Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Separate casualties

Separate casualties of russian armed forces and the two rebel nations instead of putting all casualties as one 73.46.175.75 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Rocket strike casualty update

Don't have time personally but the current death/casualty count is no longer accurate what w/ the new battle outcomes and attacks. If anyone can find local news sources that'd be great- otherwise, it should be more clearly noted that the statistics change rapidly and may be outdated (this is already in the active war banner but it should be reiterated in the data section). 2601:801:202:49E0:A911:85A2:ADD8:FC27 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should it be reiterated? It's at the top of the page and applies to everything including the infobox. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and lags behind everyone else with intent. It'll be updated eventually, but thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (5)

I think this could be mentioned under `Invasion`→`24 February`.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova said Thursday that a platoon of Russian soldiers surrendered to the Ukrainian military, saying they "didn't know that they were brought to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians."

At a press briefing, Markarova said, "Just before I came here, we got information from our chief commander that one of the platoons of the 74th motorized brigade from Kemerovo Oblast surrendered."

"They didn't know that they were brought to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians. They thought they were doing something else there," she added.

Hm. I had an edit conflict, part of my notes and the source got cut off. Anyway, here's the source. Word and phrase as appropriate.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/595728-ukrainian-ambassador-says-russian-platoon-surrendered-to-ukrainian Intralexical (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: sure but let's wait for an RS to publish this (ideally with independent verification?). Right now, I just see a bunch of tabloids and The Hill (whose reliability, itself, is not excellent). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Named individuals sanctioned by the usa

Proposed addition: of appropriate wording along the following lines with link to the relevant section under Targeted parties of the wiki page United States sanctions

As of February 2022, following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has sanctions against Russian and Belarusian Individuals Pierre Hugot (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

For the map (Military situation as of 24 Feb. 2022), shouldn't the Crimea region be grey?

Russia did annex Crimea before the 24th of Feb, 2022, and on the map it says 24th Feb 2022 - Present. Butters (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toadstar6 It is good as it is. The map is not limiter by the advancements made since 24-02-2022 by the Russian army, it shows the illegally controlled Ukrainian area by Russia. Odindewit (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

• Draft:Civil life in conflict zones
• Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones
• User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

Later at an unknown time, an unconfirmed group either it be civilians or Ukrainian military, ambushed a Russian truck carrying what could appear to be logistics and with the perspectives of other angles of the video, a civilian car was ran over by a tank that witnessed the battle. This would be perceived as a war crime and intentional as the truck hit the car after witnessing the ambush by the unknown group. 2600:1016:B010:F094:2C12:F4EB:CD0E:7077 (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As per above, we can't have every minor action in this article, even if sourced to an RS (this is not). Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source when making an edit request. Not done for now. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New Russian claims for Ukrainian casualties (aircraft and vehicles destroyed)

Add to/change Russian claims of Ukrainian casualties: - 6 combat aircraft shot down - 1 helicopter shot down - 5 drones shot down - 67 tanks/combat vehicles destroyed - 87 other military vehicles destroyed

Source (statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense): https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1497262616632168451 IvtI 09 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we just add any new updates without having to discuss them?Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's just updating something in the article that is already included, I dont see why not (ie, old RU MoD numbers with new ones) --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Benica11 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (6)

Remove Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War. Duplicate use. lol1VNIO (Talk • Contrib) 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (8)

Russia Ministry of Defense is claiming that around 150 Ukrainian soldiers surrendered [1][2] and five combat boats have been destroyed [3]. So could anyone update the surrendered figure and add the combat boats losses? Also wouldn't it be better to move the "2 civilian ships bombed (several casualties onboard)" from casualties1 to casualties3? I mean the casualties1 and casualties2 mostly include military casualties while casualties3 include civilian casualties. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (8)

In the last sentence of the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations, add the wikilink Holocaust trivialization to the words ...abuse of Holocaust history as a justification for war. 94.252.100.96 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Move to Ongoing

Duplicate of Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion_of_Ukraine. Permalink: [4] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't this be in the ongoing section on the main page? Telefocus (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) There's a discussion on that here. Consensus seems to be that it should only be moved to ongoing after the blurb is removed. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Map different

There is an annoying difference between the map that is displayed before clicking on it, and the one that is displayed after. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No big deal 143.178.82.193 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The map is still wrong

The legend for the green says ‘Ukraine’ as if that was the whole of it. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

slovak protests

i cant edit the page but i suggest adding that there are also pro-ukranian protests in slovakia. "Source: https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/618060-v-bratislave-sa-dnes-uskutocni-svieckovy-pochod-za-mier-na-ukrajine/". Im also from slovakia and i can confirm it. Xrup69 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit: Protests

Protests in Australia too, please note these. Source:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10546255/Ukraine-invasion-Australians-stage-anti-Russia-protest-Sydney.html

 Done I found another source since Daily Mail is not considered reliable. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did the War begin ?

Please use the reference desk for factual queries. Talk pages are for discussions about improving the article. Jr8825 • Talk 10:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why did the War begin ? 2409:4060:202:40BB:0:0:18CD:70AD (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Please see "External links" section at the very bottom of the page, it lists all the related articles regarding the history and current relationship of Ukraine and Russia FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the nature of the question, I think we could be more clear in the lead about why the war began. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Were can I get the old maps of the invasion?

Question answered. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Were can I get the old maps of the invasion? Dabi24 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Go to File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Enhanced.svg and look at the history and previous revisions (bottom of the page). Melmann 10:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Update the map

The map is being updated frequently, and this thread doesn't raise any specific issues so closing to keep things moving. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please update the map Russia has occupied many lands SY DIGITAL (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

The article itself is ECP'd. Regardless, this isn't the right place. Try WP:RFPP or possibly WP:AE. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe that this page could be vandalized easily by autoconfirmed users, therefore it would be prudent to upgrade the amount of protection on this page. This would also serve to allow the more experienced editors to source their edits and prevent the spread of misinformation. Toast (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The page itself is already EC-protected. If you mean the talk page, I'd oppose any protection here, as there is minimal IP disruption. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (2)

In protest section add:

Japan

Taiwan DT07 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (7)

Update Ukrainian “Per Russia” losses with what’s reported from the Battle of Antonov Airport https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1%26Russia%20says%20200%20Ukrainians%20%27eliminated%27%20in%20airbase%20siege%262022-02-25T12%3A55%3A10.449Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:149645fb-2fdb-4f80-9cc5-545be403b403&pinned_post_asset_id=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1&pinned_post_type=share Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please only use {{edit extended-protected}} if you give the specific text for the requested change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please update the map with chernobyl being under Russian control.

