victory in the war

I've recently created an article for Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War. This has been a widely discussed topic and we have many reliable sources to talk about this. Still, the topic proved quite complex for my amateur geopolitical knowledge and I do not believe I've written a well-argumented and convincing article. Thus, I would appreciate help into writing page, but also linking it throughout other articles and giving it appropriate categories. This being a pretty unique page with few others to compare it to adds to me not having known how to handle this article. Super Ψ Dro 19:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Would this article benefit from having a Results tab or Ongoing Results tab added to the Infobox

Both the articles for Iraq War and WWII have a Results tab or Ongoing Results tab in their Infoboxes. Would this article for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine benefit from adding such an Ongoing Results tab added to the Infobox; it seems like being told about things like the expansion of NATO to include Sweden and Finland, the Russian annexation or Ukraine oblasts, inflation rate of 25% in Ukraine, and prospects for eventual NATO membership for Ukraine would all be interesting for Wikipedia readers to see at a glance in the Infobox. Are there suggestions for adding other Ongoing Results for such an addition to the Infobox as is currently done on Wikipedia for the Iraq War and WWII? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s make sure everything like that that should be is stated in the article first, anyway.

I can think of a hundred things, so we might spend more time arguing about what is warranted than is warranted. What criteria for inclusion in the infobox? —Michael Z. 17:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm for adding it if you are supporting for the 2-3 items I've listed above; if you have any to add then you could mention them here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the template documentation and MOS:MIL, the result parameter is explicitly to report who won, which cannot be done until the dust settles. It is not for multiple dot points. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what is done on the Crimea annexation article for 2014 which uses a 'Results' tab, even though Ukraine still contests this. It makes sense to add something in this article since the front lines in the 2022 Russian invasion have not moved appreciably in two months now. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST or WP:OTHERCONTENT is only a valid argument if it represents best practice evidenced by our best quality articles. If anything, the status parameter would be the place when the conflict is ongoing and then, used sparingly per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. None of the specific things so far mentioned, save the annexations, appear to me to be key points that should be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

As you suggest, the annexation material for four oblasts looks highly useful for the Infobox. I'd also consider the importance of new nations entering NATO as a result of the invasion and Ukraine's plans to apply for membership to NATO as well, to be useful for inclusion there. Could you or another editor formulate the best wording for it? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Those wars are all over, this is not. AS such we do not know what the result is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The article for 2014 annexation of Crimea is claimed to still be open by Ukraine, though the Wikiipedia article does have a Results tab in the Infobox. It looks like it would be a good idea to have one in this article here as well. Cinderella's idea to keep a comment about the 4 oblasts being annexed seems like a sound idea. Also adding the plans for NATO application from Sweden, Finland and Ukraine seems highly noteworthy as a result of the 2022 Russian invasion; both these facts are worth including in the Infobox under a Results tab or an On-going Results tab. Highly useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac After nearly a week, this discussion seems to partly favor including only two of these items in a new Results tab for the Infobox, which would be the plans for NATO expansion (3 countries), and second, the annexation of the four oblasts. If you could offer a tie-breaker opinion to include it or not, and possibly add it with the best wording you can form, then I'll tey to support you? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

On the face of it, I agree that those two things are among the most important results and look to be useful in a prominent place. But the framework of guidelines and infobox constrain us. Sorry I can’t exactly offer a simple tie-breaker, but here are my thoughts:

Following the link to MOS:MIL and {{infobox military conflict}}, I see that: 1) the result parameter is not appropriate as its allowed content is virtually only either “X victory” or “inconclusive” (it’s explicitly only for the immediate outcome) but 2) the status parameter is appropriate, as I think we can all agree this is an ongoing conflict.

And “status,” by its very name, seems to point to immediate internal status of the conflict, and doesn’t sound like it would be appropriate to shoehorn global effects into it, like new NATO applications, energy prices, resulting global economic losses, &c. (This is in line with the explicitly limited scope of result.)

Another possible addition is territory. See the related example in Russo-Ukrainian War.

It appears to me that the design of the infobox template constrains us to enter immediate and local information regarding the conflict, and not its broader effects.

Given that, I think the occupation and new annexations can belong in a territory parameter. (And perhaps the content of the status field can bear some more thought about including the effects of mobilization, destruction, sanctions, and economic damage on both Russia and Ukraine, but let’s not write the article in the infobox.) —Michael Z. 17:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be wary of including the annexations into a territory parameter. It can give a false impression without context that these are permanent changes, with the land going to Russia, and not political pronouncements amidst active fighting.

