Revision as of 17:45, 13 March 2022 editEviolite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers12,857 editsm Reverted edits by Rokifacet (talk) to last revision by Slatersteven: using talk page as forumTags: Rollback Reverted SWViewer [1.4]← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:51, 13 March 2022 edit undoRokifacet (talk | contribs)4 edits Undid revision 1076929249 by Eviolite (talk)this question is in mainstream media!Tags: Undo RevertedNext edit → | ||
Line 398: | Line 398: | ||
Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? ] (]) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? ] (]) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
:See FAQ Q2. ] (]) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | :See FAQ Q2. ] (]) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
== when will nato/usa cowards start ukrainian airlift? == | |||
as they did in germany: berlin airlift: but not just provide food or medicine... |
Revision as of 17:51, 13 March 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Questions about article title issues and changes?
A1: There have been many requests to change the title of this article. The last successful one resulted in a consensus to change the title to "Russian invasion of Ukraine": this link.
Q2: Why is Ukraine not a part of the NATO military alliance?
A2: In 2008 Ukraine applied for membership to the NATO military alliance and was rejected from the alliance, at the same time as Georgia was rejected from the NATO military alliance. As of 2023 with Finland being added to the NATO military alliance, Ukraine is still not a member of the NATO military alliance.
Q3: Why does the article show explicit images?
A3: Misplaced Pages 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.
Q4: Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine? Why isn't NATO in the infobox?
A4: A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments. Q5: Can you update the losses claimed by Russia/Ukraine? A5: This generally happens quickly after they are published. Please don't make an edit request. Q6: Why is the map in the infobox outdated/wrong? A6: The map is only as accurate as publicly available reliable sources. Please remember that due to the operational secrecy and the disinformation efforts by all sides, as well as the fog of war, the map may not be able to meet any particular standard for completeness or accuracy until well after the conflict is over. If you believe you can offer constructive feedback which would improve the map, supported by reliable sources, please leave a comment at File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. There is no use in leaving it here. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Reference desk. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?
(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))
- No Anas Azeem 2005 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean no? They were not asking a question. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Um, yes they were:
Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?
EEng 07:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- Yeah - I see how this could be slightly confusing EEng. For any future editors as well...
- This section heading is a link into the archives. If you click it you'll see the original question was asked on Feb 27th, discussed extensively, and closed as "no consensus" on March 6. The link provides easy reference, and keeps the (already discussed) question visible on the main talk page rather than just buried in the archives.
- If you have the same question, or to open a new question/RfC on this topic, please familiarize yourself —at a minimum— with the summary of the previous discussion. --N8 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I'm easily confused. EEng 20:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Um, yes they were:
- What do you mean no? They were not asking a question. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Given the preceding discussion, I changed the heading. Hopefully EEng#s is less confused. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Should the "Countries' responses" have been deleted completely or restored (or maybe modified/condensed)?
The removal started here. A few other major conflicts that have a similar format are the 2021 Taliban offensive, Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, 2011 military intervention in Libya, and maybe even the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. In response to Beshogur, just lookup 'India Russia ally'& 'China Russia ally' for the evidence. A Morning Consult poll before the invasion confirms it as well. Maybe the heading could be changed to 'Countries close to Russia'? (Side note: yes, I also know I added a duplicate image by accident, won't happen again). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- There may be certain specific national reactions which have been uniquely notable in some way that would deserve a mention in this article. I expect Beshogur was just cleaning up in an effort to resolve the maint. tag listed on the "Reactions" section. The edit summary seems to invite exactly this question. If individual countries' reactions are restored, I recommend that the prose clearly indicate the nature of their notability, rather than stating a reaction without context. --N8 20:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Look at 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#International_reactions, there are no single reaction, it just redirects there. Why are those 4 countries randomly chosen? Because the editor thought those 4 were Russia's allies. Thus a WP:OR in this case. Also similar to the religious heads, this is just duplicate from the reaction article. Doesn't help the article except making it larger and unreadable. Beshogur (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Germany is not a Russian ally. The point was presumably to include substantive country reactions that aren't cookie-cutter condemnations which are either a) covered elsewhere in the article; b) redundant to the map of the UN vote; c) don't add anything to the article except repeat the same thing in different words. These reactions are interesting IMO because they show:
- The response by another UNSC permanent member, China, traditionally allied with Russia.
- The response by Germany, a Western nation, individually, reversing its long-standing approach to defence policy.
- India, a major world trader and a country campaigning for a spot on the UN Security Council, allegedly working to undermine Western sanctions.
- On the contrary, the bulk of the Western response can (and is) best summarised collectively or in "ramifications". We don't need to write that the UK or France or US individually condemned it, it adds nothing, whereas the above do. The actions of China and India, at least, cannot accurately be described as "ramifications".