Map shows Chernobyl under Russian control at time of archiving. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please update the map. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

1000 Russian soldiers killed Al Akhtam (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• BattleofSumy-01.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Map sources

I have created Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War to provide the necessary citations for Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, as is the case with the Syrian Civil War map. Help in expanding it would be much appreciated, as editors are currently just putting URLs in the edit summary when updating the map. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source edit

https://tass.com/politics/1410695 is not considered a reliable source. Please edit. 2603:7080:4303:5A00:98E0:20B8:31D2:C3BD (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree; it could quite easily be participating in a state-backed disinformation campaign. It's a tricky judgement call given that Ukrainian claims are also often unverifiable, but based on the "additional considerations apply" consensus regarding TASS at WP:RS/P, I think it's reasonable to be extra cautious here given that it's effectively a tool of the Russian state. Jr8825 • Talk 08:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some Polls to see the majority Opinions

WP:NOTFORUM P1221 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

it would be interesting in seeing such Polls : 1. Do you think the war Ends this Weekend, it means in over all 5 Days, as Record, shorter than the 6 Days War ? 1. A. Yes 1. B. No We are here the Opinion. 1.A. YES 2. Should Ukraine be a sub-state of Russia ? 2. A. Yes 2. B. No We are the Opinion here 2.A. YES, Ukraine was always a part of Soviet Union USSR. 3. What is the Reason of this Incident ? 3. A. As planned, it was to connect the North-Pole and Black Seas in just One Country. 3. B. Because the President wanted. We are here for the Option connecting the seas 4. Do You Think the ISS must be Shut Down with an Iskander or must wait 7 years more ? 4. A. It is ok to be Shut down now 4. B. No, wait 7 years more 5. Are you in favour of Wars and Guns ? 5. A. No 5. B. Yes We are here at home for Option NO so A, it is not necessary Humans Produce Guns, neither we agree they use them ! Ok ? --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) What is this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be called intervention like Yemen or Syria.

Yeah, this isn't going anywhere. Per RS & COMMONNAME it's an invasion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is Saudi invasion of Yemen is called intervention but not this? 202.47.40.113 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC) DId the Ukrainian president ask for this, as the president of Yemen did?Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Local time (where is local)

Under the quick facts section (before background) the article says at 05:00 local time... Where is local? Ukraine? America? South Africa?

Care to clarify?

Thank you? Quest Moremi (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine, clearly. Super Ψ Dro 20:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you. Quest Moremi (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

Change 1 Ilyushin Il-76 shot down to 2 Ilyushin Il-76 shot down Gh0st0fKyiv (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jr8825 • Talk 01:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source quoting anonymous US officials: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-officials-say-2-russian-transport-planes-shot-down-over-ukraine/ And here's another source saying it's coming from AP: https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/1497437706393206784 P4p5 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done The article has already been updated. Jr8825 • Talk 07:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev?????

Anyone know anything about this???? Been seeing reports all over about an ace Ukrainian fighter pilot being called "The Ghost of Kiev" who has suppossedly shot down 6 Russian aircraft??? == Hypsiosthews (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The only "ghost" of Kiev is people who keep using "Donbas" instead of "Donbass", when the name clearly needs a double "s" and please go Putin - khuilo! yourself if you think otherwise. No matter what language your country uses it's still "Donbass", not "Donbas". Ukrainian lacks consonants so why should this be an issue for those who openly despise it? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How is this related to the question at all? --85.165.55.6 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A draft article (Draft:Ghost of Kyiv) was started by someone, but it cannot be moved to mainspace without sources. If you would like to, feel free to add sources to it. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a viral social media rumor with no official reporting, sourcing, or backing, similar to many other viral social media rumors in current events. Reyne2 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and the only source in the draft page says it as well: "So far, there has been no confirmation that the Ghost of Kyiv truly exists (...) What cannot be denied though is that the idea of the Ghost of Kyiv has gripped social media users, particularly staunch supporters of Ukraine (...) Maybe the Ghost of Kyiv is just a fantasy, but for the people of Ukraine, he or she is a hero they want to believe in.". Not notable to me, IHMO P1221 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is now live at Ghost of Kyiv, with a deletion debate started. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

2500 Russian soldiers almost certainly CASUALTIES (kia, wia, captured, missing), not killed only Frankystein3 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can people please stop asking to have a live update of casualties, they will be added at some point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit on "CNN called baseless" under "Russian accusations"

@Pigsonthewing I think they changed it lol to include everyone. Thanks anyway! skelter (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions - cleaning needed

The article is as of writing 226,545 bytes. Shouldn't most prose about the reactions here be moved, to the reactions and international reactions dedicated articles? Maxorazon (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Even though it is over 200000 bytes, it only has around 37000 bytes of text (readable prose size) so I don't think much of the content needs to be moved at this point. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022: German Chancellor's speech

[5]

I think this should be in the Sanctions and Condemnations section. Especially the passage: "He (President Putin) alone, not the Russian people, has made the decision for war. He alone is responsible. This war is Putin's War." Herr Hartmann (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Herr Hartmann, how would you like to have this source fit in this section? In my opinion, it would be better to insert it in the voice International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. P1221 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't noticed that separate article yet. Now that I've seen it I'm pretty sure that this speech should be present in some form in both places. "International Reactions" looks like a good place for a moderately elaborate summary. Since that article is not protected, I can do that myself. As to this article, how about this:

In the afternoon of February 24, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave a speech on national television in which he placed to blame for the outbreak of the war directly on Vladimir Putin. "He alone, not the Russian people, has made the decision for war. He alone is responsible. This war is Putin's War." Scholz also announced further sanctions, which "will hit the Russian economy hard." Germany had already halted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project on February 22, in reaction to Putin's recognition of the self-declared people's republics in eastern Ukraine. Herr Hartmann (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's just me, or is every little engagement listed as "a battle"?

Like, there is a report of "X Russians were attacked in Y city" and then there is a new article created named "The Battle of Y". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.127.98.166 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, we do not need every encounter listed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What criteria should be used? Brandonazz (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would believe on attacks widely covered by RS. Some of these articles are exclusively based on claims reported by single, not-so-reliable sources. P1221 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

en dashes in lead

I don't like them myself and think they look a bit weird next to each president's name in the lead, but I presume Laurel Lodged strongly disagrees, as he's restored them several times. Am I missing some guidance here? Any other editors have thoughts/preferences? Jr8825 • Talk 13:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Parenthetic and other uses at the sentence level. En-dashes can be used instead of pairs of commas that mark off a nested clause or phrase. They can also be used around parenthetical expressions – such as this one – rather than the em dashes preferred by some publishers. The en dash can also signify a rhetorical pause. For example, an opinion piece from The Guardian is entitled:

Who is to blame for the sweltering weather? My kids say it's boomers – and me

In these situations, en dashes must have a single space on each side. That's why. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't like them either. I think it is better and simpler with commas or just plain spaces. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDontLikeIt is no substitute for adherence to rules and guidelines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd Battle of Chernihiv or siege?