Perhaps these effects that editors have mentioned could be added as their own section within the article and given their relative context rather than affixed into the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's been almost no changes at the front line for nearly the last 3 months. Michael's idea sounds like a good one: Included both of the new tabs as described in his last note here on this thread. One for "Status" and one for "Territory". Every source I have seen including the Russian ones agree that the expected expansion of NATO would change the fault lines of Territoriality significantly in Europe. Supporting Michael on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, there have been territorial changes even if they are far smaller than they were last summer. Additionally my main point of concern is that to list annexation as a territorial change in the infobox, will give readers the impression that this is a permanent change. The fighting is still ongoing with territory is likely to change hands and we cant use a crystal ball but we shouldn't give the impression that announced annexations are a fait accompli. BogLogs (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure that listing NATO's expansion in the infobox under Territory is a good idea though I will leave that for other editors to discuss if they wish. BogLogs (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

After BogLogs statement, I'm strongly supporting Mzajac going ahead and adding the Territories tab to the Infobox; Both Russia and European sources are agreed that a 3 country expansion to NATO substantially changes the fault lines of the geopolitical Territories involved. The annexation of Crimea article in 2014 has already included a Results tab for similar data. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Nato isn't adding new member states because of the war, though that still requires final consent by all Nato members, Im just not sure that the appropriate place to list that is in the infobox of a war page on a line marked territories where they are not actively fighting. Might be better to get more community feedback before making this change IMHO. BogLogs (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Statements about territory must be absolutely clear that this is during an ongoing conflict and not anything legal or permanent.

The territory field should only contain direct and immediate effect of the conflict, not uninvolved states’ membership applications to uninvolved international organizations. —Michael Z. 01:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Supporting this as you have stated it and without embellishments. Both sides, the Russians and Europeans, recognize that there are 3 countries seeking to alter the geopolitical fault lines of the Territorial borders. Supporting Michael to go ahead with this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac just stated that Sweden and Finland's pending NATO memberships do not belong in the infobox. That's what is meant by uninvolved states' membership applications (Sweden and Finland) to uninvolved international organizations (NATO). The applications aren't even mentioned in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. —Michael Z. 04:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Jumping in: I support putting the annexations under a 'result'/'effects' tab (so long as its noted that this is still ongoing) and the Sweden/Finland NATO applications should they be added to the article. DecafPotato (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If the Territory and Status fields are uninteresting then drop their discussion here. My start of this thread was to include a History tab making note of the 4 oblast annexations and the 3 countries interested in joining NATO. That is useful information for the Infobox, and it is fully consistent with what Wikipedia has done and is now doing for the 2014 annexation of Crimea article. Going with DecafPotato on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the situation of the annexations can be given proper context in the infobox. How would you suggest we make it clear to readers as they first read that:

1: These annexations are globally unreccognised

2. Lands within thees oblasts are actively under the military control of Ukraine

3. Russia has refused to even say what lands and borders are included in the oblasts they claim to annex

4. The outcome of the war will determine final land settlements not proclamations of annexations

5. Unlike the previous annexation of Crimea in 2014 this is actively being contested by military forces and partisans

If those points can be addressed I think it can be added to the infobox in some form but otherwise I still have deep reservations as we don't want our wikivoice to give the point of view that these stated annexations are in anyway permanent completed territorial transfers from one state to another. BogLogs (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. On the other hand, these annexations have brought the perceived “permanence” of the Crimea annexation down, because they are in no way any less legitimate. IMO, they have to be treated the same way. —Michael Z. 01:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

When Crimea was annexed their was little active fighting and militarily it was essentially uncontested. The annexation of additional oblasts now is little more than a claim unless Russia can actually secure them. Neither are legitimate but the context for both are very distinct and should be understandable by readers as such. BogLogs (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no substantive difference. Some of the land occupied after February 24 was essentially uncontested with little active fighting, too.

Here’s a summary of the situation: Russia illegally claims Ukrainian land. It occupies some of it. The claimed land includes all or part of the city of Sevastopol, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the oblasts of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, although its total bounds are not defined by Russia. (Also occupied are parts of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblast, which may or may not be considered “Russia” by Russia.)

So why should we divide it into A and B? They were occupied in different years. Their current actual status is the same: illegal claims. —Michael Z. 03:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning but I have to disagree. All of the oblasts claimed have had at least some combat after the start of this invasion. All of the areas under Russian control now were and are being actively contested militarily. The seizure of Crimea was basically only contested diplomatically at the time and now is being contested militarily due to the invasion.