- (note that I did not add this section, but I support its inclusion in some shape or form, at least of the China/India/Germany portions.). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the editor who added Germany and China I didn't do it because I viewed them as Russia's allies, I chose them because I viewed them as countries who have a realistic impact upon the invasion, which is why I was trying to stay away from empty platitudes of foreign ministers and stick to concrete actions that they have taken that have impacted the conflict. China for instance arguably is the one who chose the invasion date; Germany's rejection of Russia and realignment of its security interests has completely reshaped European foreign policy, and energy policy. I didn't add Kazakhstan but I didn't delete it either because I thought it was worth mentioning the reaction of another former Soviet Republic to the invasion, and their relationship with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. I did originally have a good deal more about China, detailing how their response to the war has changed, and was adding China's potential economic lifelines but it got cut by another editor. I also originally listed France because of Macron's efforts both to continue creating a EU wide defense based in Europe not Washington, and to keep dialogue open to Putin to allow for diplomatic solutions but it got cut as well. But once again the idea being countries that have had concrete impacts upon the situation in Ukraine. Sorry, I'm very tired, so I'm not sure if this response was rambling. There is an argument that this is analysis, and I suppose that WP:OR could be said. There's alot to be said about France for instance but it quickly becomes WP:Synth which is why France stayed light. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Germany is not a Russian ally. The point was presumably to include substantive country reactions that aren't cookie-cutter condemnations which are either a) covered elsewhere in the article; b) redundant to the map of the UN vote; c) don't add anything to the article except repeat the same thing in different words. These reactions are interesting IMO because they show:
- There appears to not be much consensus. I did not add any countries to the section, but I think some countries not aligned with NATO should be included. Or else the only reactions shown will just be from Western-allied countries, which goes against WP:GLOBAL (and WP:GLOBAL has been made an official supplement to policy on the Swedish Misplaced Pages). For me I wouldn't mind if the heading is changed to 'Countries close to Russia' (geographically CN, IN, & KZ are close) or 'Non-Western Countries'/'Countries not in NATO'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still don't get the importance of those five "individual countries" there. Look at the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article, there was no exception, and all were moved to the separate article. Those five are not special and have no place there. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are probably a litany of different ways to present the same information. For instance, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict you say doesn't have a reactions section, but Russia is mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 150 times in the article and Turkey is also mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 100 times in the article so I think it's just different ways to display the same information yes there isn't a "reactions section" but the information is still there. We could decentralize the information like the Nagorno-Karabakh article does and speak about China under all the sections where it's pertinent such as Economic Repercussions and the like. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Alcibiades on the pertinence of information presented. A page split for this section is also another option. If the information is not closely related to the already existing main sections of this article then it may be better to have a separate page for that information. Otherwise, the pertinent information should go into the pertinent sections of the already existing main sections of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are probably a litany of different ways to present the same information. For instance, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict you say doesn't have a reactions section, but Russia is mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 150 times in the article and Turkey is also mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 100 times in the article so I think it's just different ways to display the same information yes there isn't a "reactions section" but the information is still there. We could decentralize the information like the Nagorno-Karabakh article does and speak about China under all the sections where it's pertinent such as Economic Repercussions and the like. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The more that I look at it the more I agree with Beshogur: the section should be deleted. Honestly China and India have done next to nothing so why bother mentioning them? Germany has but it gets talked about under NATO and EU, then beyond that the section seems to be a magnet for filling up with Foreign Minister of X country said Y which is bloat and is covered in its own dedicated reactions page. The "Russian Allies" idea fails because the only allies that are supporting Russia are Belarus and Syria, Belarus is already discussed at length and at some point the article will probably mention Syrian mercenaries. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Beshogur and Alcibiades. Pull out any pertinent sentences with cites and place it into the pertinent section in the article. Then either split the section off into a new article or delete it. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Traditionally, Russia's political allies include China, India, Vietnam, Serbia, Armenia, & numerous Central Asian countries. Just because they don't explicitly support Russia's invasion like Belarus & Syria does not mean their reactions are the same as NATO countries. Even being neutral in the conflict can be noteworthy if you look at the criticism from some Western commentators towards India's stance. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you stating that you would prefer to split that section off as a new article rather than deleting it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Section already has been split off as a new article here: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Normally the section split would mean that a short summary would be retained in the main article with a link to the split page. Suggest that whoever did the split to go ahead and summarize that section concisely, and then remove the redundant part which already appears in the split article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hm, the thing is the India & Kazakhstan sections are already quite concise compared to their sections in the new article. The China section here also doesn't exactly match the one on the new article either. I'm fine with Germany's part being moved up & added to the NATO section since it seems to fit there better (if one wants to keep it). The other 3 countries should be kept I think (esp China & India as they are major players & the most populous countries). Maybe someone can trim down the China section if they are concerned about length. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I keep trying to whittle down the China section and it keeps getting reverted which is quite frustrating. Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild From your trims to this article yesterday to control the size of this article. It looks like there was an article split for the Responses section on this article, however, it has not been edited and kept up to date. It seems like merging the information which has accumulated here in the Responses section to the newly split Responses article (separate article now) would make sense and save alot of space. Maybe keep one or two sentences in the section on China and India as a short summary. Could you see if you can do a further trim of this article by moving much of Responses material here in this article to the split article for "Responses" which has already been created? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I keep trying to whittle down the China section and it keeps getting reverted which is quite frustrating. Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Section already has been split off as a new article here: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you stating that you would prefer to split that section off as a new article rather than deleting it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still don't get the importance of those five "individual countries" there. Look at the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article, there was no exception, and all were moved to the separate article. Those five are not special and have no place there. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Look at 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#International_reactions, there are no single reaction, it just redirects there. Why are those 4 countries randomly chosen? Because the editor thought those 4 were Russia's allies. Thus a WP:OR in this case. Also similar to the religious heads, this is just duplicate from the reaction article. Doesn't help the article except making it larger and unreadable. Beshogur (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Problem with the 'prelude' section