I wanted to point this out to the editors of this article that the Russian ministry of defense declared a siege of the city of Chernihiv about an hour ago, which I assume is a seperate thing that happened from the Battle of Chernihiv which was declared as a Ukrainian victory on its own article. Here is where I got it from: https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/25-february-russian-ministry-of-defense-declares-siege-on (on the page in the top left corner there is a hyperlink linking to the source of where the info came from). I wanted to put this here for the editors in case if a 2nd Battle of Chernihiv article needs to be created. --Guillaume Taillefer (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Entire article is pro ukraine/nato

Russian casualties are being greatly exaggerated and the real Ukrainian casualties are being silenced.. russia has actually caused much more casualties to ukraine armed forces than shown here 73.46.175.75 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We need reliable, independent sources to verify claims present in the article. Note that we do list casualties according to both Ukraine and Russia to try to reduce the issue of Western bias. Do you have any sources that disagree with the current casualty count of either side? Anarchyte (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As with the above, present sources that dispute our numbers. But I would agree that we should use both side's official figures. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how casualty numbers have anything to do with the morality/favorability of the situation, though I agree with the above that all claims should be presented when independently-verified numbers are not available. As a broader note about the alleged "pro-Ukraine" slant of the article: When the reason given by the invaders for an unprovoked attack is a fabricated international Jewish-led neo-Nazi conspiracy, RS are unlikely to paint it in a positive light. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@73.46.175.75 there are no reasons as to why this article should be entirely neutral. This war isn't neutral, one side is the aggressor. Diridibindy (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no lack of neutrality, we use official sources and right now that includes Ukraine and the UK, while Russia is doing an information blackout. Readers will want to know what's going on, and we can only allow what's out there. Once reliable estimates are published from 3rd parties we can include that as well. Until Russia claims to have killed more soldiers than is published here, we can't do anything about it. Plus, imo, the numbers look accurate for a large invading force with battles across several cities. Current estimates from the west say Russia put 1/3rd of its force in, which is a lot of boots on the ground relative to the casualties. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Update Ukrainian casualties

Ukrainian casualties should be updated as new information is available indicating higher losses. I believe the Ukrainian defense ministry clarified that 137 Ukrainian soldiers and 57 civilians were killed on the first day, while the spokesman of the Russian defense ministry is claiming that over 200 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in fighting at Antonov International Airport. History Man1812 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is what we are doing when sources are presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

i recall seeing the 137 figure as official from ukraine as well, so curious why it says 40+ right now --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

F1

Hello, about the Russian Grand Prix, the F1 article states that the Russian Grand Prix is Suspended, whilst this article says that it is cancelled. Should it be changed? TTTTRZON (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Although the listed source here from the BBC states that it has been cancelled, the discussion on the F1 talk page seems to indicate a suspension, and not an outright cancellation, as of the time of writing. I'll make the change and see how it plays out. Benjamin112 ☎ 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed a lot of cruft and burden of knowledge on F1. As you can see I am not that interested in the topic, maybe give a few more hours for the F1 boards to clearly state what they want and will do, and for the wikipedians to settle on this? Maxorazon (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. thank you Benjamin112 for handling.

Location

On the sidepanel Location: "Ukraine and Russia" I think we should include Belarus too Csendesmark (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think not yet. Russia is included I believe because Rostov oblast was hit. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I was suggesting Belorussia, because the Russians used Belorussia as staging ground for the invasion. Csendesmark (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the location to Ukraine only. See for comparison Soviet invasion of Poland, which has location as Poland only. Vpab15 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The reported "1 Su-25 crashed" for Russia is most likely a fake

The article cited isn't clear about the source, but earlier today a video showing one "Su-25 crash" was a fake taken from a video-game. I'm not sure if those are the same reports or different ones. If anyone has clearer information regarding this, it would be welcomed. Chalchiutlicue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Well the rusisans seem to claim it was https://tass.com/defense/1410213. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh it's for yesterday, so it' different from the fake video that has been circulating around. Thanks for the clarification Chalchiutlicue (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nvidia hack source uses a source that requires payment

Please find a source that does NOT require payment. Editssometimez (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty of access, either due to cost or broken links/rare publication is not in itself a community accepted reason to remove an otherwise reliable source. See WP:PAYWALL. If you wish to see the source, consider making a request on WP:RX. Melmann 06:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Chechnya

Multiple sources now reporting that Chechen troops have been sent to Ukraine. Blackout8771 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Chechnya part of Russia? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it is (even though it is essentially Kadyrov property), I think that user is referring to the certain units of ethnic Chechens but by "add Chechnya" sounds like he is confusing it as a country. Mellk (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ingenuity, this doesn't directly apply to this specific spot, but Ukraine has begun attacks into Russia, so locations in Russia can be important now. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Kadyrovtsy (formally it's National Guard Forces Command units but de facto subordinated to Kadyrov personally) are typical punitive squads whose primary task is a conduction of repression in occupied territories. Although Novaya Gazeta writes that Kadyrov's troops will be engaged in subversion and reconnaissance activity in Ukraine. It seems Putin is out of military reserve and he has to use all available units on the front line. I think these considerations can be useful. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably best to wait a bit to see if they end up fighting for the Russians or Ukrainians, hehe. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Duplicate economic ramifications?

Why do we have two economic ramification section, which appear to be near word-for-word duplicates. The separate section should be deleted or merged into the subsection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Map Updating - Ukrainian Offensive

The map needs to be updated with an attack/arrow going into Russia due to the Millerovo air base attack, which is when Ukrainian forces invaded Russia for an attack. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand it was an unconfirmed missile strike. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Middle East involvement

According to multiple sources the Middle East is joining the battle . Country alliances will be determined as time progresses. Lmharding (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The sources don't say anything about them "joining the battle" - political & materiel support is NOT the same thing! 50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Presidential standards

Hi everybody, I'm starting a discussion regarding presidential standards in the infobox. In my humble opinion, having nations'l leaders represented with a different symbol from their nation's flag is quite confusing for a reader. I sincerely don't understand why in this article and in the one about Russo-Ukrainian War, we use standards to "represent" presidents. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that presidential standards aren't used anywhere else. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure when this change was made, but I think it's a bit confusing and should be reverted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is not an article about vexillology. The presidential standards are less well known internationally than the country flags are, particularly given that the country flags appear slightly higher in the infobox anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, I think we should remove them both here and in the “Russo-Ukrainian War” article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed it. I think it looks weird, plus I checked other war pages on wiki and have seen no other uses of presidential standards. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Paramilitary groups in the combatants section?