Giving the context doesn't give any justification to either act as they are both illegal under international law. That said if we just put into the infobox under a territory heading "Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia annexed by Russia" with no other context the appearance will then be that this is not merely a claim but a lasting incorporation of Ukrainian territory into Russia. BogLogs (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m only saying that all six illegally annexed administrative divisions have the same status and should appear or not appear in a list of annexed administrative divisions. I don’t see what combat has to do with it. Under international law an occupation without resistance is the same (ICC said that the law of international armed conflict applied in Crimea by February 26, 2014, and in eastern Ukraine by April 30, 2014).[70] —Michael Z. 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Its of relevance that the Wikipedia articles for the 2014 Crimea annexation and related links have taken the course of including a Results tab in the Infobox. It is of value to add this information on the 4 oblast annexations in the 2022 Russian invasion to this Infobox as well. Its useful information, and its consistent with the 2014 Crimea annexation article at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

[2] ttps://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

[3] the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, e.g. "UK offers tanks in Ukraine's hour of need, but will Germany follow suit?". France 24. 16 January 2023. Retrieved 18 January 2023.

[4] tably, "US intelligence told to keep quiet over role in Ukraine military triumphs". The Guardian. 7 May 2022. Retrieved 18 January 2023.

[5] "Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation's Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent" (PDF). New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. 27 May 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-06-16. Retrieved 2022-07-22.

[6] Bengali, Shashank (18 February 2022). "The U.S. says Russia's troop buildup could be as high as 190,000 in and near Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 18 February 2022.

[The_Military_Balance2021-7] Hackett, James, ed. (February 2021). The Military Balance 2021 (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-1-03-201227-8. OCLC 1292198893. OL 32226712M.

[factbook-russia-8] "Russia", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2023-01-18, retrieved 2023-01-19

[The_Military_Balance2022-9] The Military Balance 2022. International Institute for Strategic Studies. February 2022. ISBN 9781000620030 – via Google Books.

[10] "Ukraine", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2023-01-18, retrieved 2023-01-19

[11] Barnes, Julian E.; Crowley, Michael; Schmitt, Eric (10 January 2022). "Russia Positioning Helicopters, in Possible Sign of Ukraine Plans". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2022.

[12] Bengali, Shashank (18 February 2022). "The U.S. says Russia's troop buildup could be as high as 190,000 in and near Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 18 February 2022.

[The_Military_Balance2021-13] Hackett, James, ed. (February 2021). The Military Balance 2021 (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-1-03-201227-8. OCLC 1292198893. OL 32226712M.

[The_Military_Balance2022-14] The Military Balance 2022. International Institute for Strategic Studies. February 2022. ISBN 9781000620030 – via Google Books.

[15] This is still the main thrust of the policy, though now it's expressed in a bulleted list that says (combining two items): Avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Requested move 31 December 2022

Typo edit request

Nuclear threats date oddity

How on God's green earth has Ukraine's "Supported By:" section not been added, still?

War in Ukraine

Due weight in the lead section

Western backs Ukraine

Questions about neutrality (let's close this hope it was usefull certainly was for me)

Naming conventions

Are we keeping this title?

Requested move 18 January 2023

Proposal to close this request

2023

Template discussion for Infobox: "(no military alliances)"

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Question about neutrality discussion closure

Recent list of 13 countries that DON'T support Ukraine

Inviting contributions at 2023 Zaporizhzhia offensive

Updates to Infobox after several months; version on display now seems to be getting old

NATO

Belligerents

Casualties in infobox

New article: List of foreign leaders that have visited Ukraine during the invasion

Bias in Various Sections

Is it ethical to display dead bodies on Wikipedia?

Strengths in infobox

Strength update

Commanders

Images of commanders

Infobox Location

Losses on both sides

New articles are needed

Change word 'illegal' in annexations for POV

Arbitrary break

Update article name to 2022-2023 russian invasion of Ukraine

Conflict map resolution

Requested move 5 February 2023

Losses on both side

"Since September 2022:" should be removed as minisformation and original research and replaced by total estimates and claims not involving any original-research calculations whatsoever

New article relating to the invasion—Zelenskyy visit to the UK

Changing title

Requested of adding year to the date

Why isn't NATO listed as a supporter of Ukraine, but Belarus listed as supporting Russia?

Typo with a wrong year in "Foreign involvement"

Requested move 10 February 2023

"Syria" in infobox

New article for Ukrainian victory in the war

Would this article benefit from having a Results tab or Ongoing Results tab added to the Infobox

Leave a Reply