At the moment, the 'prelude' section of this article is longer than the section actually describing the events in scope of this page. This makes no sense, not least of all because we have 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, most likely soon to be renamed Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It would be appreciated if we could remove most of the prelude content to the other article, if it isn't there already, and create a small 'summary' here. This will go a long way toward making the size of this article more manageable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The invasion parts did used to be longer before they were trimmed down, and I think they're currently out of date so may get longer. Plus, the ramifications are events within the scope of this page, too. The prelude section is not that large. I've trimmed a bit of fluff out of it, and someone with a bit more chutzpah than I could go further, but I think it's largely acceptable right now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some chutzpah applied. More may follow, depending on the blow back. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And a little more. Let's see how it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- My work here is now complete. Au revoir. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Mind taking a look at "Foreign military support to Ukraine" as well? Bit of a WP:PROSELINE issue, plus it seems like an overdetailed dump of numbers. It can probably be skimmed down to a few paragraphs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Yep, it seems to have been a dumping ground for fluff and trivia. Let me know if you think that I have cut back too far. "The US vowed not to send ground troops into Ukraine to defend the country." either didn't have a clear source or it got lost amidst a lot of additions. So I have stuck a "citation needed" on it, but I assume that that can be readily provided? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Mind taking a look at "Foreign military support to Ukraine" as well? Bit of a WP:PROSELINE issue, plus it seems like an overdetailed dump of numbers. It can probably be skimmed down to a few paragraphs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- My work here is now complete. Au revoir. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- And a little more. Let's see how it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some chutzpah applied. More may follow, depending on the blow back. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Danger of repeating propaganda without checking against reality
I'm a bit concerned that in some places, we have "Ukrainian government claimed X, Russian government claimed Y", and it's entirely possible that the Ukraine claim was accurate and the Russians are just playing the game of throwing the same accusations back at the accusers to obscure the truth for the general public. The opposite is also possible, but in particular it sounds like the Russians may be intentionally agreeing to ceasefires and breaking them by shelling the evacuees over and over, just to mess with and demoralized Ukraine, and then adding a slap in the face by blaming Ukraine for breaking the ceasefire. But the problem with repeating spurious denials or spurious claims could easily show up with other issues as well. Ukraine also has every incentive to exaggerate or try to present only certain facts for propaganda purposes, so I'm not saying we should accept all of its claims at face value, either. But I can't help but notice that some recent Russian propaganda is wildly and blatantly untrue, seriously undermining the credibility of that government as a source. I'm not saying Russian claims should be dismissed out of hand, either; that could easily lead to inappropriate imbalance. I expect that within a few days of these incidents, more objective and independent or at least detailed information will become available, though it may require some deep digging and possibly looking into non-English sources. What I'm hoping is that with a bit of time we can replace the "one side said, other side said" coverage with something more concrete that lets readers better discern which side, if any, is being truthful in any given case. The idea of repeating untrue (especially verifiably untrue) propaganda from either side is a bit disturbing, and given this article is being written and read in real time, it could actually affect the course of the war. -- Beland (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- All very true, which is why we should really wait until this is all over, as "inaccuracies" creep into all live news story articles I have edited. I would suggest we hold off, we are not a wp:news service. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the day of the incident and a couple of days later, we have no option but to use "He says / she says" sources. Later we'll use third parties and delete the first set of sources.. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- We do have another option. That is to stop trying to be a news service (as Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper) and to not cover a subject until secondary sources are published. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the day of the incident and a couple of days later, we have no option but to use "He says / she says" sources. Later we'll use third parties and delete the first set of sources.. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cross-posting myself from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Massive disregard of WP:RS in articles related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Just to give an example from my watchlist: This is what I had to do in order to make the article compliant with our policies. The information is arguably credible (I did not attempt to look for more sources), but the two sources added to the article are (i) partisan from the same side and (ii) do not even make an attempt to verify the info, instead citing social media belonging to some newsmakers. Note that at least one of the sources is RS, and the second one looks more or less fine. I could have reverted, I have chosen to attribute the opinions instead. This is now massively happening across hundreds of articles. There is probably very little we can do about it, since Russian reporting is clearly just a lie and should not be added in any case, and people take Ukrainian reporting subcritically and still want to add into into articles. But it is something to have in mind, that we are now full of badly sourced partisan info. As I said elsewhere, the Russian invasion should motivate us to add high-quality info to our articles but is not an excuse to lowering our standards.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yeial (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Unhelpful, unproductive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can we please not comment on users here, take it to their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
"Russian Fiasco" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian Fiasco and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Russian Fiasco until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) 10:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)
This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1502228138885099522/photo/1 P4p5 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- FAQ at the top of the page:
Q3: Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine A3: This generally happens quickly after they are published, please don't make an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, the edit request was made 2 hours after release of data. I'm not sure I agree with FAQ #3 personally; at current rate it's just a few more edit requests daily, which we're getting anyway but not actioning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- And wp:notnews is a policy, we do not need live updates, and in fact, I think we would be better off waiting until losses are conformed, rather than repeating each side's propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Due consideration needs to be given to the fact that this is an online encyclopaedia and people are turning to it for information on an ongoing event of signifiance. About data specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic our statistics were often more recent than news sites, since editors used a broad range of direct sources. Things like infobox data are generally in-demand by readers, and expected to be quite up-to-date. For as long as our practice remains to provide data from both sides without confirmation, we should keep that up to date (as WP:NOTNEWS says:
Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage
). Besides, accurate and independent confirmation may not follow until quite some time after the events end. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)- And it will be done, someone will add it. But we do not need it to be (in effect) a live news feed. We can wait hours or even days with no loss of information, after all none of this may turn out to be true. If it's not (and let's face it in war both sides lie) then we are not giving anyone the best information, we are giving them factually incorrect information. Which is not what an Enclopdoda should be doing. Thus I support FAQ Q 3 and ask editors to stop making requests to add information that will inevitably be added. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this makes sense. If an ECP editor who is able to directly edit the page adds it, it's fine and a legitimate update. But if a non-ECP editor requests an update on a source, it supposedly violates WP:NOTNEWS and should not be requested? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- And it will be done, someone will add it. But we do not need it to be (in effect) a live news feed. We can wait hours or even days with no loss of information, after all none of this may turn out to be true. If it's not (and let's face it in war both sides lie) then we are not giving anyone the best information, we are giving them factually incorrect information. Which is not what an Enclopdoda should be doing. Thus I support FAQ Q 3 and ask editors to stop making requests to add information that will inevitably be added. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Due consideration needs to be given to the fact that this is an online encyclopaedia and people are turning to it for information on an ongoing event of signifiance. About data specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic our statistics were often more recent than news sites, since editors used a broad range of direct sources. Things like infobox data are generally in-demand by readers, and expected to be quite up-to-date. For as long as our practice remains to provide data from both sides without confirmation, we should keep that up to date (as WP:NOTNEWS says:
- And wp:notnews is a policy, we do not need live updates, and in fact, I think we would be better off waiting until losses are conformed, rather than repeating each side's propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian
Today Belarusian political police GUBOPiK arrested user of Russian Misplaced Pages from Minsk who was working on the article about the invasion accusing him of the "spread of anti-Russian materials" . Should we mention this unprecedented case or is it necessary to wait for additional details? — Homoatrox (talk). 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Depends on whether "Mark Bernstein" is actually a Wiki editor, has been arrested, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, why is this relevant to the war? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. EEng 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. EEng 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did not say his arrest was not, I said I do not see why it is relevaslt to an article about the war (and not say its social impacts). Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. EEng 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. EEng 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it should. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Should we make separate article? For example, "List of persecuted Wikipedians" or something else? K8M8S8 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. We do not need a new article for every minor news story. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems more closely related to topics like Russian–Ukrainian information war, Censorship in Belarus, etc. even perhaps Belarus–Russia relations. Interesting story but tangential to the topic of invasion. --N8 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @KUrban (WMF): This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? Boud (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe there is a comment on Wiki-l from the the WMF. KUrban (WMF) (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Verge links to this account which says an indefinite global block was applied "До выяснения обстоятельств" ("until we know what's going on"). I assume it's to reduce the probability of him being tortured and made to edit under duress. Boud (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The sources link Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)'s arrest with his editing of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine related Misplaced Pages pages, so it seems relevant. Boud (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Who made an article? WP:BLP1E exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Known for over a decade as a major Misplaced Pages editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. Boud (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, come off it. WP:NOTNEWS:
Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Misplaced Pages is not written in news style
. Furthermore WP:BLP1E:Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article
. The three conditions being 1) single event (check), 2) otherwise a low profile individual (check), 3) the event is not significant (check,this routine in Belarussia and Russia). Being in the news for five minutes does not constitute notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, come off it. WP:NOTNEWS:
- Known for over a decade as a major Misplaced Pages editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. Boud (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Who made an article? WP:BLP1E exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @KUrban (WMF): This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? Boud (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Talks that happened in Antalya should be added to the Peace Efforts section
Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Dmytro Kuleba met for talks in Antalya, Turkey with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu as mediator in the first high-level contact between the two sides since the beginning of the invasion. Ukraine had attempted to negotiate a 24-hour ceasefire to provide aid and evacuation to civilians, especially in Mariupol. After two hours of talks, no agreement was made. Airstrikes on the port city continued.
"'No progress' as top Russia, Ukraine diplomats talk in Turkey". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-11. "Ukraine war: No progress on ceasefire after Kyiv-Moscow talks". BBC News. 2022-03-10. Retrieved 2022-03-10. Ellyatt, Holly (2022-03-10). "Russia-Ukraine talks fail with no progress on cease-fire, safe passage for civilians". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-03-10. Archive, View Author; feed, Get author RSS (2022-03-10). "Ukraine-Russia peace talks fail to make progress as airstrikes continue on Mariupol". New York Post. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FINTUR1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
List of commanders, territorial changes
@Cinderella157: claims those commanders shouldn't be listed according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, however I can not see anything about that. Similar to other wars, commanders should be listed. So I propose that commanders listed here on Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be included to the infobox. @EkoGraf: I see you're editing here as well, what do you think? You're experienced from Syrian conflict articles. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinderella was correct in their expression of which commanders should be included in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guides us on how to populate the infobox. If particular commanders are to populate the infobox, their entries should be supported by the prose in the body of the article (and not just a passing mention). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu, or breakaway states' leaders. This argument is not valid. Secondly, others are mentioned at order of battle article, which makes them notable as well. For last see infobox template about conflicts, Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose doesn't tell that it's explicitly about conflicts, otherwise, none conflict should mention commanders more than one.
commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.