It has been reported that various Ukrainian paramilitary groups are also involved in the conflict. This has been reported by The New York Times. There have been reports of Russian paramiliataries as well.PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, because these sources are only about training, this is not about involvement of any paramilitary in the actual conflict. Sure, they will be involved, but this must be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

United Kingdom death count

"Per United Kingdom: 57 Ukrainian civilians killed[15] Per Ukraine: 137 Ukrainians killed overall, 316 wounded[21] Per United Kingdom: 194 Ukrainians killed overall[15] Per UN: 100,000 civilians displaced[22]"

Can someone put the 2 united kingdoms into one? Into something like this: "Per United Kingdom: 57 Ukrainian civilians killed[15], 194 Ukrainians killed overall[15] Per Ukraine: 137 Ukrainians killed overall, 316 wounded[21] Per UN: 100,000 civilians displaced[22]" Butters (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I really do not think we need everyone's opinion of casualties, we should not load the info box with factoids. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Battles

There should be a page: Battle of Donetsk (2022) Outermayo (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

• Estonia closes airspace for Russian airlines.
• Can be added to the list somehow On 25 February, Poland, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic announced that they would close their airspace to Russian airlines. Estonia announced airspace closure on 26 February.
• Source Estonian Public Broadcasting

Plingen Plungen (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Page size

The page is already up to 234,589 bytes, and is growing rapidly. We need to decide how to trim or subdivide it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The page is <40k chars of readable prose, well within WP:PROSESIZE. The extreme raw byte length is due to the insane number of references, but the actual readable prose is a small amount of the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LENGTH:

"There are three related measures of an article's size:

• "Readable prose size...
• "Wiki markup size...
• "Browser page size..."

The 234,589 bytes refers to Wiki markup size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: It's a rapidly changing news event. You can't trim this because there's a massive proliferation of different citations as there's currently not one single citation that we can use for large parts of the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (8)

This battle is still ongoing. The page was switched to a Russian victory then locked from being edited. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-believes-russians-have-not-taken-melitopol-minister-heappey-says-2022-02-26/ Jordan16 g (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Seems you're referring to Battle of Melitopol. I've made the edit, as I agree it should be clarified and contextualised in the body instead, but I haven't done that part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Spain to countries with protests?

There have been anti-war protests in various Spanish cities: (https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20220225/millar-personas-protesta-madrid-contra-guerra-clama-ni-putin-ni-otan/2297580.shtml). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.143.12 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Jewish PM?

In the article, there is a line that "Both President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal are Jewish, making Ukraine one of two countries in the world to have both a Jewish head of state and head of government, the other being Israel." Someone in the talk page mentioned adding this information. However, I'm pretty sure it's not true. The citations are to a 2019 NYT article referencing Zelensky's recent election and then-PM Volodymyr Groysman, who was indeed Jewish, and a recent Boston Globe article which reads "For a while, both the president and the prime minister of Ukraine were Jewish, something that has never happened anywhere else, aside from Israel." (Emphasis on "were") Indeed, during the brief period of their overlap, Ukraine was one of the very, very few nations on earth with a Jewish head of state and head of government (or who have ever had one of either, let alone one of each, let alone at the same time). However, the present PM, as correctly stated in the relevant passage of the Wikipedia article, is Denys Shmyhal. Outside of this wiki, I cannot find any sources supporting the claim that he's Jewish.

Spreading misinformation about this conflict is not helpful. I understand the intention of highlighting the conflict with Putin's claims of neo-Nazism, but the actual facts can be presented to the same effect. I suspect that this was simply an error, confusion, not malicious. I believe that this requires a correction, urgently ideally, however I don't know enough about Shmyhal to be sure that he isn't Jewish. Also, while it's clear that there is value in mentioning that the popularly-elected president of this allegedly neo-Nazi state is Jewish, I am not sure if it's relevant that they did, in the recent past, simultaneously have a Jewish PM and President. It may be valuable context, so input is requested on how to rewrite/correct/improve that section. Jbbdude (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Robertiki (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

Can you please add the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission to the list of Canadian liquor companies that have boycotted Russian alcohol? Source here: https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/business/russian-vodka-at-the-nslc-nyet-100698483/ Mrwiki081494 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Sixula^Talk 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

list of countries with protests against Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hello, Would it be possible to add Italy to the list of countries in which protests have occured? there are articles on main newspapers with pictures from Milan, Bologna, Rome and other cities (e.g. https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2022/02/26/news/milano_contro_guerra_ucraina_corteo_cairoli_studenti_pace-339343039/). Thank you

 Done P1221 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 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: not moved. this is clearly not going to gain consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 18:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 invasion of Ukraine – It seems like there is some ambiguity as to the involvement of Belarus in the invasion. Additionally, it's unambiguous which historical event (the ongoing invasion) this is referring to without "Russian", so it's more concise without including that word. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose you yourself said "It seems like there is some ambiguity as to the involvement of Belarus". Why move this article based on an uncertainity? If Belarus is confirmed to participate, maybe then we can consider a move. Super Ψ Dro 16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE and other invasion articles such as Invasion of Poland and 2003 invasion of Iraq. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Detrimental in my opinion to the clarity of the subject. Furthermore, the belligerence of Belarus is still being discussed here. Maxorazon (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. It is the only invasion of Ukraine in 2022. To have both names it should more of a Russia-Ukraine 2022 war title.--Robertiki (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ambiguity: The possible participation of Belarusian forces in the invasion doesn't change the fact that the crime of aggression - the decision and order to invade in violation of international law - were taken by the president of Russia. It's still accurate to describe this as primarily a Russian invasion, whether or not Belarusian forces have participated. Naturalness: excluding "Russian" is not natural to what the reader expects. This is not just random armies from all over the place invading Ukraine. Boud (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Belarus is not invading the Ukraine. Russia is the primary aggressor. ---  Jrobb525 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Belarus is only allowing Russian military from their borders, they are not invading Ukraine. Broadening the title is unnecessary. 75.81.138.139 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a Russian invasion of Ukraine, so that should be the title. I think specificity is important here. Garnarblarnar (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose huh whuh huh 92.97.75.47 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We discussed the role of Belarus (see "Role of Belarus/belligerent"). According to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, Belarus is agressor because this country allowed its territory for Russian troops for perpetrating an act of aggression against Ukraine. And it is coincides with official point of view of the head of State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. But Belarusian troops have not invaded Ukraine (at least not yet). It is Russian invasion. In simple terms, Russia is aggressor and invader, Belarus is just aggressor. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy Close, WP:SNOW not specific enough. Viewsridge (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's officially Russian invasion, backed up by whom? That's added in Belligerents section. Heartwave47 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support because it's the only invasion so far this year. If there's another one, we should distinguish them by country or month. Whether countries other than Russia are involved or not is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It is a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anything less than that for a title, is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL rules and an attempt of whitewashing Russia's actions at a title level. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is Russia's invasion. Belarus is at most a supporting player in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Belarus involvement is tangential at best, and current name is more descriptive. Melmann 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the sake of consistency with previous relevant articles like the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Ak12900 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Suggestions to deal with false nuke reports

I think we need a new zero tolerance policy directed at anyone who actually decides to deliberately post a false claim about the use of nuclear weapons in and around Ukraine. At this time such lies not only can result in panic and even increase the risk of escalation. Anyone who does this shouldn't only be banned immediately they should also be reported to the authorities. This rule needs to also be retroactive from the 24th of February because of the seriousness involved. Experiment632 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Normal WP:POL and processes apply; there is no need for any special rules. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Also, any other extravagant claim - such as a chemical weapon attack (beyond something non-lethal such as tear-gas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should they be reported to the authorities? Lying isn't a criminal offense. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.73.255 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Spurring hatred can certainly be inferred from a false nuke declaration, and this is a legally binding offense in France for example. Maxorazon (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. People are going to lie and make stuff up here on the talk page all the time. So long as it doesn't make it into the article, it doesn't matter that much and we can deal with it via normal processes. Anyone who believes random Wikipedia editors on the talk page of an article that say nuclear war has started has issues of their own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (3)

In international reaction include:

Guatemala recalls its ambassador from Russia on February 25th, 2022. DT07 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sl (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (9)

According to Al-Jazeera six Greek nationals have been killed and six others were wounded can you add that data to the causalties. Demotal (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done looks like someone else already did this. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to Edit Protected Page

In the section "Russian denials of plans to invade" there is a typographical error. Please change "December 2022" to "December 2021".

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong date for peskov quote

“In December 2022, Peskov said that tensions regarding Ukraine were "being created to further demonize Russia and cast it as a potential aggressor".”

Should be December 2021 2A00:23C4:3AA0:A301:20C2:4D42:3A33:CA9F (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just fixed that (see above edit request) >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Greek casualties

The Reuters article cited for Greek casualty numbers claims 10 Greek expats killed in Ukraine from Russian bombing, not 6. Please correct this in the casualty box and in the citation at the bottom of the article. The article title has changed since first linked. Stephanos100 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions > United Nations > Failed resolution

I would like to suggest the following:

On 25 February, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution to require Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, as expected.

be reworded to:

On 25 February, Russia vetoed a Security Council draft resolution "deploring, in the strongest terms, the Russian Federation's aggression", as expected.

(Bolding only for clarifying the proposed change.)

The terms here seem pretty important to me, that failed UNSC draft resolution is kind of the most significant temperature measure of the 'international community' at the moment, in my eyes. I can't find what's the exact status of a draft resolution neither of the vote on such a resolution, and I have not been able to find archive of this one on the UN website.

I've edited the detailed 'reactions' article in that sense, but I can't do it here. bonob (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.208 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (10)

Add Azerbaijan to the protests section. Sources:

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Duplicate paragraph

The second paragraph under Ramifications, Economic, is duplicated. 122.148.194.56 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already fixed that. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (7)

I want to provide information on the Portugese reinforcements that are incoming per CNN Taiwanbro101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 19:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (6)

Request to add a Failed Verification template to the statement “It was later confirmed that the aircraft was a Ukrainian Su-27.” in the paragraph about an aircraft crashing into Kiev. The provided citation (19 in the reflist) does not substantiate the statement. Alternatively, the statement could simply be deleted. Yeoman Scrap 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The source says Ukrainian Deputy Interior Minister Evgeny Yenin told CNN a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet was shot down over Kyiv. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Namura Queen

Only one japanese ship flying under the Panamanian flag has been damaged, the casualties box says a Panamanian, and two Japanese ships have been attacked. All three of the sources talk about the same ship, the Namura Queen. Editssometimez (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Robertiki (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Greek citizen casualties

On 26th February Greek foreign Ministry announced that 2 Greeks were killed and 6 more were injured in Sartana. Later that day 4 more Greeks were confirmed dead in the village of Buhas. 2A02:3037:40E:A1E:55EA:332E:F086:7B2B (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

[[6]], so they may have been killed by Ukrainians. I am unsure what you want to add to the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Error

There's an error in the sanctions category. Find "is sanctions" and replace with "is sanction" 2607:FB91:148C:98E6:112E:F5AA:EB85:3573 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done "The enforcement mechanism is sanctions against the person or company." wouldn't replacing it with "is sanction" make the grammar worse? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (2)

I think it would be a good idea to add Finland to those supporting Ukraine in this conflict in terms of economic support Sources- Finland: https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1497128614676123648 100.12.163.254 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. sl (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (4)

In think it should be added into subsection "Sanctions":

On 26 February 2022, Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia would arrest accounts of foreign companies and natural persons, reintroduce the death penalty, and denounce New START as response to sanctions.

As this was just him saying its what he would like to see, I do not think this is all that relevant. It will be if Russia does it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Millerovo on the map

• Can you add on the map strike (mark with other color) to russian military airbase Millerovo by Ukraine forces? . It's info from official Air Force Command of UA Armed Forces account . UNIAN, dialog.ua is pro-Ukraine media. NTV is pro-Russia media --Мечников (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

SWIFT

In Economic ramifications#24 February 2022, it is implied that the only few EU countries support the measure to exclude Russia from SWIFT are the Baltic countries and some others, when in fact, there are only four countries that are against it (Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Hungary), according to CNN. I think it is very important to clarify this in the paragraph. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The foreign ministers of the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Cyprus were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance. Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. US President Joe Biden ruled out blocking Russia from SWIFT after the invasion began, claiming that some European countries remained opposed to the proposal. He argued that sanctions being put in place would exceed the impact of cutting Russia from SWIFT.

Bold would be what would have changed. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please clarify. At least the Guardian recently didn't even include Hungary (but small Cyprus), I don't know what's newer, perhaps they changed their mind? Canada is in favor also, why is that even suggested to be a EU question? It's a global system, of nation states, EU or not EU doesn't matter much. When Biden said EU he probably meant Europe anyway, unfortunate but common. -82.83.169.119 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the rest are in support. It means only six have expressed a position on the issue, that CNN was aware of at the time of writing and wanted to include in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: If only four countries are blocking it, it means that other 23 countries are not doing it. In any case, I would like these four countries to be mentioned in some way. --KajenCAT (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

FT mentions all the four countries above. P1221 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Sure, we can name the countries that are reluctant. Will add. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is that it's very hard to say. There are real concerns for why Russia should not be cut off from SWIFT, primarily CIPS, and I think it's an oversimplification to say that X countries are in favour and Y countries against. Boris Johnson for instance says that he's in favor, but to be fair he's said a lot... some statements of which have been more accurate than others. The US for that matter if it wanted to could unilaterally cut Russia from SWIFT by threatening to break from the system, but it has not done that, which shows hesitancy on the US' part as well. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and in my edit I tried to mention the concerns the countries (who commented) had about cutting Russia off from SWIFT. Hopefully it explains the dispute somewhat, though further contributions to improve it would be very welcome! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Map for international reactions

is needed. A good summary is presented in Le Temps: [7] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Map legibility

The excellent map of course can be expanded, which is OK for cities. But can it be given another level expansion so that all relevant place names can be read? Davidships (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Image description currently in this article and the front page of Wikipedia possibly incorrect?

This image has been described as showing a missile strike site however the damage is incredibly minimal for what I would expect from a missile with no crater and I came across a video showing this exact scene but earlier in the morning closer to when the invasion began as it was still dark outside and before the wreckage of the missle was supposedly removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98Pt5sAh7s

Apparently it is the impact site of a discarded booster from a cruise missile, or is a "Kh-31, anti-radiation missile launched by planes with goal to destroy radars"? TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this but part of the missile did hit the structure, which technically counts as a missile strike (correct me if I'm wrong) Butters (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Butters, as it was a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight. It isn't the "traditional" missle strike in the sense it was a booster from a missile, not the missile warhead striking the building. That being said, I don't know of a better way to describe what happened given the facts. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You could call it "Collateral damage caused by missile fragment from an air strike.", or something like that. Make it the caption of the figure. It wasn't the target (since that is not here the warhead hit), but it was damage caused by the air strike. Maybe link to the source who says it was from a booster. I found a tweet from the mayor of Kyiv, who says it was the "result of the wreckage of the rocket in a residential building on kosice street, 7-A" (google translation).

2804:14D:78B1:8CD8:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian claim on Russian losses - 1257EST, 26FEB22

For the infobox update, updated numbers, per the Ukrainian MOD:

14 Planes 8 Helos 102 tanks 536 vehicles 15 artillery pieces 3500 KIA 200 POW

Source: https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1497445616657567748

50.200.118.243 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO responses

In response to this edit by ProcrastinatingReader, I would argue that deploying NATO troops is neither a condemnation or sanction, but it is a reaction, and therefore needs to be one level up in the article structure. - Featous (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You can see in the above talk sections on belligerents 1 & 2 that ProcrastinatingReader is trying very hard to strike a balanced and accurate view on the involvement of NATO. This conflict is a great risk to the global peace so this is fully understandable. I personally agree to adding more prominent support from NATO in the infobox and the reaction paragraphs.Maxorazon (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My original point has been made moot by the newer changes to the article structure. In any case, I surely didn't mean to criticize anybody's efforts to keep the article focused. I appreciate all of the editors who have been herding cats here. - Featous (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The conflict is only a 'great risk to global peace' if the Russians happen to "get lost" and wind up in a NATO territory, unlikely in the most extreme. The news services like to whip up a lot of rhetoric for ratings purposes - editors need to ignore this. Stay calm, combat is liable to be over in a week with no wider war.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions

The sanctions page in the introduction links to the sanctions in place between 2014 and present. That should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War page. As it stands, countries have introduced new sanctions specifically related to the invasion, shouldn't this be the stuff linked?Angele201002 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian losses need to be updated?

Russia's 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade recon platoon surrendered near Chernihiv, as stated with sources in the article, but I do not see it counted in the infobox as Russian losses. Any reason why, other than oversight? — Kiutsushou (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In an ongoing situation like this. It's difficult to keep up with what's happening. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the specific link? And also, "a platoon" would best be specified as the exact number of soldiers captured. Juxlos (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Boldface fixation

I agree with not cramming boldface into the lead sentence. It is not, or at the very least should not be, standard practice to have redundancy in the lead sentence, e.g. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced on 24 February 2022 when Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a fixation, it's the application of the rules. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding of title and alternative names which says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Following on from the discussion on my talk page, contrary to the general expectation that we should usually bold the article title, WP:BOLDITIS (an explanatory supplement of MOS) explicitly says that ("[bolding] is not mandatory and should be followed only where it lends natural structure to the sentence" original emphasis). There's also the section on MOS:REDUNDANCY, which speaks specifically to the wording here. Jr8825 • Talk 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple subsections of MOS:LEAD state that the lead sentence should not be distorted to include the article title, including MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY. Defining the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 does not help Wikipedia look serious. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That exception might only be said to apply in this case because - perversely - the opening words do not mirror the article name. This is contrary to standard. When the opening words are changed to "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" then the exception will no longer apply. The bolding will then be entirely correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you suggest a full first sentence that uses the article's title but still conveys the same amount of useful information as the current one, and doesn't sound repetitious? I don't think it's easily done without twisting the sentence into a pretzel, to use the analogy at BOLDITIS. Jr8825 • Talk 11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing perverse in the opening words not mirroring the article name. MOS:FIRST: "If the article title is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." What is perverse is sacrificing lead sentence quality for some boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What about this: "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced on 24 February 2022 when Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine, its neighbour to the southwest." Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

When you boil that sentence down though, it effectively says "the ... Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced ... when Russia ... inva[ded] Ukraine" – which shows how repetitive it is. Jr8825 • Talk 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is bad. Very bad. It is also contrary to the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking the Invasion of Poland as a template, what about this: "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February 2022) was an attack by the Russian Federation on Ukraine, its neighbour to the southwest.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you think that's better than what you suggested earlier? And how is it better than what the sentence says now? Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How is my suggestion any worse than the the Invasion of Poland? Explain what is the problem with my suggestion No. 2 please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The venue for discussing Invasion of Poland is Talk:Invasion of Poland. The problem with your second suggestion is the same as the problem with your previous suggestion(s): it introduces redundancy for no benefit, making the lead sentence absurd. Of course the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an attack on Ukraine by Russia in 2022. Is there any benefit to the reader in bending over backwards to include some boldface? Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Invasion of Poland article has been stable for quite some time now. I feel no need to discuss it at Talk:Invasion of Poland. On the other hand, it appears that Surtsicna may have a problem with it. If so, i suggest that you take your own advice. Be sure to tell the editors there Of course the Invasion of Poland is an attack on Poland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If the Invasion of Poland article stated that the 1939 German-Soviet invasion of Poland was an attack on Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, then yes, I would have a problem with it. Please focus on the subject at hand, which is the lead sentence of this article, and do not feel the need to presume my thoughts on other subjects. I will happily express them myself if and where I deem them relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Perhaps it's time for a Third Party opinion as most of the above is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There were already three parties in the discussion (now four). Citing one guideline while dismissing other guidelines as "I don't like it" is not constructive. Likewise, you have made no attempt to explain why a sentence with repetition is better than the sentence without. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: I prefer the lead as it is now, without bold intro. P1221 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't care if yas boldface (I assume this is about the intro) or not. Just be consistent about it, across all War/Invasion/Battle etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We can have consistency among those that have established names and consistency among those that do not. There is no one size that can fit both groups, however. They can, however, all be consistent with the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's just another way of saying it can be chaotic if I want it to be chaotic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Take it up with the Manual of Style. You are cherry picking from it. The quality of the sentence is more important than a boldface fixation. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Financial Times

The United Kingdom's Financial Times, which is usually paywalled, has made its coverage of the invasion free to read. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Tank Man

The Guardian is reporting on a Ukrainian Tank Man that's gone viral. I doubt it's relevant enough for its own article, but is there somewhere it could go in this one? https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/ukraine-tank-man-video-clip Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 11:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, but the deliberate reprehensible tank rolling over a civilian's car should be. I think it will become an iconic image of Russia's sadistic violence. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned on the article about the battle of the respective city in which this incident happened, if it is discovered. If not, maybe it could be integrated here somewhere but only with a single sentence. Maybe it could go into War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine too. Super Ψ Dro 12:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. The man in the car survived, thankfully. I'll see if I can add it in, there's plenty of sources Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 12:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added it in under the 25 February heading of the Invasion section, but possibly War Crimes may be better. It happened in Kyiv, btw. Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 13:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Role of Belarus/belligerent

(Note: duplicate thread merged from § Changing Belarus to a belligerent Jr8825 • Talk 11:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC))

The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine alleges that Belarusian soldiers are involved as belligerents in the invasion. I suggest Belarus is changed from a supporter of the invasion to an (alleged) or (disputed) belligerent in the infobox.

The English language source is here: https://www.ft.com/content/5b423554-6ce9-49fe-b74c-da41298b565f#post-a3716370-c77a-4e93-9973-f17a0114c8b5 (Title "Ukraine’s border guard says Belarus troops with Russians in attacks") Lluq (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's await third party confirmation for clarity, as an "alleged" or "disputed" structure would be more confusing than the current, potentially inaccurate, phrasing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I temporarily set the template to "answered" to clear out backlogs. Feel free to set the "|answered=" to "no" once you got a third=party source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The United Nations definition of belligerant seems unambiguous. I see no reason to delay calling out Belarus as a belligerent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I understand your rationale, but my concern would be that by listing Belarus next to Russia and the two breakaway entities, it will cause readers to think the Belarusian troops are directly involved. Perhaps a footnote is enough to clarify this, but I think some caution is wise. Also, ProcrastinatingReader suggested in a below discussion that the resolution is non-binding/ambiguous? Jr8825 • Talk 11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why the non-binding status of the resolution could not also form part of a note (as well as the lack of Belerus troops). Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Fundamentally, it's original research to take some original text like a treaty or piece of legislation or a resolution that interprets part of said treaty and then for Wikipedia editors to decide that definition is met in a given case and therefore label it as such. Reliable sources should make that judgement. Secondly, the infobox documentation suggests we should use the format most likely to be clear to the reader, which seems to be the current formulation for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• In infobox, Belarus is designated as "supported by". According to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, the action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State, is qualified as an act of aggression. Russian Kyiv Offensive (2022) is carrying out from Belarusian territory, and it means that Belarus is aggressor just like Russia. That is why I think that Belarus should be designated as direct belligerent, and the note "b" should be supplemented by reference to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the aforementioned Resolution. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussed at #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (7) Changing Belarus to a belligerent as well. Let's wait. The reasoning above is OR, and the resolution in question is non-binding and elements have been criticised (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314#Criticisms of the definition), although I personally agree Belarus is quite complicit here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the cited discussion. Right now, the nominator has a good prima facia case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the definition described in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 is not binding on the Security Council. But the problem is that Russia is permanent member of the Security Council and have the power to veto, and not just Belarus but even Russia itself will not be recognized as aggressors by the Security Council. It would be foolish to wait for the Security Council resolution in this case. In fact, at the moment, Russian offensive from Belarusian territory is the most dangerous for Ukraine; and it would significantly facilitate rebuttal of the aggression if Belarus didn't allow its territory to be used by Russian troops for invasion. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not waiting for a Security Council resolution. I am (or was) waiting for a (non-Wikipedia) consensus that Belarus is a belligerent (via reliable sources, government statements, etc) rather than just supporting. Nevertheless, I think the point that the invasion effort is significantly enhanced by Belarus's involvement is quite strong. I still feel like it's OR for editors (including myself) to decide that, but I guess the criteria is which infobox presentation is clearer for the reader, and that decision is subjective and does fall on Wikipedia editors. I'm neutral overall, as I can see the pros and cons of both approaches. Would prefer more opinions from others, and ideally a consensus here before any change is made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: On 26 February 2022, the head of State Border Guard Service of Ukraine accused Belarus of the conduct of war against Ukraine, in his official letter to the head of State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus, referring to the fact that Russian troops use Belarusian territory for their invasion of Ukraine. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Financial Cost

Is there any available reliable information anywhere of the financial cost of this conflict... for both sides in hryvnias and rubles of how much this is all costing for both sides ?? Would this info merit inclusion to the article? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think any reliable info on things like cost would only happen after the dust settles (or at least deintensifies) and we get some broader analysis of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving reverted

My archiving of several ended discussions, 15Kb in total, has been reverted en masse (on this page only) with an edit summary of "Please do not archive ongoing discussions". This includes the restoration of "edit semi-protected" posts which had been marked as done; and resolved requests to source specific statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I can see why you did it and I'm surprised to hear it was reverted. Maybe we need a meta talk page for hashing this out. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close some discussions for archival. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The OP did much more than "archiving of several ended discussions". He archived threads which were still under active discussion (some just minutes earlier), which was why I reverted him.. Sans souci. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB: That makes more sense. I've went ahead and hatted a bunch of issues that were mooted/too WP:SNOW to be meaningful. Hope that helps with the deluge of threads. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I archived 8 sections at 12:21 UTC. The last edits to each discussion (all times UTC) were respectively:

1. 04:49 - noting incorrect map had been removed
2. 11:05 - saying a requested change had been made
3. 06:01 - query "Isn't this a bit biased?" answered
4. 08:30 - noting that disputed claim was now sourced
5. 06:49 - query answered
6. 07:49 - requested edit marked done
7. 12:06 - non-productive mud slinging, accusing another editor of "nazism"; since collapsed by a different editor as "WP:NOTFORUM"
8. 09:34 - broken markup noted as fixed

Of course, if WWGB felt it important to revive one or more particular discussions, they could have done so without a pointless wholesale revert. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "12:06". As the target of the Nazism and other ad hominem attacks, I was in the process of responding to said attacks when the thread was summarily archived. POTW elected to conveniently archive eight disparate sections in a single edit, ("Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change.") I elected the same convenience to restore the section to which I was responding. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WWGB gives a quotation, but does not attribute it. It is from WP:Reverting. I was not reverting. They were. Archiving multiple sections is standard practice, whether done manually or by bot. And now it seems they were reverting only to persist in the mud-slinging discussion which, as already noted, another editor subsequently hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Your archiving is more aggressive than I would've done it, and I note editors have had to unarchive a few sections. I'm inclined to unarchive a few others because I think they're promising. We do want to archive sections that aren't going anywhere or have been resolved, but shouldn't archive things that may require further discussion/action. Archiving solely for staleness reasons should be a few days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Also wish to note that it's very important this article is clear for average readers. Many design decisions that Wikipedians are used to aren't clear if you're not used to WikiPresentation. This is especially relevant in the infobox, where things are less contextualised than in the body. That is to say, I think comments from casual IP readers, stating things that confused them (like the sections below that I unarchived), are very helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Per United Kingdom"

I've seen several people now who read this article and misunderstood what the different sections under "casualties" meant, thinking the UK has joined the war. I would suggest changing the subheadings for the different sources to "According to Ukraine", "According to Russia", "According to UK" etc to minimise confusion around what these actually mean. 78.150.114.169 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Great idea. Wtoteqw (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree that additional clarifications are needed and a general improvement of how casualty data is presented, especially in the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Rogue states as official belligerents?

User @Mellk: has started an hostile revert cycle, willing to maintain the two puppet states of Donetsk and Luhansk as prominent belligerents in the main infobox. I don't think it is appropriate, since we are talking about a conflict concentrating the world's attention, between two main states widely recognized. Maxorazon (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it seems you've already violated 3RR, while you were reverted by other editors. Mellk (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with them being there. BH8ut maybe add something like "unrecognised states".Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with "unrecognised states". Did not hear about the reverters yet. Maxorazon (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the notes are sufficient. Or have them bulletpointed under Russia. Omitting them because they are not "widely recognized" states is not a valid reason. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, the Belligerents section of a conflict infobox includes all parties to the conflict, including coalitions, militia groups and unrecognized states. e.g. International military intervention against the Islamic State. For a while, there were even wild animals listed as belligerents on some pages (eg. [8]), although in this case I believe it was decided that Emus in general don't constitute a unified group that could be party to a conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I advocate to omit them from the belligerent section only, the PRs still appear in the strength section of the infobox below. This is clearly a hot topic. Currently, visually, the Russian camp seems to have much more actors and belligerents than the Ukrainian one - while Russia is immensely isolated on the international scene. Having these PRs in belligerents is biased towards Russia mind share in my opinion ; hence why I propose to remove these two states that have been made-up last week. Maxorazon (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

These "republics" were formed 8 years ago. They were only recognized as independent by Russia a few days ago. Mellk (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is the only armed party fighting on their side of the conflict, while the rebel "states" constitute distinct groups from Russia. These are just facts, and we do not need to obscure them to metaphorically balance the tables or make Russia appear to be less supported. In fact it is our duty not to. Furthermore, we cannot remove groups from belligerents and then reference their leaders and troops further down in the infobox, as these are breakdowns of what is already listed in belligerents. Lastly, I believe that the rogue states have been declaring themselves prior to Russian recognition of them "just last week". At the end of the day a state being "recognized" is an effectively arbitrary construction anyway. Wikipedia should be not be omitting groups that are verifiably participating due to their international diplomatic status, which is unrelated to their coverage on this wiki. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree non-state actors are still actors in a conflict, great examples include the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq (2017–present). Des Vallee (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that there is a soft consensus at wikipedia on this topic. I am willing to challenge it. I think that, not having a clear definition of what is a belligerent in a war between states, is not acceptable for wikipedia, which is handling hot conflicts.

With the surge of cyber warfare and in the information age, if "distinct groups" is the definition for a belligerent, what will you do if someone adds Anonymous or the subreddit r/ukraine as belligerents? They can be considered as virtual as the diplomatic venues of the discussed "popular republics".

To me, having a threshold of united nations recognizing a state participating to the war is a good definition of a belligerent - there surely can be other definitions agreed upon, but they need to be more formal IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"In fact it is our duty not to." I believe that is actually our duty to question this representation that wikipedia currently exhibits here, and which favors Russia. In such a global polarizing conflict, remaining neutral is venturing on the utopia land, and not being naive about Russian cyber influence manoeuvres as important as the ones from the Occidental imperialism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is an extreme tension in my opinion between the ability to cover a hot topic live, and the goal to only follow others. A curfew/delay of several weeks on hot events could be imagined? Maxorazon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If belligerents must be UN recognised to appear on the belligerents section then this poses a problem in pages such as International military intervention against the Islamic State or Islamic State–Taliban conflict where one or both sides are not UN recognised. Either way, why should UN recognition determine whether a state is a belligerent or not? There's no precedent for it on Wikipedia and I can't see any good reasons for it to be made into a new precedent now. Armed groups on the ground that refer to themselves as the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are engaged in active fighting, is that not enough for belligerency? Groups like Anonymous or r/Ukraine aren't engaged in combat on the ground, so that seems like an odd counterargument to make, especially since there's no precedence on internet actors' inclusion either (that I am aware of). ArlodhTrevanion (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, not answering completely, I found that Islamic State has a nice way of dimming the opponents. Maxorazon (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is odd, as we have also been accused on this talk page of being anti-Russian.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is to be expected, since this is as much of a physical conflict than a conflict on representations, and the Russian government is heavily accused of revisionism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It also means we are neither, and any argument based on alleged bias is thus invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Different parts of the same article can have biases towards different parties, resolving them individually is not inconceivable to me. I wanted to stress that the whataboutism on the "arbitrary construction anyway" may be dangerous, because here we deal not only with facts but with a whole lot of arbitrary representations, it matters to everybody to define and differentiate these. Maxorazon (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

They should be there imo, with a footnote about their internationally recognized status. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose, as discussed two sections above, to add to belligerents NATO support to Ukraine, very carefully explaining that this is not direct involvement. And also to mention the unrecognized status of most Russia's allied states - this as a whole would better reflect in my opinion the actual balance of power. Maxorazon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely direct involvement in combat is what defines a belligerent? Again, it feels like you are arguing from a perspective of wanting to promote a particular perception rather than reporting the facts per established consensus. I'm sympathetic to this - I am wholely on the side of Ukraine personally - but I am not convinced that the specific wording of a Wikipedia infobox, as decided by relatively uninvolved volunteers, is materially relevant to the outcome of the conflict (at least not without butterfly-effecting the matter to oblivion). Given this, we should stand by Wikipedia's principles of aiming to report reliably sourced facts per editor consensus, and what you are suggesting is such a broad change in how we present parties to armed conflicts that you'd do better proposing it at WP:VPPRO and starting a discussion about how we word the relevant templates. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I am surely culprit of this. But I don't think that Wikipedia needs such a butterfly effect to be impactful: there has been 2 million hits on the page in 24 hours. IMO it can help boost or defeat the morale of Ukrainians and Russians alike, so this should not be treated lightly. Maxorazon (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Most Ukrainians and Russians would be looking at ruwiki. Mellk (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not something we should be concerned about. -UtoD 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that NATO is added under support with an explanation directly in brackets about military aid (as opposed to a tooltip), I will say that I am actually not opposed to this - although I imagine other Wikipedians will probably have stronger policy thoughts on the matter. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)