Beshogur (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Reverted as this was discussed here before being implemented. As of time of writing, none of the Russian or Ukrainian commanders (except the Presidents) are mentioned in the prose of this article. Shoygu receives a single mention in an image caption, so your statement that
obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu
is false. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Can you link me the previous discussion?
is false
well, open it and do a quick ctrl+f. Beshogur (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#Commanders though I recall this was discussed multiple times - try the archive search at the top of the talk page. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is this even a consensus? I see 3 users. Beshogur (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing a search for "Shoigu" using ctrl+f returns one hit to a caption for an image. There is no mention of him in the prose of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have you even read the infobox template about conflicts? Are you sure that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE should be implemented here? It doesn't even make mention of conflicts. If that was right, we should place only single leader for every conflict or battle. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Besides obviously the belligerent's presidents, top military commanders should also be listed, like the Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff. EkoGraf (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have you even read the infobox template about conflicts? Are you sure that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE should be implemented here? It doesn't even make mention of conflicts. If that was right, we should place only single leader for every conflict or battle. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#Commanders though I recall this was discussed multiple times - try the archive search at the top of the talk page. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can you link me the previous discussion?
- Reverted as this was discussed here before being implemented. As of time of writing, none of the Russian or Ukrainian commanders (except the Presidents) are mentioned in the prose of this article. Shoygu receives a single mention in an image caption, so your statement that
- I am very familiar with the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is the guideline that represents the broad community consensus about infoboxes in general. The template documentation does not over-ride WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If anything, it is the other way around. The two bits of advice are not incompatible either. The key point to take from WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is that we don't write the article in the infobox. Material in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and the infobox should not be so bloated as to defeat its purpose of being an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Territorial changes
I'm going to piggyback on this thread to ask about the "territorial changes" item of the infobox. On the template page it says: "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Does this mean it should be filled in only after the conflict has concluded and a result is established? Or is it meant to be a updated on the go? Phiarc (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not every parameter in the infobox has to be used and the documentation makes this clear. How the infobox is populated (and how much detail) should not be at odds with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An intricate list of territorial changes would be at odds with this. At present, we have a map in the infobox showing territorial changes and under "status", we have a link to an article that provides detail on territorial changes. These more than adequately deal with the matter of territorial changes, while being consistent whith the primary purpose of the infobox: to provide an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Remove: The following text keeps getting moved in and out of the territory parameter either being deleted or placed under the "status" heading:
*Russia occupies Kherson, one of the 22 regional capitals of Ukraine.
I have removed it (07:18, 12 March 2022) with the edit summary: Redundent inforation. Map shows territorial changes and there is link to control of cities
. It has been reinstated with this edit summary: obviously not "Redundent inforation". there's territory section on the infobox template for a purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_military_conflict
. I was not specifically aware that this had been moved in and out of either the territory or status sections a couple of times already. The infobox documentation would state this:
territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.
I would state that this should not be in the infobox for the following reasons:
- Territory is an optional parameter. It doesn't have to be populated.
- This entry is misleading since it would suggest to readers that this is the only territorial change that has occurred and/or the most significant change. There have been significant Russian advances on several fronts.
- Expanding this section to be "more complete" would be overly lengthy. The infobox documentation specifically warns against that. It would also be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since a lengthy description could not satisfy being an "at-a-glance" summary. Such detailed information would also need to be detailed elsewhere in the body of the article in order to be considered a summary of the article's content.
- Per my edit summary, the information is redundant. since an image in the infobox shows the territorial changes and the status section has a link to control of cities.
- Territorial changes are in a state of flux and if anything, it should be dealt with under "status", where the present population of the territory parameter is not too problematic (not easily summarised and ongoing).
For the preceding reasons, I believe we should remove the present text under territorial changes and refrain from its use for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Belarus map
Is someone going to mention this https://www.thedailybeast.com/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-blatantly-rolls-out-invasion-map-as-troops-enter-ukraine Persesus (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Russian intelligence officers responsible for Ukraine are under criminal investigation
Journalist and security services investigator Alexei Soldatov reports that Sergey Beseda, the head of 5th service of the Russian Federal Security Service, and his deputy Anatoliy Bolyuh were put under house arrest for the duration of criminal investigation. They are suspected of embezzling money allotted for undercover work and subversive activities in Ukraine what caused the incorrect assessment of political situation in Ukraine and its armed forces condition and resulted in Russian blitzkrieg failure.
You know, I'm not surprised. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Russian blitzkrieg failure? Is that not a bit premature to add here?-27.7.10.251 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not really as this is the talk page, but it could not be used in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- It will be useful in the future. Save it for the section "Analysis". K8M8S8 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not premature. Probably dozens of articles have put forward evidence that the RF expected to seize Kyiv with an airborne assault in about two days, and there is a document attesting it expected to occupy most of Ukraine in fifteen days. This is the “blitzkrieg” that has certainly failed. —Michael Z. 21:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not really as this is the talk page, but it could not be used in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- kasparov 164.82.46.5 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Meduza says that these officers reported only an information what Putin wanted to hear, just because they were afraid he would be angry. That was the reason of wrong analysis of the situation.
It clearly illustrates the degradation of public administration in autocratic countries. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
However I feel now I need to remind users of wp:soap and wp:forum. Let us not speculate, let RS do that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- "Исследователь спецслужб Солдатов сообщил о деле против сотрудников ФСБ, отвечавших за разведку в Украине". Kasparov.ru (in Russian). 11 March 2022.
- "Путин начал репрессии против 5-й службы ФСБ. Именно она накануне войны обеспечивала президента России данными о политической ситуации в Украине". Meduza (in Russian). 11 March 2022.
Article for the diplomatic problem of NATO's eastward expansion
I think that the question of whether the 1990 (I think) informal verbal assurance that NATO wouldn't expand eastward after the German unification matters or not is notable enough for an article. There's already one about this in Russian Misplaced Pages . I'm proposing this idea in case anyone is interested in creating an article for this. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- If it is it should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War, not here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: That's still too detailed. It should go in Russia–United States relations, Russia–NATO relations, Enlargement of NATO, or a child of one of those articles. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure it is: there’s an important book on the very subject, Sarotte (2021), Not One Inch, and numerous articles. Obviously it can be mentioned wherever Russian justifications for the aggression against Ukraine are discussed. —Michael Z. 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Enlargement of NATO might be a good starting point. --N8 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- It should be mentioned here but don't think it deserves whole article. HelenHIL (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Map delay
Is there any reason that the map on the page is very delayed? I often see towns and cities being shown only captured on both sides days after it happened. Examples: Russian capture of Konotop, Russian capture of Volnovakha now, Ukrainian counter-advances in Chernihiv oblast, the constantly changing situation in Kyiv oblast. It should be updated more often judging by the importance of the subject at hand Equip77 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Nor is the map hosted on en.wiki. Take it up with the commons. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, please see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ, specifically Q4. Melmann 13:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 (2)
This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda:
- On 7 March, in Vietnam, Haiphong's education authority issued an official dispatch titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinion on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Previously, Haiphong Party Committee, the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and contingents of public opinion members to participate in propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official dispatch issued by the Municipal Party Committee consists of three points, in which it asks people to not criticise, one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and responds to comments criticising the communist party.
Source: https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/hai-phong-city-education-service-asked-for-centralized-propaganda-about-ukraine-situation-03102022074144.html (in Vietnamese) Fense Ling (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why what relevance does it have? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: It is not clear what the requested text is saying or why it is relevant. Pianostar9 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could have a place in Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Phiarc (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Re-phrasing (also adding to) the original requested text (the news article isn't seem available on RFA English):
- On 7 March, Haiphong (Vietnam)'s Department of Education and Training issued an official letter titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinions on the Russia-Ukraine crisis". This letter is said to "deal" with the fact that news about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is being spread in a "pro-Western direction", and along with anti-Communist Party of Vietnam comments on social media. Previously, Communist Party Committee of Haiphong, the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and polemics of the city to propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official letter asks citizens to not criticise or one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and respond to anti-communist comments.
Adding to the above (also partially translated from the source given):
- The city's Department of Education and Training also asked any educational institutions in the city to report any "violations". Mr. Tran Tien Chinh, Chief of Office of the Haiphong Department of Education and Training, confirmed. In addition, pro-Vietnamese government pages on social networks have also actively subjected to propaganda of the claims made by Russia since the beginning of the invasion.
I can't find the official translation of this.
Also, not sure if this would be appropriate for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda or Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fense Ling (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it would. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Splitting human and equipment losses?
I find the infobox to start being overcrowded with reported men killed by multiple factions and particularly when the extensive detailing of equipment type losses are shown. I suggest using horizontal lines (particularly for the US who isn't even a participating faction) and to have a different section for Human casualties and Equipment losses. P4p5 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The infobox is overwhelming. I personally feel equipment losses should be removed given the extent of the war. Also, let’s not bog down the casualty toll with so many sources. I suggest a range or a neutral party as the source. KD0710 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Consolidate casualty details and refs into {{efn}} and just show min-max range? Fine with removing equipment losses given that notable exceptions (if any?) can be added in prose as appropriate. --N8 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the equipment losses somewhere on the page for 3 reasons:
- We don't have specific numbers for the individual battles list.
- The amount of equipment lost give a decent indicator of the scale of the fighting and forces committed. Something human casualties doesn't always translate.
- The volume, pace and technological level of those losses hasn't been matched by any other conflict since the Gulf War. And if we consider both sides losing a lot of equipment quickly, this is unprecedented since the end of the Korean War. P4p5 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Listing killed commanders?
Other wiki pages present the list of commanders that have been killed during conflicts. Although some are missing confirmation by the losing side yet, I think it's worth it to start documenting those casualties.
- Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, Deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army: Associated Press claims having Russian official on record
- Maj. Gen. Vitaly Gerasimov, Chief of staff, 41st Combined Arms Army: Ukraine News, The Guardian, citing Ukraine's intelligence agency
- Maj. Gen. Andrei Kolesnikov, 29th Combined Arms Army: Official Ukrainian report
P4p5 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, they are sourceable as senior commanders. Wikilinked them: Andrey Sukhovetsky, Vitaly Gerasimov, Andrei Kolesnikov (general). We should also add current commanders for both Russia and Ukraine; who are they? Bommbass (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. They are important commanders in charge of large forces having significant outcomes on the battlefield. They can be just mentioned in the infobox. Sng Pal (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I don’t believe they should be included on this page. Include them in the campaign in which they were killed. Those commanders’ deaths have relatively little impact in the overall invasion and this page is already too long. KD0710 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- They should just be mentioned in the infobox. That doesn't really make the article much longer. Bommbass (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- It does on mobile. Last I checked the infobox was eight screenfulls to scroll by on my phone. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- They were killed in this campaign, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. `°° P4p5 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Death of gen. Vitaly Gerasimov is reported to have stalled the Kharkiv offensive, described as the deadliest battle of the invasion. When army chiefs are deployed so near within the hot spots, I would argue that’s because they’re a crucial factor of the army’s effectiveness and therefore also deserve attention in this article. Eplerud (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I totally disagree about adding them to the infobox. That is an overall summary and some mid-senior generals wouldn’t really be appropriate. KD0710 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are they really only as unimportant as you say though? Seen the major coverage on their deaths, and the wording used in trustworthy news media ("top general", "major blow", etc.), they seem senior commanders? Bommbass (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
P4p5 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)The United States has lost 1 general in combat since the end of WW2. A general dying in combat, even a 1-star general, is a big deal. That's one of the reasons why it is listed in many other similar articles: Iraq War , Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Iran–PJAK conflict, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Operation Astute, Mexican drug war, Somali Civil War (2009–present) (that's not an exhaustive list). Some of them include commanders that aren't top level at all. And to put things in perspective, is a "mid-senior" general commanding 10,000 troops less relevant than some warlord commanding a few thousand men at best. I'm not saying we should list them all, but those killed in combat is quite a bit more important than most of the information on the page.
- the main page of World War II does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not the main page no, but pages about months-long campaigns do: Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II), Philippines campaign (1944–1945), North African campaign, World War II in Yugoslavia, Anglo-Iraqi War. The question is if we consider this article a campaign in a bigger war and I would argue it is due to how the article is framing it by being part of the Russo-Ukrainian War. P4p5 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The separate WW2 articles for the invasion of Poland, the Eastern front, North African campaign do show a detailed list of the commanders involved and KIAs. The «main page» for this conflict following this logic would be the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war article, but the above mentioned theatres of WW2 are more similar in scale than WW2 as a whole. Eplerud (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- the main page of World War II does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is not that these casualties shouldn't be mentioned somewhere - but where. They need to be written into the body of this article or another article. They certainly cannot just be dumped into the infobox under the casualties section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is meant to be an at-a-glance summary and not a repository for miscellaneous information. The casualty section is already too bloated to be an at-a-glance summary as it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? Bommbass (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not there either for much the same reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per Phiarc, the infobox is already too long. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? Bommbass (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (Censorship in Russia)
Novaya Gazeta and its editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov, Dozhd and its CEO Natalya Sindeyeva filed an application against Russia (№11884/22) with the European Court of Human Rights. On 3 March 2022, Dmitry Muratov requested urgent interim measures, namely, to indicate to the Russian Government not to interfere with lawful activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta, covering the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine, in particular, to refrain from blocking information items and materials containing opinions different from the official point of view of the Russian authorities; and to abstain from full blocking and termination of the activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta. On 8 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated to the Government of Russia to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of Novaya Gazeta, and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive Novaya Gazeta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- "Urgent interim measure in the case of the Russian daily newspaper Novaya Gazeta". European Court of Human Rights. 10 March 2022.
Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (humanitarian aspect)
On 28 February 2022 the European Court of Human Rights received a request from the Ukrainian Government to indicate urgent interim measures to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court2, in relation to "massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine". On 1 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights has decided to indicate to the Government of Russia to refrain from military attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including residential premises, emergency vehicles and other specially protected civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and to ensure immediately the safety of the medical establishments, personnel and emergency vehicles within the territory under attack or siege by Russian troops. On 4 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights additionally moreover decided to indicate to the Government of Russia, they should ensure unimpeded access of the civilian population to safe evacuation routes, healthcare, food and other essential supplies, rapid and unconstrained passage of humanitarian aid and movement of humanitarian workers. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- "The Court grants urgent interim measures in application concerning Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory". European Court of Human Rights. 1 March 2022.
- "Decision of the Court on requests for interim measures in individual applications concerning Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory". European Court of Human Rights. 4 March 2022.
Ukraine lacks of a 'supported by' list in the 'Belligerents' section
NATO, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Misplaced Pages map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg/1920px-Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg.png
See Q2. KD0710 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea should be added in the Belligerents section under the heading support. These nations have not only supplied weapons to Ukraine but also sanctioned Russia. Sng Pal (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Addition of Syria as Belligerent on Russian side
Russia is recruiting Syrian troops and sending them to Russia to fight the war. Also, the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has backed the Russian invasion. Then Syria should be added to the Belligerent list along with Belarus under the heading support. Can this edit be made? Citations: Putin approves foreign volunteers Russia recruiting Syrians Syria backs Putin's invasion Bashar al-Assad supports Russian invasion
Sng Pal (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is not mentioned in the body of the article. Please write the article first. Then the infobox can reflect and summarise the body of the article. This must also be a specific action by the state of Syria. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the article says, "volunteers", these are not official Syrian troops. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
War machine casualties nearly bogus
Russia claim in Ukraine war machine casualties mostly already exceed Ukraine pre war inventory including tanks and armored, combat aircraft, helicopter, drones (Ukraine only had some 50 but Russia claim already shooted more than 100 drones). 1 week ago Russia claim in Misplaced Pages for Ukraine loses : 7 combat aircraft, 69 aircraft in the ground (mostly civilian) but now Russia claimed all of them as combat aircraft. Ukraine didnt had combat aircraft as much as Russia claimed. Ukraine in the position of defensive so they cant uses war machine in large number including tanks, helicopter, aircraft etc. Onl invader or aggressor use war machine in large number. Please put Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. They using real picture. Russia loses more than 1000 war marchine including 500 tanks and armored also 27 aircraft. Ukraine loses more than 300 war machine including 160 tanks and armored also 10 aircraft. 103.47.135.173 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- We go with what both sides say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- surely they also count the reserves and stored equipment of the Ukrainian army that have been occupied or destroyed, everything they take from the bases (one thing is the active units, and another are the reserves, for example, lets say Russia may have committed 1000 tanks of different types, models and upgrades levels, but has another 20000 in reserve). This means that, for example, of the real losses of the Ukraine, at least in equipment, real number are not really known, because as the Russian army advances, it occupies what is possible and little can be confirmed. I have seen at least one video of the Russian army emptying some of the Ukrainian military bases they have occupied, taking all the vehicles, weapons and ammunition that were there. It must also be taken into account what a "total loss" is, since many of the vehicles that are disabled or abandoned but not destroyed, can be recovered, repaired and reactivated by both parties, as the ukrainian army has been seen doing with some russian vehicles, you can count on the russians doing the same, it is one of the situations that are created when much of the equipment of both sides is the same or similar. Numbers closest to reality, in all points and aspects, may be known when, hopefully, everything ends and settles down, one way or another. Right now everything is estimated numbers, and/or as always, inflated and/or deflated numbers, with bias and skew, for everything and everyone. 152.206.174.214 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- MAybe, but we do not do wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Please put Oryxspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. It include list and picture of that war machine being damaged, destroyed or captured. According to picture Russia loses 600 tanks, 27 aircraft and Ukraine loses 160 tanks, 10 aircraft. I think thats more realistic. How can Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 drone, more than 150 aircraft and more than 1000 tanks if Ukraine pre war inventory not even close that number. Ukraine dont even have 100 combat aircraft in their inventory. Ukraine only defensive so they cant move their war machine in large number. Only invader/attacker can move large number of their war machine.
Braindrain
Can someone include - in the economic impact section - the potential brain-drain the war & sanctions are causing for Russia? Some reliable sources about this topic: BBC , WSJ , FT Bommbass (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the spelling of Odessa to Odesa throughout to match the use of other Ukrainian spellings for cities that are in Ukraine. 146.198.64.213 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus on Odessa is that is should be spelled as such. There would be a need for an RfC to change that on that page which has already failed multiple times. If you disagree, that should be handled on the city’s talk page and not here. KD0710 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Closing on basis of "requires consensus" per KD0710 above. Refer to Talk:Odessa. --N8 13:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is all generally fair, but the IP raises a decent point about consistency in the article. We are using Ukrainian spelling (or thereabouts, e.g. Irpin instead of the correct Irpin') everywhere else. We write Kharkiv, Lviv, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Donbas rather than Kharkov, Lvov, Kiev, Chernigov, Donbass and so on. In that respect, Odessa sticks out as odd. It isn't necessary to rename our article for that matter, as Odesa is a valid redirect. You only need a consensus here to use that spelling here. The consensus at Talk:Odessa is irrelevant for our purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's should indeed be consistency, but on the article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: Picky point: those aren't Ukrainian spellings, but romanisations using one of the rules available. It looks like "Odessa" with "ss" is a German-based rule, presumably to maintain /s/ rather than the /ts/ which would result from a single "s". Bazza (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yes, Ukrainian uses the Cyrillic alphabet just like Russian and Serbian. The point was that, for example, we write Kharkiv from Хаpkiв (Ukrainian), instead of Kharkov from Хapьkoв (Russian). I, uh, don't know why we'd be using German transliteration instead of British to be honest, and the article on Odessa suggests that the Russian spelling is Одecca (missing diacritics), so am not entirely sure that the German system is the reason for this spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Infobox belligerents
Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? Martianmister (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- See FAQ Q2. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
when will nato/usa cowards start ukrainian airlift?
as they did in germany: berlin airlift: but not just provide food or medicine...
Categories:- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters