This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Should we change …

… to …

…?

A person redirected from that term might be looking for information about another invasion. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Both seem fine to me. The current hatnote ain't broke, though. Jr8825 • Talk 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The initiative of the conflict is starting to switch towards Ukraine with counteroffensives for example on the Kherson-Mykolaiv and Izyum-Kupiansk fronts. With that being said the focus of the war is not anymore on the South-eastern offensive (Second phase of this article). Are these events significant enough to speak of a third phase in this war? I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say this war has entered a third phase. Outside observers at the end of August were describing the conflict as having come to a stalemate: neither side seemed able to make much headway against the other. (Unless you consider the Russian brutal & costly grind thru the Donbass region "headway".) But Ukraine has surprised everyone by first her advance in the Kherson region, & now her lightning breakthrough north of Izium. The dynamic of the war has changed from Ukraine being on the defensive, trading territory for Russian losses, to Russia on the defensive, needing to respond & contain these two new threats. -- llywrch (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The international press appears to be moving in the direction that the Ukrainian counteroffensive may have slowed down or stalled following Russian reallocation of troops and reconcentration of forces on the front lines to thwart Ukrainian progress in the counteroffensive. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That may be the case in Kherson, but top-rate sources such as Reuters are today describing the counteroffensive around Kupiansk as "threatening to turn into a rout". [2] That said, as always we need to be cautious of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in characterising this a new phase ourselves, we need to find sources which are saying this explicitly. Jr8825 • Talk 13:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause@I Know I'm Not Alone@Jr8825@Llywrch I think we are at the point where this couneroffensive might warrant its own article. Something like Ukrainian September Couneroffensive Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62860774 Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 17:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A related move discussion is taking place at Talk:2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive#Requested move 12 September 2022. Jr8825 • Talk 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis, I have reverted your addition because the idea that Boris Johnson single-handedly prevented the war from ending is being pushed by Kremlin-aligned sources and does not accurately represent what at least one of the sources you cited says. I cannot access the Foreign Affairs article, but Ukrainska Pravda says the following: "The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting. But two things happened, after which a member of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, had to openly admit that it was "not the time" for the meeting of the presidents. The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories… The second "obstacle" to agreements with the Russians arrived in Kyiv on 9 April." The second reason, after the atrocities, was the visit of Boris Johnson, who assured Zelensky of the west's collective support. Then Zelensky called for two agreements, one with Russia and one with security guarantors, and then the peace deal fell through. The Ukrainska Pravda article is here for anyone to see who disagrees with my presentation.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that the second source you added is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which is repackaging something Foreign Affairs published to promote its agenda of a "realist" and advocating for "restraint" in U.S. foreign policy.. Fiona Hill (presidential advisor) is one of the authors of the article in Foreign Affairs and is unlikely to have portrayed Johnson as single-handedly forcing Kyiv to fight on.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: While I have been advocating for a "Peace efforts" section above, I agree and thank you for this revert. It might have been completely unintentional on Alaexis's part, but that prose really read extremely distorted from reliable reportings on these events. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich excuse me but what you say is unreasonable. You talk like Johnson is by his own but he is not, he was the British prime minister meaning that he used to represent the British government! So he didn't "single-handedly" interfere in the peace talks as you say.

You said that the article said: "The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting [...]" but I'd like to add that it ALSO said "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." You shouldn't pick on part and leave the other.

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What you've written misses the point. It does not change the fact that he is listed in the article as the second reason for the collapse of peace talks. The first reason was the Russian atrocities. Alaexis's addition did not mention them and was framed as though the West prevented peace (whether intentionally or not).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, OK so, I guess we should add both reasons? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Not unless the purported second reason has much more significant coverage in reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi user:ErnestKrause! I'd like to know why did you revert my edits.THX! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that someone has re-written the section on the peace negotiations. I'm fine with the new version too, so let's discuss it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll quote the relevant part of the Foreign Affairs article here for everyone's convenience

Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis and Super ninja2: Please note that there has been an unresolved discussion above about whether to include a "Peace efforts" section at all. I think the discussion of a "how should it look?" should be postponed until we have clarity about that.

@Jirka.h23, Slatersteven, ErnestKrause, Basedosaurus, and IntrepidContributor: I believe this is actually an issue in favour of having a Peace section here that is actively maintained through consensus, rather than re-added periodically with potentially pointed and undue statements. Is anyone of you in favour of keeping the current section? Because I believe the old one was far superior. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. I agree with your point. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. The first was the process of the annexation of Crimea itself, which was followed by an Interim Period of conflict between Russia and Ukraine mostly in the Donbas region, which was followed by the two phases of the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion here on the Talk page should be consistent with the general approach taken in the international press about the Russo-Ukraine War as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:BLUDGEON to keep reiterating your point. As Alaexis commented in the above discussion [3], there is no disagreement about the general approach, and it does not refute the argument to include a summary of the peace efforts. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I kinda assumed that ^^ But that probably means you also agree we should have "Peace efforts" section at all, instead of none? Because the other discussion above couldn't decide on that question. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely! :) Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Folks, be so kind and do not revert back and forth until a consensus has been found. Try and use all the options listed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution...but edit warring will only lead to warnings, blocks, protectons etc...for these consequences it really doesn't matter who is right. Consider this a warning to all taking part in the back and forth. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ermenrich and Rosguill, you both took part in the edit war with Jirka.h23, who unlike you, participated in the #Peace efforts discussion above. According to WP:BRD, you should have participated in the above discussion and addressed the question of whether the section should be included in the page, before reverting two good-faith attemps to write it. There are at least five editors here in favour of including the section, and in a separate discussion about calling an RfC, Giraffedata and S Marshall advised instead to close the above discussion. I didn't see any good reasons not to include a summary of the sub-article in this article, but I have requested a close for an administrator to formally determine that. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  My edit was an admin intervention to restore the stable status quo of an article undergoing edit warring. If Jirka.h23 hadn't been blocked by Bbb23 in the same minute when I intervened, I would have followed up by either protecting the page or blocking them (I hadn't made up my mind yet at the time as to which intervention would be more appropriate), but that action was made moot. I have no opinion about the underlying dispute beyond my estimation that the edit I reverted to is the pre-existing stable status quo _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SILENCE is not necessarily consensus. I restored the status quo ante while the dispute was ongoing. I don't necessarily have any opinion on whether a peace section should be added (besides that it should not imply that the West/Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to keep fighting, see below).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How about a See also link to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A See also link wouldn't be necessary if we had a summarised section on the peace process, which would also link to the sub-article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that nearly every section of this article has a link to a more detailed article. The same should be done here. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. We discussed that above and reached a consensus to keep the section. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I spent a lot of time in writing the section and this is how it looks like. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I personally think that it does a very good job of accurately and succinctly summarising the sources cited.

--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The three articles you cite are all from the small minority of commentators of believe the invasion was the fault of the West. Using that text would violate the NPOV policy's requirement that viewpoints be represented in proportion to their frequency in Reliable Sources. I'd scrap it entirely and start with a clean slate. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But don't you think that the whole article didn't mention or represent the opinion of those who think this war is the west's fault? This article needs to represent more POVs and I'm working to make it meet this policy's adhered neutrality by adding different POVs. In my opinion, the article without this addition violates NPOV. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest a few minor changes

The sentence I struck through ("Russians claimed...") is not needed. We have Ukrainian and Western sources saying the same thing citing sources close to Zelensky. I've also added the terms of the putative agreement - it's clearly important. Alaexis_¿question? 14:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

fair enough. That sounds reasonable. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Don't want to bloat the RfC discussion, but just a head's up @Ermenrich that as extended confirmed, you should be able to access Foreign Affairs via the Wikimedia Library (one of the things the Foundation has managed to sensibly spend money on): https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

The article by Hill is completely misrepresented, as "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." is simply not in the source.

On the other hand, the currently proposed version above correctly cites the article by Mearsheimer, which is rather a poor article. He doesn't acively distort facts, but only gives some select ones: "Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it and make it part of a Greater Russia. It was principally concerned with preventing Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border. Putin and his advisers were especially concerned about Ukraine eventually joining NATO." This is ofc not wrong for the pre-invasion issue, but cherry-picking, since we actually know a bit more.

Hill, much better, writes: "Narratives about NATO have also played a special role in Putin’s version of history. Putin argues that NATO is a tool of U.S. imperialism and a means for the United States to continue its supposed Cold War occupation and domination of Europe. He claims that NATO compelled eastern European member countries to join the organization and accuses it of unilaterally expanding into Russia’s sphere of influence." but then also "But Putin also plays up Russia’s imperial role. At a June 9, 2022, Moscow conference, Putin told young Russian entrepreneurs that Ukraine is a "colony," not a sovereign country. He likened himself to Peter the Great, who waged "the Great Northern War" for 21 years against Sweden—"returning and reinforcing" control over land that was part of Russia. This explanation also echoes what Putin told U.S. President George Bush at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest: "Ukraine is not a real country.""

I think Hill does a much better job at distinguishing "true and false" from "statements and opinions", and we should much rather follow her, an expert under the Trump administration, than a distinguished professor. Huh, crazy times. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Upon closer inspection, the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all, just more difficult to read. He blames both sides for escalating, which is probably not untrue. But that also means the article can not be used to support a "Russia is innocent" narrative, and was thus distorted in the section suggestion above as well. I suggest people read through them themselves, as I can only discuss them so much. And ofc there are many more articles around, these are just a few. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about the sentence "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Super ninja2, maybe it comes from somewhere else (I'm asking you as your proposed text includes this sentence)? Re the Mearsheimer's opinion, we might want to include it along with other opinions on the peace negotiations to maintain NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 17:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII " the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all"

I think that Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the content of RS with attribution (which what I did), not editors' opinions regarding whether the content is good or bad.

Foreign affairs being a reliable source, I therefore adhered to the rules. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I didn't accuse you of breaking rules, I only noted that your proposal gives WP:UNDUE weight. It can be difficult to judge that; and I know you probably meant well. Also, the above were simply my personal musings about this specific article (which, again, I don't think is poorly written as I initially thought). The issue is not that your proposal is citing unreliable sources, it's that we need to report primarily what the majority of reliable sources says, which is not that. However, @Alaexis you are right that we could cite the Mearsheimer article – but I would suggest in the main peace negotiations article, not in a very short summary. Because that would give him and his minority opinion WP:UNDUE weight. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it that foreign affairs is an unreliable source? John Mearsheimer is a very well known realist and adheres to the realism school of thought which is definitely not a minority. The whole Eastern World is realist. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I think you still get me wrong. I didn't mean that Foreign affairs is unreliable. We don't cite unreliable sources at all, except in extraordinary circumstances. But even a reliable source can sometimes have an article that has an unusual view, which does not align with that of most others. This can affect every newspaper, every publication: If they say something that almost noone else says, we must be careful about including it. Please read WP:UNDUE and below, it gives a good explanation! This is also explained in the section WP:BALANCING: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. We must first see what the majority says (basically, something like irl consensus), and we can present other, different opinions, too – but not as the first thing, as the most important point (because they are not). As for The whole Eastern World is realist, I don't get what you mean by that? But I read a lot of Al-Jazeera because it gives a fresh view, and they are very neutral mostly, only reporting facts and statements, and not saying they agree anyone is responsible: https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/ukraine-russia-crisis/ –LordPeterII (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy requires that, where differing points of view exist, that material is presented as a point of view rather than fact.

The world being politically divided only between East (realism) and West(liberalism), I don't the other pov is extraordinary nor minority, especially when taking into account the Chinese population. Western people considering the other side of the world's pov as uncommon and extraordinary, imo, is due to their lack of access to any other media. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Okay... I understand where you may be getting at, but that is a different discussion entirely. Whether or not the world is divided into two halfs is a difficult discussion at best, and I would personally rather believe we now have multipolarity (US, Russia, China, India, Iran, ...). Basing your argument about what is NPOV on the relative size of populations is something I guarantee will not work on Wikipedia. This is not how NPOV is defined. But I don't want to pick a fight with you about this: It's good to have a broad set of editors, and I've lately seen a lot of editors from the Middle East (Near East in my language ^^) join and be productive on Wikipedia. Can't hurt to have people who think differently than yourself, to remind you there are other POVs around. But I don't think you will be able to completely change the interpretation of NPOV or similar guidelines, as they have for too long be the basis of Wikipedia. China has already decided they want their own version of a state-sponsored alternative, and blocked Wikipedia. I don't think that is a good way of handling things, and I don't believe "the East" and "the West" should desire to become "natural enemies", and remain split. And as for access to other media: I have just pointed out that I read (& watch) Al-Jazeera (arguably only the English edition yet, as my Arabic skills are still meager), and I also watch Chinese and Japanese news (in English) sometimes, for fun. We actually have access to them in "the West"; although it's true, most people don't make use of that. But yeah, now I have derailed after all, and I guess you should be allowed to reply :) Just know that I will not continue this discussion for much longer, as I would rather go back to other things. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I just want to confirm that I didn't want nor I am planning to change Wikipedia's rules. You got me wrong. I was trying to prove that John Mearsheimer realism isn't a minority as you previously stated. Thank you for this discussion. It was nice to hear your pov. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning Mearsheimer only in the peace negotiations article. Here I would stick to the facts and keep interpretations to a minimum. Alaexis_¿question? 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

John mearsheimer didn't mention the peace negotiations Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

During the summer of 2022, President Zelenskyy also warned that if Russia puts on trial any member of the Azov Regiment for war crimes, then there will never be any negotiations.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Can't edit but this seems notable[4] Santorini36 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Original at Reuters.  —Michael Z. 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Might be more directly relevant at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, see also Talk:2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations#New Reuters piece - Putin had a deal and rejected it.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, added it to the peace negotiations article. I used both because Reuters is paywalled. Santorini36 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Beeb just reported that Ukraine has claimed a dam has been hit (by missiles?) as 'revenge' for losses by Russian forces recently. Looking for online news report ... 50.111.31.194 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC) see--> https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-hit-zelenskyys-hometown-barrage-194538830.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.194 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian is reporting it as well. I’ll update several relevant articles. Juxlos (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a specific article appropriate for an attack - Kryvyi Rih doesn't seem to be involved directly in either of the ongoing offensives. Someone might want to create a singular article for the attack, then. It’s definitely covered. [5], [6]. Juxlos (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#14 September. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise or knowledge to edit the article, but I did notice the infobox figure for the number of troops (particularly for the Ukrainian side) are from before the invasion and does not reflect current and past mobilization. I've seen numbers as high as 700,000. I wouldn't know where to begin on adding updated figures, but I feel I should bring it to light. Ohmsteader (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue of counting troops has been discussed several times in the history archive of this page. There are the comparison numbers of conscription in Ukraine compared to the actual number of boots on the ground in Ukraine organized into divisions and regiments. Your reliable sources will usually inform you as to which statistics they are estimated for 'troop' demographics. ErnestKrause (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Bold reverts regarding large number of changes being made by User:Jr without Talk page discussion even though many editors are involved in the editing of this article. Talk page discussion is normally required for large scale changes to the article being edited by a large number of editors. One major issue is that Jr wishes to fully drop the distinction of Phase One and Phase Two of the invasion without prior discussion. Phase one and phase two of the invasion are pervasive to the article and should not be changed without discussion first. Phase one and phase two of the invasion is also the preferred distinction for most of the international press reporting on the Invasion. Jr appears to wish to eliminate this distinction for his own 'vision' for what the article should look like. Should phase one and phase distinction be dropped from the article or retained, since Jr appears to wish to drop them entirely from the TOC of the article which has been in place since April 8th 2022. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 and ErnestKrause: Let's remember to assume good faith: Bold changes don't imply an editor is trying to impose their "own vision" on the article. But I agree, we should better discuss major changes, so let's do it here.

If the press is reporting these phases like that, I find it convincing to keep in line with that. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page discussion is needed on this. Jr has not yet responded. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this thread. I recognise the changes I made to the structure are major. They were made in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss and inspired by the comments about the need for change made in this above thread by editors I Know I'm Not Alone and llywrch. I've no issue with the changes being reverted if others don't see them as an improvement (in fact I'd be surprised if these changes were simply kept). I'm not particularly attached to the new structure, rather I'm hope it offers a launching pad for more discussion. I do think the new structure offers better chronological flow overall and puts some topics in more logical order, but I'm keen to see others' ideas and highly doubt my bold changes are the best possible structure. Jr8825 • Talk 22:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause regarding the large number of edits, most of these were overdue copy-editing. Most of this article is very rough around the edges as it's being written as events occur. On the whole, I don't think expect much of this copy-editing is controversial. I think wholescale reverts of this major copy-editing isn't presumptive of my good faith, and rather unproductive. It'd be far more preferable if you could simply restore the structure you like. Jr8825 • Talk 22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently I cannot undo the last edit in the large sequence which you have added into the article today without Talk page discussion. As a sign of good faith may I ask you to revert this edit which you made in order for good faith discussion to continue on this Talk page here: "Curprev 21:01, 10 September 2022‎ Jr8825 talk contribs‎ 358,306 bytes −3,600‎ →‎Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". I am requesting this in good faith, that you revert your edit just identified, in order to continue this Talk page discussion on the basis of my BRD request. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The edits you've reverted so far represent an hour's worth of heavy copy-editing for brevity, grammar and source adhesion, but as you point out, intervening edits means you can't actually click the undo button on the edit that changed the headers. In hindsight, it was rather foolish of me to combine that change with other copy edits as it complicates reversion, and I'm sorry for that – I recognise this was a mistake. You have two options, you can either spend a few minutes of your time manually restoring the section titles to your preferred version, or you can revert all changes since the header renaming by going to the diff before it, clicking edit and then publishing that version. In doing so you will irreparably undo all of the other changes (including several by other editors) that have occurred in the mean time, and it's far more work to manually restore all of the intervening copy-editing (realistically, it won't happen and the changes will be lost). I implore you to choose the first option: restore the most recent version with all of the other improvements, stick ((in use)) on the page and take a few minutes of your time to rename the headers as you wish. Jr8825 • Talk 22:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored my copy edits as I'd be very disappointed to see them lost, but with "First phase" and "Second phase" appended to the headers "Initial invasion" and "Donbas offensive", which is the primary issue you raised in your initial comment here. Does this ameliorate your concerns? What else do you think should be different about the headers? Jr8825 • Talk 22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Keith D BRD discussion is underway and User:Jr appears to be in agreement to participate until consensus is reached, however, intermediate edits have made it not possible to do an undo of the last edit of the sequence here: "21:01, 10 September 2022‎ Jr8825 talk contribs‎ 358,306 bytes −3,600‎ →‎Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". May I ask that you rollback the edits to just before this last edit by Jr which I just listed, in order for Talk page discussion to be able to continue in a meaningful way." ErnestKrause (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jr, you appear to have done the partial revert for your edit which might allow for discussion of this matter to continue at least in part on this Talk page. It appears that you wish to fully remove the distinction of Phase one and phase two from the article and its structural TOC. Your appear to wish to do this even though many parts of the article and its images, and its animation maps, are dependent upon the distinction of these two phases. Further, the distinction of these two phases has been the manner in which the international press has been reporting the Invasion since April 8th. You have done so without any prior discussion and in the absence of any reasons shared with any other editors. Is there a reason for this, and are there any editors that feel such an extensive revision without Talk page discussion should have been done? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on including "phases". I've restored this language in the latest revision. Have you checked it? Jr8825 • Talk 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Keith D has no tools you don't in this case: as I explained above, you can simply go to the page history, view the version prior to the structural change (I've even linked it for your convenience), click edit and then publish it. I'll be frustrated by the loss of my contributions, and I'd point to WP:ROWN and WP:REVONLY, but ultimately it's my fault for bundling my changes together and you're free to do this; I won't revert you. Jr8825 • Talk 22:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you restore the article as a sign of good faith in editing. Otherwise, I'll request that Keith D rollback the article as requested when he returns from the week-end for regular editing of the article to start again, and for any required discussion which you may need at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to self-revert myself as it would involve undoing significant copy-editing, you're welcome to change the headers however you see fit. Perhaps you can explain your other problems with the changes, now that "first phase" and "second phase" have been restored per your request?

I'll run through the changes:

1. I renamed "Second phase: South-eastern offensive" to "Second phase: Donbas offensive" as it's consistent with the main article, Battle of Donbas (2022), and I suspect this is the most common label in media coverage. I'm happy to carry out a source review to confirm whether or not this is correct. Feel free to adjust.
2. I removed "Second phase:" from the headers for the Ukrainian counteroffensives and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis and promoted them from level 4 headers so they're no longer sub-sections of the Donbas offensive section. I did this because they're outside the Donbas, occurred several months after the main events of the Russian offensive, and, I think, are themselves particularly notable events within the invasion. The Battle of Donbas is what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of the war. Maybe the counteroffensives & NPP crisis could be labelled a "third phase", although unless sources are found this may be WP:OR. You're welcome to restore "Second phase" to these headers, although I'm personally doubtful there are sources which explicitly say these events are part of the "second phase" of the invasion; if you know of sources which do, it'd be appreciated if you could link the source in this discussion.
3. I added a date range "(August – present)" to the new level 3 "Ukrainian counteroffensives" header. To explain my thought process, I think this helpfully includes the Crimea attacks and matches the period of time when media sources were widely discussing a possible Ukrainian offensive in Kherson, while events in the Donbas were receiving limited attention and were at a relative standstill. However, I'm not fussed about the date range inclusion, by all means remove it.
4. I re-arranged the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" and "Fall of Mariupol" subsections so that Mariupol is discussed first, as it fell earlier (~16 May vs. 24 June-3 July) and the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" refers to the Mariupol being "almost entirely taken" in the lead up to the Russian assault on these cities, so it makes more sense this way.
5. I shortened coverage of individual strikes and events in the Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv–Odesa regions during this period, and subsumed them under a new level 4 "Other regions" header, as they were away from the main fighting in Donbas, relatively few major developments occurred in them, and there was considerable over-detail; however, all the key events such as the recapture of Snake Island and Kremenchuk mall strike are retained. If you believe these sections should again be level 4 headers themselves, go ahead, although I'm personally unconvinced they can be considered core parts of the Russian Donbas offensive. "Other regions" could be named something like "Outside the Donbas", or these regions could be removed from under the "Phase two: Donbas offensive" header entirely. No strong preferences here, happy to consider alternatives.

• The caption of the animated map doesn't perfectly align with the new headers since it continues up to present, but says "Phase 2". It's an easy fix, whichever option is chosen: "Phase 2" can simply be removed from the caption (would be my preference), the animation can be adjusted to end before the Ukrainian counteroffensives, or the header "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – July)" can be changed back to "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – present), which would fit well with the option I suggested above, of removing the date range from the header "Ukrainian offensives (August – present)". I wouldn't object to any of these changes, the point in my restructure is to encourage this kind of problem solving.

That's about it in terms of the structural changes, and again, if you strongly believe all of these changes are bad you can simply edit the current revision and restore the headers as they were in Special:Permalink/1109602196. This link can be put alongside the current revision for ease of comparison. Jr8825 • Talk 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted as requested above, but gone 1 version further as that just added the ((inuse)) template, I have also kept user:Jjmclellan82 change as a seperate addition which you can revert out if you do not want it. (Looks like further discussion taking place since I started this action) Keith D (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed with this wholescale revert as it undoes lots of uncontroversial cleanup, when it's much simpler to restore the section titles and order while leaving the current prose. I acknowledge it was foolish to carry out such extensive copy-editing at the same time as bold adjustments to the headers, but I'm not going to spend another hour of my time restoring my copy-editing manually. I'll continue to discuss possible structural changes here if @ErnestKrause or others decide to review my suggestions in detail and offer their thoughts on them. Jr8825 • Talk 01:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, I think Ernest's request for a wholescale revert is improper. I made a wide range of substantial good faith edits, Ernest reverted 10 of these in a row and when it wasn't possible to automatically the revert the 11th, requested I manually self-revert it and then asked an admin to revert instead (see Special:History/2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). This is very poor reversion etiquette. I cited BRD, I'm fine with seeing my bold edits reverted – I ask ErnestKrause joins in the discussion and engages with my proposals when he's able to – but BRD doesn't mean reversion is acceptable in the absence of justification. Ernest hasn't asserted my changes are particularly controversial beyond the header adjustments, despite requesting their reversion in entirety. I've promptly implemented the only specific concern so far raised, and have broken down the header changes above to assist further discussion. However, I'm less concerned with the bold edits than I am the loss of several hours of careful copy-editing and cutting. @Keith D:, I ask that you self-revert to allow me to restore the headers as closely as possible to how they were prior to my edits while maintaining the much larger proportion of my edits which were non-controversial copy-edits. I recognise I bungled things by bundling lots of edits together (in a rush to avoid edit conflicts on this busy article) and will manually restore the status-quo headers in order to save the considerable work I've undertaken today. Jr8825 • Talk 02:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After several hours, there does not appear to be support for your comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: After several hours, there does not appear to be support for your comments – I don't get this. We do not need support for an editor expressing his disappoitment over having his work reverted, nor do we need to expect such replies within hours. Copyediting is tedious work, and there might have been alternatives to a rollback. I'll move on to other places now, but would like to remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, no matter how extensive your contributions are. Everyone has the right to attempt an improvement of the article, and just because you do not agree with it, doesn't automatically imply that no one does. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your own comment above was to say: "If the press is reporting these phases like that, I find it convincing to keep in line with that." Is this still your position? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a brief source review. The "second phase" of the invasion is used to describe the Battle of Donbas and/or Russian offensives in the Donbas/south:

• "The second stage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ... establishing full control over Donbas and southern Ukraine" 25 April
• "For 300 miles across Donbas, a new wave of Russian firepower has been unleashed. Ukraine’s President says the second phase of Russia’s invasion has begun" 20 April
• "Russia says it has begun a new phase of the invasion of Ukraine as fighting raged in the Donbas region" 19 April
• "Russia said it had begun a new phase of its invasion of Ukraine on Tuesday as officials in the eastern border region of Donbas urged civilians to flee" 19 April
• ""Another phase" of Russia's invasion of Ukraine "is starting now," Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said ... "The Russian troops have begun the battle for the Donbas," Zelenskyy said" 19 April

These usages are concentrated around the beginning of the Russian Donbas offensive in April. A search for results in the last month for "Ukraine war second phase" on Google returns little meaningful journalism or analysis. Jr8825 • Talk 14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits from User:Jr appear to be getting highly unreliable. He is stating in his above responses that he sees no appreciable search results ("little meaningful journalism") for a Google search on the four key words "Ukraine second phase war", while my computer screen is identifying dozens upon dozens of articles using the words "second phase" in magazines, newspaper, and video news reports. My search on Google and/or Yahoo gives dozens upon dozens of linked articles: the Yahoo search results, for example, are here: [7]. If statements from User:Jr continue to be unreliable, then it leads to the troublesome question of his reliability/unreliability for his edits to this article about the Invasion. For example, see Reuters for "Second phase of war has started, says Ukraine president's chief of staff" in Reuters here [8], see BusinessInsider here [9], see CBS News here [10], etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't read my comment properly. I wrote that "a search for results in the last month" turns up very few results. Above, I highlighted 5 articles which show the journalists and commentators use the term "second phase" to refer to the Russian Donbas offensive.

Additionally, I've just found an recent Al Jazeera article from 24 August which further supports my arguments that the second phase of the war has ended: "Offensive, redeployment, counterattack: Ukraine has overmatched expectations in all three main phases of this war. During the first month, Russia attempted a blitzkrieg offensive ... On March 25, Russia announced it was redeploying its forces to the east ... on April 18 Russia’s eastern offensive began in earnest [and May and June were] Ukraine’s worst months ... The arrival in Ukraine of high-precision rocket artillery systems ... on June 23 disrupted Russia’s war of attrition in the east."

Please do not comment on my conduct or "reliability" here again. It's not nice. Jr8825 • Talk 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be reverting my title for this thread. Wikipedia convention is that the person who initiates the thread provides the name of the thread for use on the Talk page. I restored the original title and stated my reason for keeping it. You then reverted again to your own preference against Wikipedia convention for naming the title of a thread by the person who starts it. I'm requesting that you show good faith and return the title to how it was named when it was started. You previously declined my other request for you to AGF, which you refused to do during your main page edits over the week-end. I'm requesting that you reconsider your previous refusal to edit by AGF, and that you return the original title of this section in good faith to allow discussion by other editors to take place about the title and the associated edit issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Returning to the substance of the discussion, after looking at the above articles, what's your view on the sourcing regarding "second phase", and when/if sources indicate that the second phase of the conflict has ended? Following from this, what problems do you see in my proposals to change the TOC (numbered 1-5 above)? Regarding the thread title, the current one is clearer and I refer to my explanation on your talk page. Let's focus on the content. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Answered on your Talk page. You appear to be edit warring to force your version the title into this thread for your own purposes. I'm adding my request again that as a matter of AGF, that you return the title to its original form as written by the initiator of this thread. The original title chosen is accurate and I'm requesting in good faith that you restore the original title. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't follow this overly long discussion anymore, but wanted to say that I agree section headers should not be changed, unless in extraordinary circumstances. The current header wording might not have been the optimal choice, but changing it is not a solution, it confuses other editors. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the heading "Invasion and resistance," fix "Ukrainian forces managed to hold ground and put to effectively use Western arms." It's a small error and looks like it should either read "put to effective use Western arms" or "and effectively used Western arms." Delukiel (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done But I failed to attribute the change to you, Delukiel. Sorry, I didn't know until now that I was supposed to do that :/ But it's fixed :) –LordPeterII (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all! It's a small enough change. Thank you! Delukiel (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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 a section between Reaction and Polls, namely, "In Film and Media", for the ongoing war already became at least the inspiration of one TV show episodes aired in US. The would-be section goes as follows---

In Film and Media

The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine started to become an inspiration for some TV show episodes. For example, the last episode of FBI: Most Wanted's 2021-22 season, "A Man Without a Country", featured a Russian oligarch embarking on a killing spree, even to the point of abducting his estranged daughter who stood with Ukraine and even briefly touched upon the infamous Bucha massacre in her press conference before abduction, and the name "President Kimov" is a strong allusion to the current Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and since the episode was first aired on May 24, 2022, whereas Bucha massacre was only exposed on Apr 2, 2022, therefore it was very remarkable that the events made its way into a TV show episode in a short time and some elements already figured prominently in the episode itself. Bf0325 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources and citations for this? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I just provided a link to that specific episode which you can watch yourself, and be careful to the words coming out of those characters, especially the oligarch and his estranged daughter as well as others---they explicitly and implicitly referred to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, such as "the invasion", Kyiv, Ukraine, Bucha, and the like. Bf0325 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and this is the link to that specific FBI: Most Wanted episode--- [11]https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/JQzgrfKsLxIU6MxXjKI75GQHAnF_qBYc/. Commercials were interspersed within the episode itself, but you can watch the whole episode and decide whether my description is correct. Do not just read the synopsis itself, because it's too brief whereas a lot of details are in the episode itself, from the mouths of those characters. Bf0325 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bf0325: To clarify, you want these changes to be added to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions? Because they would seem overly detailled here. If so, it would have made more sense to discuss this on the other talk page. Regardless, I am not sure if a "In popular culture" section is warranted there just yet, it seems less important than the irl reactions. But others might agree with your suggestion. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, not as part of Reactions, but rather a whole new section, and indeed it is detailed, but that doesn't mean some other TV shows or movies or documentaries around the world didn't touch upon the war or were inspired partially by it. We may throw in "In popular culture" and see what happens. Bf0325 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section "Phase Two" please update the animated map subtext to say "from 7 April to 5 September 2022".
In the section "Phase Three" please add the phase 3 gif with the following subtext "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine phase 3 from 5 September to 14 September 2022".

Thanks! Physeters^✉ 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the caption for the Phase 2 animation map. In looking at the new animation map for Phase 3 it is occurring to me that a large portion of the map covering Western Ukraine is not an active part of the map animation, and that it might be useful to focus the map to only go as far West as Kyiv in presenting the animation for the Southeastern invasion of Ukraine. Could that be done by setting a template size or parameters for the map as a global change to that animation file before its added into the Phrase three part of the article (otherwise the map idea for Phase three look like a good idea)? ErnestKrause (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I could definitely crop the animation to just show the southeast, but I personally think that it is important to show the whole of the country. There is still a chance the Belarus might try an invasion of its own, or Russia might try to attack Kyiv, so showing the whole map is important. I will upload a cropped version as a separate file a little later. Physeters^✉ 18:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause here is a cropped version.

Physeters^✉ 18:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice new animation map for Phase 3 in the new format is now added, and it looks like an improvement to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am specifically referring about this part:

In a televised address shortly before the invasion, Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely claimed Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority.

And this one as well:

when Putin announced a "special military operation" to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine.

They should be in the article, just not in the lead. Because:

- Excessive and confusing use of quotation marks.

- Take lots of space for little informative value.

- They are biased opinions / false claims from one part of an ongoing war.

- The lead should state only undisputed facts and events.

- Serve a subliminal purpose of spreading Russian propaganda points (yes, even if the sources refute the claims).

Please take as example the article Invasion of Poland, which does not include any of Hitler's ramblings with which he justified the invasion, only events. Polmas (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As this war is ongoing, not a historical event, we need to be very careful to put both side's opinions. We can't take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Polmas: I have no strong opinions about it being in the lede, but I don't think some of the issues you point out are that bad:

• The quotation marks are used to signify that those statement aren't facts, so we need them.
• I don't believe this is spreading Russian propaganda, specifically because we have words like falsely denoting claims that are refuted.

I can understand what you mean, but as Slatersteven pointed out, we are not at the end yet. Eventually, when this is history, the lede section should certainly be reworked. But right now, we don't even know what it will end up saying (hopefully something better than the other article you linked). –LordPeterII (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree we can’t just quote Putin’s incitement to genocide[12] in the lead without any evaluation whatsoever. The sources cited for the quotation are all about denying its veracity. I’ve added something that might suffice.[13] —Michael Z. 19:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with Polmas that the quotes should not be in the lead as they detract from what should be in a lead. See WP:Lead for a guide on what should generally be and not be in the lead. I also agree that the quotes do have a place in the article as they provide background and information on the leader of Russia. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing word form of 'demilitarization' which is the one being quoted from the body of the article. Talk page discussion should continue presently in progress to determine if this sentence is to remain in the lead section or be deleted. Current version of the key words is now exactly as quoted in the main body of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally find the new wording too repetitious. We already say the claim about Nazis is false in the paragraph above, so repeating it a second time a few lines later is redundant, and makes it sound like Wikipedia's editors have an axe to grind/Wikipedia is taking a stance. I don't think our educational purpose is impacted by just saying it's false once. I think putting "denazification" in scare quotes is enough myself, although I would agree with Polmas that simply removing Putin's phrasing here is an option too (and preferable to repeating "false", in my view). Putin's stated justification is detailed in the above paragraph, so no information would be lost. Jr8825 • Talk 04:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It can probably be improved. But do realize these are two different things said in two speeches, one announcing “peacekeeping” days before the start of open hostilities, the other a tacit declaration of war and its aims immediately after. What’s still missing from the lead is that one is evidence of a campaign of genocide incitement, the other evidence of genocidal intent.[14] —Michael Z. 13:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

And they are actual quotes denoting the direct, literal quotation of speech, not scare quotes.

And sorry, but I think we have to repeat that it’s false every we quote false genocidal demonizing language. We can decline repeating the whole thing when it’s redundant, but let’s not remove it with the only justification being that we are squeamish about denying its validity. —Michael Z. 14:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

re: "I think we have to repeat that it’s false every we quote false genocidal demonizing language", I think this is more reflective of the tendency to be forthright and engage in rather than describe disputes when covering current affairs, rather than keeping things detached and letting the facts speak for themselves. Our purpose is to inform, not persuade. Adolf Hitler provides a counterpoint. We don't say "false" every time we discuss his pack of genocidal lies, e.g. "stab-in-the-back myth which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders, Jews ...", "Throughout [Mein Kampf], Jews are equated with "germs" and presented as the "international poisoners" of society. According to Hitler's ideology, the only solution was their extermination", "Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the enemy of the German people" etc.. I'm fine with saying "falsely claimed Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority" (iirc I helped write that sentence early on in this article's history), but saying "Putin's false claim" twice, a couple of sentences apart, in the lead? I think it's too much. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Every example expresses doubt in wiki-voice, or at least explicitly contextualizes direct quotations as an opinion: “myth,” “presented as”, “according to Hitler’s ideology,” “Hitler’s long-standing view.” All I am insisting is that a new paragraph introducing a second statement with new propaganda terms “‘demilitarization and denazification’” be treated the same way as your examples. —Michael Z. 16:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would much prefer ...when Putin announced a "special military operation". Minutes later... to ...when Putin announced a "special military operation" for the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine, reinforcing his false narrative associating Ukraine with Nazism. Minutes later... Jr8825 • Talk 04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: responding to your point about it being two different speeches, one a justification for "peacekeeping" and one a declaration of war, I think that as long as we keep the detail in the second para. (e.g. his false claims regarding the situation/Ukraine "nazis") and the phrasing "announced a "special operation". Minutes later [bombs fell]" at the start of the third, we sufficiently convey that the declaration of war was separate. I do see Polmas' point that it seems unnecessary to repeat Putin's claims again in the third para. Jr8825 • Talk 15:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I don’t disagree with that. But it is not a merely repeat of the claims. It is a distinct explicit statement of war aims, and it is phrased using propaganda terminology that many entire articles have been written about. It is central to the evidence of genocide against Ukraine, incorporating incitement and intentionality, and integral to an order for execution.

Like I said, maybe it can be written differently, but I think the article would be better by referring to these aspects of the statement in the lead rather than removing it. —Michael Z. 17:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

if it's necessary to keep the quote "demilitarisation and denazification", perhaps we can couch it in terms that make it clearer it's his contentious/cynical claim? I think this is already obvious from the previous paragraph, but wouldn't be against something like "when Putin announced a "special military operation", which he claimed was aimed at the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine." I'm just unsupportive of adding an additional and repetitive wikivoice assertion/analysis here. Jr8825 • Talk 18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A town directly north of Donetsk is labeled as "New York" and has been for a few months. Figured this is the only place you can submit a correction as editing is locked to a select few honest fact-checkers 47.23.177.234 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an actual place—see New York, Ukraine. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's the correct label. Tartan357 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bruh 47.23.177.234 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well thank you both, learned something new 47.23.177.234 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Russian army left a T-90 intact on the battlefield (maybe the cd player broke down) --> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-finds-one-of-russias-best-tanks-abandoned-in-perfect-condition/ar-AA120kMl?ocid=wispr <-- probably a good add for the Russian tank article, too 50.111.31.194 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic and the Russian Government have been known to exaggerate their enemies losses. As can be said for the Ukrainian side. This is an ongoing conflict and misinformation spreads fast through their respective governments and may not indicate true casualties. The Ukrainian losses ( source/tag #598 ) seems untrue and is unclear, as it does not state separately and it is coming from a combatant known to lie.^[2] Neutrality of such forces, even stated as estimates can/are unreliable. ^{[1 1]} Overall, combatant sources in these resective issues should be avoided, as they do tend to be unreliable and not neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties 110.145.200.26

Ungrouped Source : https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

(talk) 02:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

We report both sides claims, we do not take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I just read section 3.4 Missile attacks and air war and noticed that the first paragraph gives details of a time after the second paragraph. I think I'm not the only person who would find it easier to read chronologically. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added the July missile attacks to that section toady to bring it more up to date. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

1 million troops got mobilised with the potential to mobilise 2 million more a ukrainian top offcial said.

The numbers in the infobox of the page need to be updated

Ukraine suffering up to 1,000 casualties per day in Donbas, (axios.com) 89.245.37.121 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the citations for this? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/21/putin-calls-300000-reservists-partial-mobilisation Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And declares the occupied lands Russian, and threatened the use of "full force" (nukes) to defend it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In the section, the estimates for killed civilians from the Ukrainian government state that "28,28,707" have died. The source that the statistic uses does not state such ([15]), and the Wikipedia article it uses as a reference doesn't use this statistic (of the Russo-Ukrainian War). Please fix this obvious typo.

Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your link does not indicate the edit you are talking about: what is the meaning of the number sequence "28,28,707" which you are typing here? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is how many they are claiming have died. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Under the Ukrainian government statistics for how many civilians are estimated to have been killed.

00:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the notation of a two digit number, followed by a two digit number, followed by a three digit number means {"28,28,707")? What is the number being discussed and what is the 'correction' being requested here? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"28,28,707" is not written correctly, as it should be (assuming the number is as represented) 2,828,707, is that the number you want? Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

After looking it up in the "Field casualties" subsection this is what it presents in the table numbers: "7,000–28,708+ killed[604][g]". That number appears to have been mistyped from this table in the article. I'm assuming for now that those numbers are consistent with footnote #604 and footnote (g) as currently presented in the article for accuracy verification. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we even consider Russian Ministry of defense as a worthy source of casualties (both Ukrainian and Russian)? Does it have something to do with reality? DakeFasso (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

NO less so than official Ukrainian sources, we do not pick sides. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Presidential Decree of 21 September 2022 № 647 officially annouced the "partial" military mobilization. But in fact, this Decree doesn't define a particular frameworks of the mobilization. Shoigu statement about 300,000 reservists is a just plan for implementing of the decree in the near future. Actually, this decree establishes a legal basis for compulsory call to serve in relation to an unlimited number of citizens being in reserve. Here is the page in Russian Wikipedia where this in being discussed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/21_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2022#%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_(2022)_%E2%86%92_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_(2022). K8M8S8 (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me to be partial. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The result of the discussion in Russian Wikipedia is that "partial" nature of this mobilization is just scam. There are at least 2 reliable sources which say, with reference to recognized experts, that, in fact, this mobilization allows to call to military service unlimited number of citizens.^[1][2] K8M8S8 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

However, at present among the Russian troops the number of boots-in-the-field is still much more limited and far smaller than what a general conscription would result in. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's significant enough to mention there because it's a significant escalation. 2620:0:2820:2001:64FE:18ED:976E:CDB3 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:lede, that is not what the lede is for, it is a summery of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the lede the first paragraph on the page? I'm talking about the third paragraph, not the first. 2620:0:2820:2001:64FE:18ED:976E:CDB3 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is whatever is above the index. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to read them since they're almost 800 KB long. I think they should be split up. 2620:0:2820:2001:64FE:18ED:976E:CDB3 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Which archive are you trying to read? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Archive 9. 2620:0:2820:2001:6D83:4C7E:C7EA:DB00 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a tradeoff. Bigger archives, or a whole bunch of them? 800 KB seems a good balance. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is subsection "Crimes against cultural heritage".

No "Crimes against people".

Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The text [a] should be rewritten, please compare DPR, LDR. Russia wants to annex the occupied territories and threatens with nuclear weapons. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No need for a separate article for this. This can quite happily be a section inside the already present article about the overall invasion. Osarius 12:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming we even need this much, a better place is the article on the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That other one should probably merge into 2022 Russian mobilization.  —Michael Z. 18:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of the 'mobilization' in the international press now appears to be going in the direction that Putin is defining this term as referring to the enlistment of troops currently in reserve to active service at this time, along with the re-activation of eligibility for ex-soldiers who are still capable of returning to military service. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The reality is not exactly as Putin presented it. Anyway, how does that relate to this merge proposal?  —Michael Z. 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If this new mobilization of Putin's goes into effect as I just described Putin's plans, then the boots-in-the-field would effectively double for Russia; that in turn would suggest a direct answer from Russia to the current Ukrainian counteroffensive. (Osarius requested that the associated edit be brought into this article). ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should make some changes to how we structure the invasion section for clarity, chronological flow and a better reflection of the sources, and would like to invite feedback. The original thread about this has unfortunately been derailed by a long-winded discussion about reversion and conduct, rather than the substance of the proposals themselves. I'm starting this thread with a clearer breakdown of the changes to facilitate discussion and make participation easier.

A version of the page including the proposed section titles can be viewed here. The current sections are on the left, in yellow, and the proposed sections are on the right, in blue.

Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Specific issues:

• Should we include recent developments, such as the Ukrainian counterattacks and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis, within the sub-section entitled "second phase:" (as currently)?

I believe the sources, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] indicate that "second phase" gained traction in April to describe the renewed Russian offensive in Donas/the south. The drop in use of the phrase after April, and recent analyses describing "three phases", indicate that it's inaccurate synthesis to continue appending "second phase" to every development. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Should the subsection "Fall of Mariupol" be placed below "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" (as currently)?

I think we're better switching around these sections for chronological flow. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Where should we cover the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis?

Currently it is covered in "Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front" and "Russian nuclear threats", although I think it may warrant its own brief subsection with a hatnote link to the main article given the amount of coverage. If it's given a subsection, I'm not certain where the best place is to put it, I've initially suggested placing it chronologically between the Russian Donbas offensive and Ukrainian counteroffensives. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A content-fork on a Talk Page ... please, STOP. Go back to the original thread, and discuss there. Asking for an Admin to hat this thread, please. Jr ... you are acting like you want to 'hide the evidence' of your initial conduct or something. That's 1) not possible, and 2) is pointless in a content discussion - nobody's "out to get you." 50.111.29.1 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

General comments:

• Support - More and more sources are stating phrases along the lines of 'new phase', 'turning point' and 'phase 3': [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. So i would even support a 'Third phase' header starting around 29 August, the day of the launch of the southern counteroffensive. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support – The new layout looks cleaner; I have wondered before why "First phase" and "Second phase" is repeated in each subheading. Agree with I Know I'm Not Alone that the sources seem to support a third phase now. Also, having Invasion of Ukraine as a subheading seems confusing, as that's also the name of the whole article. Initial invasion sounds better there. I'm only unsure if Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis should get a heading on this level: It was a dangerous incident, but doesn't fit into the "three phases" ordering very well. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: Anachronism of this comparison. The current article format has taken a different direction now in recognizing "Phase 3"; the TOC comparison given in this thread does not seem to match the direction which other editors have moved the article into since this option was presented. Its not clear what editors are Supporting or Opposing in this thread. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to see that after my own changes were wholescale reverted without a detailed explanation, other editors have since gone and boldly implemented the new "third phase" section as proposed here and it has been accepted. However, there are a few more specific issues the above structure fixes: 1) the redundant repetition of "X phase:" before every sub-header, 2) the non-chronological discussion of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk before Mariupol, 3) coverage of the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis and, most importantly in my view, 4) the earlier cut-off point for the "second phase" (July, rather than September), which adheres to sourcing in RS (e.g. FP and the sources above) in which analysts and military experts are quoted as describing the arrival of HIMARS in July as effectively freezing Russia's artillery-based offensive in Donbas and ending that phase of the conflict. There's then a limbo-land period in August dominated by the nuclear plant crisis and Ukrainian preparations, before the Ukrainian offensives start at the beginning of Sept. Currently our structure doesn't accurately reflect this. Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support with comment for @ErnestKrause. The structure as it exists is needlessly wordy and confusing. For EK, I am in favour of your phrasing on proposals (1) and (2); I'll abstain on (3) since I honestly don't know enough; and for (4), whatever date is selected for the end of Phase 1 must start Phase 2 -- It's not like everyone went out for a pint for the whole month of August. As for commentary, I find it saddening that the only person who seems to be following Wikipedia editing guidelines is the person who seemed to get spanked for WP:BRD, @Jr8825. To a casual observer, it appears that instead of really addressing the core concerns that s/he raised, folks went down all sorts of rabbit holes and kept using the old, flawed, painful structure. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: Anachronism of this comparison. Its not clear which versions you are comparing. The 'old' version presented in the comparison above no longer exists; it has been replaced by the current TOC and article with designations of 'Third phase', etc, as other editors have started it and edited it in the last week. You appear to be discussing replacement of a version of the article which no longer exists. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Recap: When the Jr8825 changed the article under WP:BOLD, s/he got reverted. S/He chose the WP:BRD path and joined the discussion above. That discussion went on so long that some specific details didn't exist, so someone said (metaphorically), "Oh, we've moved on so we don't have to think about those problems." The author came back and said, quite reasonably, "Can we talk about the structure again since it's still terrible? And here are some new problems." This discussion has gone on so long that some of the specific details don't exist any more (sound familiar?) so it's now 'an anachronism'... and we're still not fixing it.

  If Jr8825 simply makes the common-sense changes, s/he has every reason to assume s/he'll get reverted again for lack of discussion. Would it be better if I start a new thread that simply says, "Redundant, nested headers are bad and some things seem out of place," and avoid fungible specifics? I'd bet cash money that the very first response will be, "We can't discuss this until you provide specific examples." Last1in (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

so in the infobox the strngth estimates are currently given for the start of the invasion, wich is important information. However, this conflict has now been going on for more than 7 months, and the russian number is about to change drastically given the mobilization. So wouldn't it make sense to also include estimates for the current strength in order to better reflect the realities on the ground? Assuming someone finds reliable sources for currently deployed troops. 1234567891011a (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

We would need a wp:rs to give such numbers. Note that it would have to say "current Strength" not (for example) "projected Strength". Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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 A to B because of a typo in the article (See A and B below):

A:

The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of dead on both sides and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II,

B:

The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II, Rosedaler (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 15:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you cite this source? https://www.npr.org/2022/09/23/1124678888/russia-ukraine-military-draft-protests-flight

I found an update to show you, here it is: In September 23, many Russians are protesting and escaping the country due to Putin's order of mobilize multiple troops to help the struggling campaign in Ukraine. Since then, a lot of videos have emerged on social media that showcases families and friends seeing off young recruits to fight. There are news reports about long lines of cars backed up on Russia's border crossings on each country. 2601:205:C001:EA0:BCFD:2E6B:6676:6DCD (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be more of a Reaction to the Invasion taking place within the borders of Russia and not in Ukraine. Possibly see the new article for Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello,

I would like to notify you that "Belligerents" right table is missing countries that are supporting each side. Example it is stated that Belarus is supporting Russia, but it is missing that Ukraine is supported by NATO. Please verify and fix.

Greetings ExZhero (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Q2 of the FAQ at the top of the talk page applies here.  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit extended-protected)) template. --N8_wilson 🔔 05:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add link to 2022 Russian mobilization. --Kusurija (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kusurija MOS:NOTSEEALSO. It is already linked in the article's body. Renat 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think they should be merged. 199t8 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

During the fog of war, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies between what different sides claim to be casualties. The tables currently are organized to indicate the source of the statistics being presented. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What determines which table a statistic would go in? 199t8 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The main article for this discussion is at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the 2022 Russian invasion section, which might contain a more detailed description. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

One table is confirmed minimum counts, the other is estimates of total. The two sets are not directly comparable.  —Michael Z. 20:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first line of the Refugee Crisis section starts with the word "tens" and seems out of place. If this isn't supposed to be there could it be removed? (edit it has been fixed)Jeicex1 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to know what wikipedia's ruling is on listing countries that support. Since I feel this is related to 1973, America floods Israel (like Ukraine) with weapons so they should be included. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk by threads about this very issue. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ukraine is a soveignerty state and a republic. Thandile12 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Russia aggressively invaded Ukraine.please let me be able to honestly edit this page of the war

Please let me edit and please accept my request please Thandile12 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes please accept my request Thandile12 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, way too vague. Also, don't repeatedly beg people to do the edits. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

To add, I am unsure that what you are asking us to say we do not already say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think they want us to add that Ukraine is a sovereign state? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, well I am unsure we need to say that (after all we do not say Russia is one either (We assume any reader unsure will click on the link and read about the country)). Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Causes between Russia and Ukraine conflict or war 2C0F:F5C0:452:9B22:E95F:DA7B:C1F2:5F8E (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a section on that, what do you think is missing? Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Namely this: |- !scope="row"|Russian forces
(VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB) |6,476 killed (conf. by name) |24 February – 15 September 2022 |BBC News Russian & Mediazona^[1] |- Please some balance. Wikipedia should not be part of the "war effort".Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It may be that source does not meet RS standards. 50.111.15.31 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an image highlighting countries that have sent military support to Ukraine, and an image highlighting countries that have sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Small circles are used to represent either small countries or small territories belonging to countries. Every single territory that is represented by a small circle AND was coloured dark blue indicating military support have their circles missing in the second image for humanitarian aid. Every territory that were not coloured dark blue appears to be unaffected by this. Countries that are represented by circles, such as Luxembourg, are not affected.

List of affected territories:

• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Guadeloupe
• Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands
• Martinique
• Mayotte
• Norfolk Island
• Reunion

The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the dates I realized that it's not "On the __th/st" It's just "On __". I feel like I am a bit wrong hence why I'm asking as to why it's said like this. Smotoe (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the current format is used widely. It is common in infoboxes, as this is a convenient way to condense the information. The same goes for the main article text. Just to name an example, Operation Barbarossa states: "Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa; Russian: Операция Барбаросса, romanized: Operatsiya Barbarossa) was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941...". 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E135:355C:BD0:538C (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I think the more concise version is fine. See the very first bullet point example at MOS:DATE. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, per MOS:BADDATE we don't use ordinals. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 correctly cites the rule and ordinals are not used. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Shouldn't be in the Belligerents the NATO or the European union as a "SUPPORTER"? Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is not consensus to do this, as noted in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the dates I realized that it's not "On the __th/st" It's just "On __". I feel like I am a bit wrong hence why I'm asking as to why it's said like this. Smotoe (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the current format is used widely. It is common in infoboxes, as this is a convenient way to condense the information. The same goes for the main article text. Just to name an example, Operation Barbarossa states: "Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa; Russian: Операция Барбаросса, romanized: Operatsiya Barbarossa) was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941...". 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E135:355C:BD0:538C (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I think the more concise version is fine. See the very first bullet point example at MOS:DATE. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, per MOS:BADDATE we don't use ordinals. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 correctly cites the rule and ordinals are not used. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Shouldn't be in the Belligerents the NATO or the European union as a "SUPPORTER"? Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is not consensus to do this, as noted in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering the sources, here and there, I believe we should add Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi in the infobox in the "Commanders and leaders" section, with a boldening on the head of states Putin and Zelenskyy. It's done this way in most wartime infobox, such as Operation Barbarossa. What do you think? Aréat (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarise key points of the article and we don't write the article in the infobox. Accordingly, the article establishes who goes into the infobox, because their significance is established through the article by more than passing mentions. Only the two presidents meet the criteria. Zaluzhnyi has a single passing mention, in which he is reporting a claim and has been attributed for doing so. Being the reporter of record however does not establish any substantial significance to the article. As to bolding, this would be contrary to MOS:NOBOLD. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then 1) it is a problem with the article that the military commanders aren’t covered, 2) it seems obvious to me that the supreme commander of each side in a war is basic fundamental information about it, and we should consider it one of the exceptions mentioned in MOS:IB, as amelioration until no. 1 is corrected, and 3) omitting them represents a bias towards information about one side, because public personalities are discouraged under the authoritarian–charismatic Russian leader (I can find sources), and 4) the infobox section head is literally “commanders and leaders” and should have the commanders. —Michael Z. 02:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

For inclusion, the significance of a commander should be evident by their deeds as reported in the article. Whether there is a problem with the article as it exists in respect to this is a matter of opinion. I would note that the presidents are the supreme commander/C-i-C of the two countries and the article does evidence their significance. If additional information is so fundamental, one might observe that it would have been written into the article already. This type of information is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the example exceptions at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text, which is often better tabulated. I donot see how one might reasonably assert bias exists, when both sides are presently equally represented. As to the heading, it does presently list the commanders. We don't write an article to fit the lead. We do the reverse. The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Similarly, it is axiomatic that we don't write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You’re saying the article is finished now? We should stop editing it, because, by definition nothing is missing and everything’s perfect? —Michael Z. 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No. I am saying that if it is such fundamental information wrt other commanders/leaders and on such a high-profile page, one would reasonably expect that it would have been addressed by now and that it isn't (except for the two presidents/supreme commanders) indicates that it isn't so fundamental after all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. This article is WP:ASSESSed B class, meaning “mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.” “It’s not in the article now therefore it mustn’t be added” is not a valid reasoning. Our consensus determines the content.

Zelenskyy is Supreme C-in-C but he is not in direct command or making any battlefield decisions, and below him there is a defence minister, military C-in-C, and chief of staff. Putin does meddle in the battlefield, but he also has a defence minister and CoS. This is the main article for the military campaign and should name the military leaders. —Michael Z. 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, sorry if I let my tone sound combative. My point is that your argument is fallacious. The assumption and logic that everything fundamental “would have been written into the article already” is wrong, and it’s not even related to the substance of the content issue. —Michael Z. 14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. The assertion that some additional commanders are somehow fundamental is an opinion not supported by the body of the article at present. That is the criteria established by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. When and if the article establishes the significance of additional commanders and their contributions (not just a passing mention that they exist) it will be appropriate to add such commanders per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is the guidances and the defined objective criteria for a logical argument to include or exclude additional commanders. Until then, because there is no WP:DEADLINE, we should not try to write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox item "Territorial Changes" looks like the outcome of a finished or frozen conflict. This does not seem to be appropriate for the current situation. 2601:646:8600:40C1:A656:9C9:8C4E:F2E5 (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, we need to wait until its over, not use the infobox box as a news ticker. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, addition of "alleged" or "unrecognized" as a modifier would seem to align with the consensus being reported. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I’ll remove this.

Docs at Template:Infobox military conflict say this is for “any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.” But territorial control is currently contested, and the final result is not yet determined. —Michael Z. 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This articles is about the Russian invasion in 2022. But the foreign support section covers NATO support from 2014-2021, that support came in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and foreign support in Eastern Ukraine at the height of which Russia regular forces and offensive platforms were deployed inside Ukraine. Due to the scope none of the later is covered here and thus might seem to someone unfamiliar with the topic that NATO was supporting Ukraine while Russia was a natural observer. --Nilsol2 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The issues of NATO relations with Russia and NATO relations with Ukraine are two separate questions. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone add ((Anchor|Casualties)) to the section "Casualties and refugee crisis". This section was renamed this morning, which has broken a load of section links, e.g. the "see the casualties section" note in the infobox. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A Washington Post article[26] reports that the overall operational commander of the Russian “special military operation” was Alexander Dvornikov (April–May), Gennady Zhidko (May–June), and Sergei Surovikin (from October 8). A number of other Russian military appointments and firings discussed too. —Michael Z. 03:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Similar and analogous reviews of the Ukraine high command are also published. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, folks,

I just came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine and thought I'd let editors interested in this subject know about it. Looks like a one editor WikiProject right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a very short page; do you have plans to expand it? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The material on Darya Dugina is on the Wikipedia page for her. Should this material be covered as part of the Rearguard action on Crimea and the Russian mainland, or should it be excluded from the Invasion article. It appears to have taken place in the transition between the second phase of the invasion and the third phase of the invasion. It is also discussed in the Wikipedia article Killing of Darya Dugina. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Was it part of any rearguard action, if so by who?

Also how is this section even about a RearGuard as these attacks occurred long after Russia's annexation, surely they are counter-attacks? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also how would an attack in Russia be a rearguard action, as it is not a result of Ukraine retreating? So even if we have the bomb attack on Ms Dugina it is a counter-attack as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The rearguard action refers to actions taking place behind the front lines of the 2022 Russian invasion as summarized in the Wikipedia article for Dariya Dugina stating: "Darya Dugina, daughter of a prominent pro-Putin follower, was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Shosse in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time." The allegations of Ukraine involvement are also covered in that Wikipedia article. It seems there are many reliable sources for this and that it should be considered for inclusion in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not what rearguard means. A rear guard protects the rear of either a retreating or an advancing force. As Ukraine is neither advancing towards, nor retreating from Moscow, or any other part of Russia the attack on here can't have been part of any rearguard action. At best (and we would need serious proof of this to include it here) it would be part of an asymmetric warfare action. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

'Assymertic warfare action' might be a little unconventional for Wikipedia readers who can read the general Rearguard action Wikipedia page if needed. More directly, though, what do you think of just calling it 'retaliation' or political counterattack. It seems that either of these might work in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Becasue it implies Ukraine did it, ther is no evidence they did. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclining to think that a better section title might be something like "Counteroffensives in Crimea and within Russia," or something like that. The material on Darya has been extensively covered in the international press with dozens and dozens of articles referring to Ukraine involvement; too many RS from major newspapers to fully exclude from the article. Maybe try your own wording for including some version of the Darya edit. The title to the section would look better in another format since your reference to "Rear" does not sound especially encyclopedic. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Rearguard action or not, I think a very brief mention is WP:DUE, along with a mention of the New York Times report that says the U.S. intelligence believes some elements of the Ukrainian government are responsible and that they would have opposed it had they known in advance [27]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is being provided with Heavy weapons from the NATO alliance. They should be mentioned under the list of beligerents. 2401:4900:4A61:9C7F:1:0:57F3:8ADA (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians also use US satellites to aim artillery strikes. It's not just weapons provided, even if you ignore the US being behind Maidan to begin with 94.189.193.233 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

USA provides satellite imagery of Ukraine to Ukraine: not an act of war. “US being behind Maidan”: Russian disinformation, and irrelevant sour grapes. —Michael Z. 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No its is not an act of war, and MAidan was years ago. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think, NATO is not actually sending Ukraine anything that is extremely useful. I suppose You could add USA, but the whole NATO is a bad idea Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Moscow Times reports that "over 90,000 Russian soldiers have died, cannot be accounted for, or have suffered such serious injuries that they are unable to return to service". This should be added to the causality estimates.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/10/12/over-90k-irrecoverable-losses-suffered-by-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine-istories-a79070 81.225.32.185 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox shows no support from NATO/USA/EU for Ukraine and it seems that it's intended. Are there any reliable sources confirming that in fact there is no support for Ukraine? Mintus590 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See talk page threads above, and FAQ, and the archives. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page; it's been decided by consensus not to include NATO. — Czello 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No boots on the ground from NATO on Ukrainian soil. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18023383 Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"In October, After the signature of the Russian-Crimean bridge under an unprecedented attack." I believe there is a minor error here, could anyone fix it? Fivehundredgrams (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we do not know it was an attack. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree - Couple of things here. What does the sentence mean '..After the signature..'? Needs a rewrite I suggest. There is a heading 'Rear action in Crimea' and this material really belongs there where there is a brief summary. It's duplication. I'll do it at some point.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Careless smoking, you think? Reliable sources report that it was an attack. —Michael Z. 02:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to follow RS on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not all do [[28]], it being a Ukrainian attack is unconfirmed.. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say Ukrainian attack. Your source doesn’t even consider possibilities that aren’t an attack, like an accident or something. I haven’t seen any that do.

I guess it doesn’t hurt to leave it open and say “explosion” when we don’t know the cause, but it would also be irresponsible to give the impression that it might be anything other than an attack, and I don’t have a problem with implying or assuming that the only likelihood is an attack. —Michael Z. 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is even if we accept it was an attack, by who? Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And according to this [[29]] it might have been an accident. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that report - the first line says "a fire" - many sources described the incident as an explosion, which is the only thing that would have taken out a span of the bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.23 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

@ErnestKrause, the Reaction section did not mention the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, which is essential for both, making a balance to the said section in order to satisfy the WP:NPOV and to add an essential addition to the article's content. The articles, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions and Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, are both unrelated to my edit. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt your first source is an RS. Your second source is a Blog. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? How is it that Radio Liberty isn't a RS?

The second source belongs to London School of Economics , meaning that it's not a self published source. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, as its a blog, blogs are blogs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG are acceptable sources. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not a "news organization". Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

its a blog, blogs are blogs.

Not all blogs are treated the same. News blogs are acceptable sources because their "writers are professionals." So we can say that research organizations' blogs are acceptable sources too since their writers are professionals.

But if you're not OK with that we can cite the individual sources that LSE used in their article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Note, as seen here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/about-europp/. They only publish pieces from people with expertise in the area, and submissions are reviewed by the editors. The editorial team are all academics in political science. I think it's fine as a source. Tristario (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

LSE Blogs are good, but should points should generally be attributed in-text to the author of the blog, as it's their personal view as an expert. Jr8825 • Talk 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Tristario (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think given that polls showing the level of Russian support for the invasion have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:DUE to include in the article, but it should be briefer, and within the reactions section.

Radio Liberty is generally a respected source and I think acceptable for this purpose. The LSE blog is also not the same as a self-published source, and even it was, they're subject matter experts. I would prefer sources such as the NYTimes or BBC though Tristario (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Radio liberty is not used as a source. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 support. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you support? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably another source can just be used then, I don't think that's a big issue. Radio Liberty does not operate in the west so people largely only associate it with its cold war origins and the fact that it's funded by the US government. However, in my experience, its quality is on the level of a WP:GREL source. I have had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives and have not seen any substantive objections to its reliability besides the fact it's funded by the US government. Tristario (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Then link to Radio Liberty, and not svoboda.org, which appears to be the website of Svoboda (political party). Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda means liberty in a few different languages. The political party is named after the word for liberty. Svoboda.org is the website of radio liberty Tristario (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So which countries version is this? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda.org is the russian version of it Tristario (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it, this seems to be the link Radio Liberty gives https://www.rferl.org/Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the english language version. Look at this: https://www.rferl.org/navigation/allsites. It's on that list Tristario (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(For anyone observing this discussion, this is the edit being currently discussed) Tristario (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There are already several articles on Wikipedia showing the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, so I'm not sure why the exact same thing should be in the main invasion article. Various opinion polls are used by the Kremlin in its propaganda campaign, which is also why opinion polls are allowed in Russia, unlike independent media. During the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, no one cared about opinion polls in Iraq because it was seen as Hussein's propaganda. Why is Putin's propaganda so important? There is a dictatorship in Russia, everything is decided by a narrow group of people led by Putin, all the media is controlled by Putin's regime and Russians are informed only about the Kremlin's version of events, people can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for criticizing the war and the Russian army, for spreading so-called "fake news". According to some sources, in telephone polls, a high percentage of people polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or President Putin, because these are topics that are subject to prosecution in Russia, so the question is whether these polls can be trusted, even if it's from Levada. It should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia, but why in this main article? --Tobby72 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We won't say the exact same thing, we provide a briefer summary of those things in this article. And we can include caveats as reported in reliable sources. I don't think this talk page is the right place for a discussion about details of authoritarianism and propaganda in Russia, and I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about that. Ultimately that's irrelevant, we'll just say what the reliable sources say. Tristario (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin propaganda? What are you talking about? You mean we should hide any information that is used by the Russian side (or any side you don't like) even if it's 100% true and satisfy Wikipedia's rules and policies and mentioned in multiple RS? Your argument is not adequate and doesn't make any sense and therefore is not considered.

AND the Russian protests are used by the western probaganda and its already mentioned in the main article since forever and no one said it shouldn't be here. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is No consensus for your edit earlier today in the main space for this article on the Talk page here which is still in progress. You have been contacted by two editors on your Talk page regarding this matter and associated edits you have made. Establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, your response to Editor:Super ninja2 proclaims a consensus based on a number of editors and like the rest of your posts in this discussion, it did not make any substantive argument for or against the content. Please put a stop to this behaviour lest I take it to an administrator noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind a summary of polls on main article pages. The problem is when they are conducted under autocratic regimes, when there is a clear self-censoring effect. I cleaned up a sloppily written attempt which made it clear that a) under the Putin autocratic regime, accurate polling is difficult, b) I inserted 'polled' and 'surveyed' to stress that this was the opinion of those polled, not the general population, c) I made clear that the polls covered the period just prior to, and just after, the invasion, i.e., implying they may not represent present opinion. I suggest my revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1112295639&oldid=1112281240&diffmode=source)is an adequate starting point for further revisions. Full disclosure: I have Rus ancestry, I have visited Russia several times, I was director of a social survey center conducting public polling in countries with both autocratic and military regimes, I have a relationship with a UN peacebuilding NGO, and I have worked with one or more militaries. Johncdraper (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you given any thought to adding your insights about this to the section on Polls in the reactions article at Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems that making note of some of the problems with reliability in polling would be useful in that Reactions article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've said I think we should be include polling in this article however it needs to be briefer than what attempts so far have done, this article is not the place for an extended discussion about polling in Russia, and it also needs to comply with WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made this edit which is briefer and includes some of the caveats that people are concerned about. It could probably be expanded on and updated a bit. Tristario (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I like Johncdraper's longer version for the Reactions page and your summarised version for this page. It can be expanded and updated as public sentiment in Russia becomes clearer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a section specifically just for polling on this page? I can't make up my mind for that Tristario (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It can be a subsection of the reactions section. IntrepidContributor (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable Tristario (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is so short. The article is so long and contains details on every aspect including a section about foriegn protests which is not directly related to the war. So why this section has to be brief?! If anything, the section about foriegn protests is the one that has to be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in a good shape. I agree on this version. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Super ninja2 was it necessary to delete the summarised version instead of trying to expand it a bit with some context? Some editors oppose including anything, and some oppose including too much, so a summary seems like a good place to start. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Feel free to undo my edit and I will try to expand it to add more context. THX for your note. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with IntrepidContributor that JohncDraper's version should be adopted. I believe that given the context of the issue, the depth of the article a more detailed version should be included. This perspective gives justice to the topic and I don't see the downside of more details. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a more in depth version as long as it sticks to the kind of summary style this article is for Tristario (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As discussed here I've added the information about the polling back in, for people to expand or otherwise make adjustments to. Tristario (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this question at present. Make consensus on Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause This was what was suggested, and no one objected to it for over a week. If you wanted to object to including this, you had over a week to do so. What is your objection to including at least a brief mention of polling in this article? As I said people can expand and adjust it Tristario (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Slatersteven and myself are not supporting this edit as stated above. Make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven has not objected to including a mention of polling in this article. He had some issues with the sources and we discussed that. What is your issue with this edit? Tristario (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause Do you still object to the inclusion of any information about polling in this article, and if you do, what is your rationale? Tristario (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause You might also want to read Wikipedia: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Tristario (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy for Support and Oppose comments is that they stand for the duration of the discussion taking place. It is not a matter of the 'most recent comments' approach which you appear to be wanting to apply. You need to follow WP:Consensus and reach consensus on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest reading through the page you just linked because your understanding of consensus is wrong. Reaching consensus is a natural process where people continually move the discussion forward and attempt improvements and changes which address or make a compromise with other people's concerns, based on policy. It does not mean absolutely everyone that was ever involved in the discussion needs to explicitly agree to a particular edit before that edit is even made. Tristario (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven did not object to the inclusion of information about polling in this article, he had some issues with the sources, and we discussed that. @ErnestKrause You are the only person objecting to any inclusion of information about polling in this article, I haver repeatedly asked you what your rationale is for your objection, and you have not explained. Besides you there is broad support on the talk page for at least some information about polling in the article. You are the one editing against consensus.

Not that consensus is not a unanimous vote. You cannot simply say "I object" and then refuse to ever explain why. Note on WP:TALKDONTREVERT it says "arguments like 'I just don't like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever" Tristario (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Steven is able to speak on his own behalf; he has already articulated his position above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is, and he never said he objected to the inclusion of information about polling in the article. Tristario (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments. But I will say that if we include this it should only be about a line, and must point out how the polls may be biased. Personally, I am unsure what it adds, as these are snapshots that may not reflect the real situation (given the allegations of bias). Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're fine with including information about polling in the article then?

You never said you objected to the inclusion of information about polling. You objected to two sources, one because you thought it was the website of a political party (which it wasn't, and that source isn't in this edit), and the other because you said it was a blog. However, the discussion demonstrated that it wasn't a self published source, and the acceptability of the source was supported by other people. Regardless, that source does not need to be used, anyway. Tristario (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(also note @Slatersteven all the above comment was not addressed to you, but to ErnestKrause, I just realised you may have read it that way) Tristario (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And as I said "Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments.", I objected to inclusion and thus without my withdrawing it that objection should have stood. But you are correct in that once my concerns had been addressed (assuming I agreed they had been) I should have made other objections more clear, I now have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You never objected to inclusion either, though, you just objected to the sources. Thank you for engaging, anyway. I was not inserting the same edit that you previously objected to (which was added by someone else), by the way, it is a substantially reduced edit that also includes concerns about the reliability of the polling. So, to be clear, you do object to the inclusion of this edit? Is there a way that it could be adjusted that would make it acceptable to you? Tristario (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Two things, one it needs to be in past tense, and more recent polls are also needed, as I said this is just a snapshot. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the past tense, since it's already in the past tense? How is this:

Polls conducted following the invasion in February and March found between 58% and 81% of Russians said they support the war,^[1][2] and polling conducted into September continued to indicate support from a majority of Russians.^[3][4][5] However, the accuracy of polls may be affected by self-censorship due to a fear of voicing dissent and new censorship laws, as well as concerns about indifference in the population and wording of polls.^[1][2][4] Tristario (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to try writing a couple of sentences on Russian polling that you would accept, even if to state they are unreliable, and why? Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If pressed on this issue, it might be useful to consider adding a small edit to the current phrase in the reactions section which states, "...public response, media responses, peace efforts,...", and adding the phrase "polling responses" piped to the Reactions article and indexed to the polling section there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree this does not belong to the lead. But it could be mentioned in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes No one was trying to put that in the lede, the question is whether that should be in the body Tristario (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

OK then. Welcome include this to the body of the page somewhere. I do not see why not. That is something definitely important for this war. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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 Iran to Russia “Supported by:” 2601:1C2:4A01:7F10:4412:906A:6D31:A45 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's being discussed in the section up above :) Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Iran should be added as “Supporting_Russia” 71.13.0.142 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks 75.166.114.30 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose to add that now Ukraine has 1 million soldiers[33] and Russia has mobilized another 300 thousand people Великорусский империалист (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Your source is from July, and it says Ukraine has one million ready to recapture south (and also contradicts itself in the first sentence saying it is massing a million-strong force). Not one million involved in combat, but ready. Something better would be a newer source that says how many troops are / have been involved in combat.

Also, you listed no source for russia mobilization another 300 thousand people. Matthewberns (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Strength = “the number of people comprising a group.” Ukraine’s military strength is the number in its military, not the number involved in combat. Often military strength is subdivided as to active (ready) forces and reserves, but this may be difficult to pin down as Ukraine has mobilized and has been constantly generating more forces.

I have no idea if one can find any source giving “how many troops are / have been involved in combat.” —Michael Z. 19:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. IMHO We need two separate pages regarding:

• Targeted killings listing people like Valery Kuleshov, Dmitry Savluchenko, Serhii Tomko, Darya Dugina, Sergei Gorenko and many others occurred in the occupied zones or outside Ukraine (or even their attempts by partisans) I think is needed.
• War on cities with the several attacks (and/or retaliatory attacks) occurred to the civilian cities (Mariupol theater; Vuhledar; Kramatorsk; Zapo; Odessa; Kiev; Lviv… and on Russian hand/side like Donetsk; Belgorod etc.) or their infrastructures (Markets; Hospitals; Electic power plants, Railway stations, bridges [eg. Zatoka Bridge ([34]) targeted at least 8 times] etc.) and the use of ballistic missiles (Tochka-U, Iskander) or Kalibr cruise missiles (Moldovan Airspace violation and consequent official protest), use of Iranian drones (renamed Geran 2).

Thank you. Nicola Romani (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• We need sources saying these were proven attacks. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sources say she was the target of a Ukrainian hit, not "unnamed intelligence sources", a clear official statement? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources making this report. Russian diplomatic officials have made this claim, and Estonian diplomatic officials have gone on the record as denying it. Also, Ukraine has put forward diplomatic officials to deny the claim made by Russia. Just read the Wikipedia articles for Darya Dugina and Killing of Darya Dugina. Regarding the Crimean bridge incident, I'm not sure what your issue is? What are your reliable sources saying was the cause of the bridge incident? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a claim, not a fact. So we can't say it is a fact, only a claim, an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

[[35]], it has not been confirmed what caused it. So we can't say it has been confirmed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well we can easily solve the issue using Alleged targeted killing and so on. Moreover War on cities is a fact, nobody else own Kalibr SLCM cruise missiles except Russia. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be having confusing issues here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then, check the correct section you both were editing/replying to each other before. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We have two separate questions asked in the OP, then we have comments about the editing of already existing sections, and not in the creation of new articles (the OP,s question). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two sections now for dealing with this. If Nicola would like to add further edits to the 'Russia' section such as the one about Rostov, then I'll try to support here: [36]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I do not think that Dugina and her death are notable enough to be included on this very general page. She was just a barely notable propagandist. And a lot about her killing still remains unknown. And how she is relevant to this war? The text does not explain it. This is definitely undue on this page. As about other mentioned people (Valery Kuleshov, etc.), I do not see any sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

So, once again, no one knows for sure if assassination was targeting her father ("apparently" does not work here). Moreover, no one knows who was behind this assassination. An unnamed US official saying something was possibly a disinformation, especially because he/she did not provide any details. Overall, the connection of this material to the subject of the page is highly questionable at best; this is certainly undue on this page. Remember, this is main page about the war. Some other pages - yes, no problem, this can be included. You guys need WP:CONSENSUS for including this material. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I do not understand your edit summary here. The Crimea sections are fine, I did not remove them. As about bombings in Russia, yes, there were quite a few of them. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring on the article main space in opposition to Wikipedia policy against edit warring. You appear to be reverting against two editors in agreement on those related edits. May I ask you to stop edit warring against Wikipedia policy and establish consensus on the Talk page first prior to further edits. You appear to have no support for your reverts. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not see consensus to include it based on discussion in this thread. To the contrary, you (and only you) re-include this new material [37] without consensus. In addition, you did not respond anything of essence to my objections to include just above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit under discussion for those two sections were created last week by Steven and myself; which was done when the Crimean bridge explosion was being discussed in the press, and reverbations of the Darya Dugina death were in the international press and in the NY Times. Aleksandr Dugin is a prominent pro-Putin author and any targeting of him or his family has been found to be relevant in the international press and in the NY Times. Targeting high-ranking members of Putin's government and advisors has been covered extensively by RS. RS should be relevant in this article and retained. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

How come? (a) the edit was made by you [38], (b) I do not see anyone supporting this inclusion in discussion above, (c) this text does not say anything about the Crimean bridge explosion (yes, that explosion should be included, and it is included), (d) no, even Dugin himself is not mentioned on this page anywhere (and rightly so), hence mentioning his daughter is even less justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You say: "Targeting high-ranking members of Putin's government and advisors". What are you talking about (refs)? Dugina was not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Dugin is not "a prominent pro-Putin author", he is not an advisor of Putin, and he criticized Putin [39]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Keith D There is a current discussion with "User:My very best" which is being interrupted by drive-through editors who are section blanking the edit currently under discussion on this Talk page. I'm not able to respond intelligibly to "User:My very best" without being able to reference the section which is being section blanked by editors who are not participating in this Talk discussion. I request a roll-back of the 'Events in Russia' section to a neutral point from one week ago as edited by User:Steven here:[40]. This would allow Talk page discussion to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not how it works (you get consensus for inclusion, not exclusion we do not keep something that is up for discussion), and you can post the text here for discussion. And do not assume I agreed with its conclusion, I did not (as I said more than once). All I did was to make it as neutrally worded as possible in order to compromise. As at the time is was just a dispute between you and me, and I felt it best to end it. Every one of my objections still stands. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the edit which you made to be restored. Once restored you can then make your pro and contra statements as you prefer; you can side with which ever editor you decide is best for the article. "User:My best wishes" is an experienced editor and I'm requesting to be able to present her with the citations being requested. Once the section is restored, I'll then be able to add the citations being requested in an intelligible manner; then you can state your support or opposition. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, you are mistaken. This is the opposite. Per WP:CONSENSUS, the initial/default version was one that existed before you inserted your text without having consensus. By removing this text I acted stricktly per WP:BRD. You made "bold edit" (inclusion of new content). I reverted and provided all reasons why. Now it is your turn to get consensus for inclusion. That's why two other contributors reverted your edit. Please respond to my substantial objections above ("How come?" etc.) if you want to convince me and others. Basically, did Dugin play a significant role in this invasion (the subject of this page)? Can you prove this with RS? If not, the inclusion of his daughter is even less justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to engage with My very best wishes' objections instead of simply asserting consensus or lack of consensus. As of right now their objection seems well reasoned Tristario (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Any sources should be presented here, and text should be presented here. You argue to keep content, not remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• I am adding the disputed addition here for reference, rather than reinserting in to the article while discussion continues. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

===Events in Russia ===

Main articles: Darya Dugina and Killing of Darya Dugina

Darya Dugina, daughter of prominent pro-Putin follower Aleksandr Dugin, was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Shosse in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time.^[1][2] She was driving to Moscow after attending the annual festival "Tradition", which describes itself as a family festival for art lovers.^[1] The "Tradition" festival is held at the Zakharovo estate,^[1] approximately 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) north of Bolshiye Vyazyomy. Investigators said an explosive device was attached to the underside of the car.^[3] It is unclear whether she was targeted deliberately, or whether her father, who had been expected to travel with her but switched to another car at the last minute, was the intended target,^[1] or whether the intention might have been to kill both.^[4]

This is a more or less OK and well-sourced text (it only incorrectly defines Dugin as "pro-Putin follower"), but how is it related to the subject of this page? Cited text does not explain any relevance. Yes, Dugin and she strongly supported the invasion, just as a lot of other people in Russia. Russian FSB claimed this to be a terrorist act by the Ukrainian government, and provided some evidence widely seen as fabricated. Ukrainian government officially denied any involvement. Some said that was a contract killing due to the business dealings by her father. Others said she was killed by Russian political assassins. Yet some others said it was an assassination by the FSB. Who knows? Dugin criticized Putin [41]. Yes, that was possibly something related to the war (we do not really know it), but definitely not deserving the inclusion here. This is main page about the invasion. She was just a barely notable propagandist. This is not blowing up the Crimean bridge. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks to Keith for setting up this discussion in order to move forward. Darya Dugina was the daughter of Aleksandr Dugin, a far-right political philosopher, whose political views and support for Vladimir Putin she shared.^[1][2][3] She appears not to have been the primary target, but her father appears to have been the primary target, who had been expected to travel with her but switched to another car at the last minute.^[4] See also another report in this citation on whether the intention might have been to kill both.^[5]

The list of RS on Alexandr Dugin as an influengtial voice upon Putin and his cabinet is extensive and I can also provide links here if needed. Darya Dugina was also posthumously awarded a medal of recognition by Putin after her death. Given the large number of reliable sources, this edit should be restored to the main article as related to Activity in Russia taking place during the 2022 Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You did not address my concerns. The number of RS is irrelevant because the issue is the importance of her killing for this page. Did Dugin start this war? No. Did Putin start this war because Dugin convinced him? No, judging from sources I read. But even if he did, that would be a completely different text about how Dugin influenced this war. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Militants from Ichkeria support the Armed Forces of Ukraine to resist the Russian siege. Ichkeria Chechens fighting inside Ukraine.--Contribuyendo para el bien de la humanidad (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ichkeria isn't a nation. Firestar464 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been well documented that Syrian mercenaries, and regular military units of the Syrian Army (The 25th Division to name one), have been deployed to and experienced combat in the Kherson region. Syria itself has been added to the infobox of the Kherson Counteroffensive, so it would make sense to add it here similar to how Belarus has been added. DragonLegit04 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As long as there are verifiable sources to back this up this would seem to be a good addition to the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If it can be shown that regular military units (not mercs) have been deployed, yes we can add them. But we need to see some RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The reports appear to be somewhat isolated in the press such as here: [42]. Is the mainstream press covering this story about Syrian troops with RS? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War talks about this, including Syrian régime cooperation in recruiting. These reports include reference links to their sources.

• March 11:[43] “The Kremlin announced plans to deploy foreign fighters, including up to 16,000 Syrian fighters, to Ukraine”
• March 13:[44] “Ukrainian intelligence provided further details on Russia’s initiative to deploy existing pro-Assad units to Ukraine and recruit additional Syrian and Libyan mercenaries on March 13”
• March 14:[45] “Russia continues to face difficulties replacing combat losses and increasingly seeks to leverage irregular forces including Russian PMCs and Syrian fighters”
• March 17:[46] “The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories.”
• March 23:[47] “Russian efforts to bring Syrian forces into Ukraine may be encountering challenges”
• March 31:[48] Plenty in this item.
  • “Russia is attempting to redeploy Syrian units with experience working under Russian commanders to Ukraine to mitigate high Russian casualties”
  • “Russia began a redeployment of Wagner units and their Syrian proxies from Africa and Syria to Ukraine in early February‚”
  • “Russian forces are redeploying within Syria in order to recruit and mobilize additional Syrian fighters for a second wave of reinforcements [to deploy to Ukraine]”
  • “Russia is leveraging its pre-existing relationships with multiple pro-regime units to coordinate the recruitment and select individuals from these units with combat experience”
  • “Finally, Russia is attempting to recruit and train a wider range of pro-regime Syrian fighters”
• April 20:[49] “Ukrainian forces reported the presence of small numbers of Syrian or Libyan mercenaries fighting in Popasna (eastern Ukraine), likely individual recruits fighting under the umbrella of the Wagner Group rather than larger units”

 —Michael Z. 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

When (and if) official Syrian units are deployed we can add Syria. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Boots on the ground in Ukraine appears to be the decisive factor here. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

These sources seem more than enough to justify the addition to the infobox as providing support. If boots on the ground, large military units, are sent they should then be listed as a belligerent. BogLogs (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am against this. If the NATO member countries that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, proving a decisive factor in the war thus far, are not mentioned the infobox neither should Syria for sending a handful of mercenaries that will prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The decisive factor is if reliable secondary sources say so.

It doesn’t matter if it’s pennies or billions. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. (“Handful”?)

If these are really only individuals part of Wagner PMC then they are a Russian outfit. But if the Syrian government and military are part of recruiting them, then that may be something else. If it is forming up units and handing them over to Wagner’s command, that is something else too. There’s a reason Western governments are having nothing to do with Ukraine’s foreign legion.  —Michael Z. 23:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure officially supporting, while having a plethora of your member nations freely donate hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid both counts as "participation" (look up the definition of that word), and warrants a mention in the infobox. That's the entire point of "Supported by" section. Furthermore, noncombatants are listed in the Vietnam War infobox, and is thus warranted here. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, legally that is not participation in an international conflict. States give each other military aid all the time, and that does not create a conflict, so doing it during a conflict that is not participating in one either. Look it up.

143 states support Ukraine by condemning the Russian invasion, and five support Russia’s crime, in the UNGA (see United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4). But that doesn’t belong in a list of belligerents. —Michael Z. 01:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I honestly believe at this point you are a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I and many others have explained to you that they would not be listed as a belligerent, but as supporting a belligerent, which they (NATO) are by their own admission. They are giving copious amounts of military hardware to a belligerent nation in an armed conflict, for the express purpose of winning said conflict. Q.E.D., they belong in the "Supported by" section of the infobox. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I’ve been unclear. Let me spell it out in case you can’t hear me. Belligerent has a legal meaning: participant in an international conflict (a war).

Belarus may belong because – although it is not a participant in the military conflict – it is guilty of the crime of aggression by providing its territory for direct attacks against Ukraine by Russian land forces and Russian missile attacks. It literally and directly supported aggression by criminal acts defined in the UN’s definition of aggression.

“Supporters” on the surface means states that support Ukraine. Going by UN resolutions that could mean 143 states that have condemned Russian aggression. Supporters in this sense are not belligerents. “Supporters” should not be presented as a subcategory of “Belligerents” if it used to mean states that support Ukraine.

Providers of military training, equipment, weapons, and ammunition are not belligerents either. Military provisions are traded and donated all the time, without creating a state of international conflict or war, and so such provisioning does not make a state a belligerent in a conflict. “Supporters” in this sense are not belligerents and the label should not be presented in such a way as to imply that they are.  —Michael Z. 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent hasn't been the legal term for a long time. You may be thinking of "party to the conflict". Further, your point about Belarus has to do with whether it can be considered an aggressor, which it can, under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 definition of aggression. This is irrelevant, though as not all belligerents, or parties to a conflict, are the aggressors. It then follows that not all supporters of belligerents need to be supporters of the aggressive party, nor do they need to be belligerents themselves to be considered supporters. In fact, showing them as supporters implies that they are not belligerents themselves, not the other way around. That's the whole point of the "Supported by" section.

Your argument seems more that Belarus should be considered a belligerent because the UN would define it as an aggressor, or that there shouldn't be a "Supported by" section at all, but it doesn't give a good reason that NATO shouldn't be a shown in that section if the section is there. Look up any definition of support, legal or otherwise. Keeping NATO out of that section ignores the facts, plain language and common sense. entropyandvodka (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Are those comments an example of plain language and common sense? And facts? That's the whole point of the "Supported by" section. Says who? The docs for template:Infobox military conflict explain the whole point, and I don’t see that in them.

• Yes, belligerents are parties to an armed conflict. That’s what should appear under “Belligerents,” including legal aggressors and self-defenders.
• Yes, it should include the odd case an aggressor that is not legally a party, because it only committed act (f) in the list of (a) through (g) in Article 3.[50]

Period.

And IMO, there’s no need to qualify it with a “Supporters” subhead.  —Michael Z. 15:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Tacit in your entire argument is an assumption that Wikipedia should conform specifically to UN legal terms. Can you justify why that should be the case? Should Wikipedia infoboxes only show supporters in a conflict if the UN deems them parties to the conflict?

While there may be no need, in your opinion, for the Supporters byline, that leaves it up to the editors. In this particular case, the scale and impact of NATO support on this conflict is both substantial and well documented, and an at-a-glance picture of the conflict would be incomplete and misleading without it. entropyandvodka (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The huge help Western weapons have given Ukraine against Russia is undeniable. We will have that arms supplies discussion over and over again until they're added to the infobox. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. indeed. Adding those countries at the same level as Ukraine would be a mistake. But the proposal was to make a "Supported by" section or similar. Super Ψ Dro 10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If your feelings are drawing you towards looking at this issue, why do you not create an infobox for placement within the section for "Foreign military sales and aid" to list the nations providing such support. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea but it begs the question of why we wouldn't simply list the supporting countries in the original infobox again as many other wikipedia articles do without controversy. BogLogs (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the sub-infobox in the "Foreign military sales and aid" section would be needed first, in order to attract any serious consideration for the possible later inclusion in the main infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a very bizarre argument. In what other article on wikipedia has a sub-infobox been required for data to be amended in the main info box (much less even for consideration of it as you have written)? That said if you would like to make a sub-infobox as you have proposed and post it here for discussion at the very least I suppose that might move things from a dead stand still and open the way to moving towards a future consensus. BogLogs (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not completely clear how you have moved from your statement "This is an interesting idea" to your statement "very bizarre" comment. It seems like it would be easier to get your edit into that infobox information in the subsection, before you try to make arguments for getting it into the main infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your first comment was about the creation of a an infobox for the section for "foreign military sales and aid". While not the outcome I think is best for the article, I do think its an interesting idea and it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to discuss it. Your following comment that it would be required for discussion of further points is what is bizarre to me. We have already been discussing in depth changes to the infobox, why would a sub-infobox be required for infobox changes much less continued discussion?

That said again, I don't think the original idea you came up with is a bad one by any means, if this is a serious idea on your part why not make an infobox model for the subsection to be discussed further? BogLogs (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sticking to the original idea then, my concern is to indicate the difficulty factor of doing this. For any editor who wishes to do this, there will be the initial difficulty of getting it first into the 'Foreign military sales and aid" section, then there would be the even more difficult task of trying to transfer it to the main Infobox. Each of these represents added difficulties. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply, I can understand what you mean more clearly now. It wouldn't be my preferred solution but you are correct any change at this point would probably require a great deal of determination and effort by those editors. BogLogs (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You should absolutely add Syria, Iran, NATO, Transinistra, whatever have been cited to have given any sort of support to any of the sides, these are things that we know by living at this era and time, but in the following years people will open this page and not know which country supported the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.108.243.210 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"supported the war" and aiding a victim of the Putin regime's aggression are not the same thing

50.111.48.23 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We do say it, just not in the infobox, we do expect people to read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria has no role in this conflict. Super Ψ Dro 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There are a large number of Russian troops still stationed there from before the Ukraine military operation? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That is unrelated to the russo-Ukrainian War. Super Ψ Dro 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure. If Russia just recruited a number of individuals from Syria (I thought that was the case), that would not justify inclusion. However, if these guys came as a unit of Syrian army and fought as such, that would be different. What sources say? According to ISW [51], "Russia’s attempt to generate Syrian recruits appears to focus on individual replacements for Russian fighters rather than the redeployment of existing Syrian militias as coherent units." Based on that, I would say no. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The current structure of this invasion article is based upon a four-part division of the range of support being provided to the countries involved as ranging between military alliances at one end, and political neutrality on the other end. The two additional gradations introduced in the "Military aid" section of the article are illustrated in the demographic map illustrations which are: (a) Countries supplyling aid to Ukraine, and (b) Countries supplying any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine.

If this four part gradation of the level of support existing between nations is not sufficient for this Invasion article, then it should be discussed here on the Talk page. The four part distinction being used to describe the level of support between nations presently being used in the article can be summarized as: (i) Military alliances, (ii) Countries supplying military supplies or aid to Ukraine, (iii) Countries supplying any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine, and (iv) Countries which are politically neutral. It might be useful to consider changing the ambiguous designation of "Belligerents" to "Military alliances" in the current main Infobox given the current structure of the article as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m opposed.

Regarding alliances, Ukraine is not part of any military alliance. Russia’s military alliance, the CSTO, is not participating in or supporting its invasion.  —Michael Z. 14:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

[corrected typo: many → any. —Michael Z. 20:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)]

Both you and Steven appear to feel that there is some gradation between a military alliance, and Countries supplying aid to Ukraine, though you are not stating what criteria you would apply to that unspecified gradation. It would be useful to hear how you could sketch out this unstated gradation between Military alliances and Countries supplying military supplies. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/military-alliance, so does the English language. So we need RS saying there is a formal military alliance.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Belarus and Russia have a military alliance in the Collective Security Treaty Organization with several dozen RS available. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

But this is not about just them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

military alliance: “a formal agreement between nations concerning national security.”

It’s not a gradation; it’s black or white. A military, defence, or security alliance comprises states that have a defence treaty.

Yes, Russia is in the 6-member CSTO. No, it doesn’t belong in the infobox under belligerents because it’s not involved.  —Michael Z. 14:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The significant part of CSTO is that Belarus has acted as a military ally of Russia by providing safe conduct to Russian troops for the purpose of attacking Ukraine. Belarus is listed in the Infobox largely because of this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mzajac, Ukraine is not even part of some formal military alliance (such as NATO) and as far as I am aware is not even in an Economic one (such as the EU). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to the map, the supposed "military alliance" includes Australia, New Zealand, and a few countries in South America and Middle East, along with Europe, USA, etc. That is wrong. Ukraine is not a part of any formal military alliances. Such image, when framed as a "military alliance", promotes the Russian propaganda narrative that Russia was attacked by the "collective West". My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the reasons already stated. - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.120 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• That is the image created by another previous editor; if there is a mistake in it then that editor might be contacted on Commons to try to correct it. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would point out that one does not simply just change an infobox and that this infobox only exists as a stand-alone template under sufferance of the broader Wiki community as a temporary measure. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. This was not meant as a straw poll. My comment stated: "If this four part gradation of the level of support existing between nations is not sufficient for this Invasion article, then it should be discussed here on the Talk page." Both Michael and Steven appear to feel that there is some gradation between a military alliance, and Countries supplying aid to Ukraine, though they are not stating what criteria to apply in order to asses that unspecified gradation. It would be useful to hear from editors about how to sketch out this unstated gradation between Military alliances and Countries supplying military supplies. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Classification as a belligerent is an absolute, not a gradation. It is a category in international law, meaning a party engaged in a conflict. No alliances are engaged in this conflict. Two states are fully engaged: the aggressive invader and the defender. Additionally, we have added Belarus because it is guilty of the crime of aggression according to the UN’s definition, although it is not directly engaged in fighting nor has invaded Ukraine. Additionally, we should probably add Iran, at it has sent an Iranian military contingent into Ukraine to directly participate in the Russian terror bombing campaign, and has reportedly suffered casualties in Ukraine.

  Provision of matériel through trade or aid does not create a conflict where none exists, nor is it participating in an existing conflict. It does not place a party under the category of “belligerents.”

  As this is an ongoing conflict – subject to a lot of Russian disinformation about who is involved in it – we must not play fast and loose with these definitions.  —Michael Z. 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Almost forgot: we have also added Russia’s fake DLNR “republics” under belligerents. IMO, they don’t belong there, because they have never been sovereign parties. Their military formations do belong under “Units involved” and “Strength” because they have always been under operational control of Russian officers in the Kremlin’s chain of command. —Michael Z. 15:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Both the fake DLNR republics are apparently now non-existent as 'sovereign republics' after their annexation by Putin on 30 September; they do not appear to belong in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Facts in law: the International Criminal Court in determining its jurisdiction found that there was an international armed conflict in Crimea by 26 February 2014, and in eastern Ukraine by 14 July 2014. It further found that there had been an armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since at least 30 April 2014 involving the DLNR, and is investigating the possibility that Russian control of these groups made it an international armed conflict from that earlier date ([52]:20¶88, 22¶94–95).  —Michael Z. 16:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  All of those points are relevant. As far as I count them so far, there are at least several transitional criteria which countries can apply in general in moving from merely providing military supplies to a country in a state of warfare, in moving towards countries that have the equivalent of a full military alliance of shared combat troops in the field. Up to this point in time, this Talk page has included discussion of the criteria of providing boots on the ground, of providing planes in the air, of providing safe conduct for military troops to attack another nation, of providing classroom military training to another nation's troops involved in combat. Actually, this Talk page has covered many of the criteria which fall between outright military alliance and the mere provision of military supplies and equipment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  So if you accept that so far we are "between outright military alliance and the mere provision of military supplies" then how can we say there is a military alliance? Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Pulling the various points made by Michael and others above into one coherent statement then: Russia and Belarus do have a military alliance (CSTO) and are therefore listed together in the Infobox as 'belligerents', while Ukraine at this moment has no military alliances and therefor is listed alone under 'belligerents' in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am really unsure how you come to that conclusion as at least one person has explicitly stated that the fact they are in a military alliance has no relevance here. They are listed together as one attacked, from the others territory. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  That completely misrepresents me. In fact, I wrote that the CSTO is not participating in this conflict. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine by allowing its territory to be used for Russian aggression (UNGA Res. 3314, Art. 3[f]).[53]

  This “transitional criteria” is your own WP:original research. Neither trading or donating military matériel, nor conducting joint military training, creates a state of armed conflict, nor does it make a state a participant in one. Nor does condemning aggression in a UNGA resolution.  —Michael Z. 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a moot point given the way this discussion has already played out but I'm opposed as well. Simply listing belligerents and their supporters, by whatever definition we can hopefully arrive at a consensus on, is the best way to introduce readers to the article information. BogLogs (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Steven and Michael have been taking a strict position concerning the criteria being used to determine the designation of being a belligerent in the Invasion. At present, they are stating that it falls short of requiring a written military alliance, though the exact criteria are still not spelled out. Apparently, military advisors from other nations visiting in Ukraine or Russia must be in uniform, in sufficient numbers, and be answerable to an established chain of command to qualify as being 'belligerents'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No that is not what either of us has said, we have said that to be labeled in a military alliance there has to be a formal military alliance. This is about "Change Infobox sub-heading from 'Belligerents' to 'Military alliances'", not who should be included. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that’s not what I said. A belligerent is a state that is involved in an international armed conflict under international law: an attacker (aggressor) or defender. —Michael Z. 20:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've noted both of your oppositions and am planning to alter this question to wanting to deal with the large number of undue Talk page threads here dealing with NATO. Should the Infobox include a "NATO status" tab under the current "Status" tab towards the top of the current Infobox, to state something like: "NATO status: Ukraine's application for NATO membership was rejected by NATO in 2008; Russian foreign policy is generally antagonistic to NATO." It seems as if something like this might assist in dealing with too many undue threads on this Talk page asking about NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The data point “Ukraine is not a member of NATO” is out of place in an infobox about a conflict, and putting undue weight on this. Are we going to list all of the other alliances Ukraine doesn’t belong to too? Are we going to list Russia’s alliances? —Michael Z. 23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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 add a wikilink to the phrase "deconfliction line" in the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 3.5 'Missile attacks and air war'. Currently, this page is an orphan, so I'm trying to add wikilinks to it. Thank you! Patr2016 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 02:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word 'New York' is written above '22 march' next to 'Yenakiieve' on the main map of the article. Please remove it HistoryResearcher101 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done--no reason given for edit. HistoryResearcher101, I take it you're unfamiliar with the town of New York, Ukraine? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought somebody was trolling and vandalized it. HistoryResearcher101 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I just created an article for the 2022 Valdai speech of Vladimir Putin. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the speech that warrants it having its own article? If not a sentence on his wikipedia page would probably suffice. BogLogs (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In this speech Putin strongly reaffirmed again that the Ukrainian state has no right to exist, but he was telling this all the time, hence probably nothing so significant. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesnt rate an article. Incorporate into War in Ukraine article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Year 2022 should be removed to make it more sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:31FF:A:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Or we create a new article for 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The invasion was in 2022, and distinguishes it from the invasion of 2014. The fact that the occupation will continue to 2023 is irrelevant. Might change to "Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine (2022 to present)", but not necessary IMO. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Might cause a little trouble for history students in a few centuries, with questions like how long was the hundred years war or the war of 1812, but presently it should be fine with the name as it is now. BogLogs (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Kwamikagami the title reflects when the invasion occurred, and any confusion is quickly mitigated by the first sentences of the lead. This is consistent with general Wikipedia nomenclature. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement. The current title implies there was no violation of Ukraine's borders or conflict prior to 2022. Something along the lines of "2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War" seems more appropriate. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest adding a link to the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson page to not leave readers confused about what happened on the 30 of September. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Annexed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The article covers Russian mobilization, but does not seem to mention the volunteer units that were being raised earlier by local Russian regions. Anybody have sources for this?  —Michael Z. 20:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Where did you read this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I never heard of such a thing even though I am closely following the developments. If there are no sources provided about this, then it doesn't belong to the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, quick search:

• Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 13, ISW, July 13.
• Russian Volunteer Units and Battalions, ISW, July 16.
• Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 12, ISW, August 12. [Updated map][54]
• Russia is recruiting thousands of volunteers to replenish its ranks in Ukraine. Prior experience isn't always required, CNN, July 29.
• Russian Regions Form 40 Volunteer Battalions – Kommersant, The Moscow Times, August 8
• Twenty regions across Russia are fielding more than 40 ‘volunteer battalions’ in Ukraine, promising big payouts, Meduza, August 8
• 'We Were Nothing To Them': Russian Volunteer Reservists Return From War Against Ukraine Feeling Deceived, RFE/RL, August 12
• Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 15, ISW, September 15. [Updated map][55]
• Russia turns to recruiting trucks, big wages to woo volunteer soldiers, Reuters, September 18.

I was hoping someone would have the ready knowledge to write a quick overview.  —Michael Z. 05:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, totally forgot this is the 3rd Army Corps (Russia).  —Michael Z. 05:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the section dedicated to the air war is longish (21 kB), but missing the forest for the trees a bit: it has a lot of 'On the Ides of Smarch, Y said Z', and blow-by-blow reports of single engagements. The former are liable to be obsoleted as better analysis can be done later with more information, and the latter is valuable in the right context if it's done systematically instead of haphazardly, but maybe the top-level article for the invasion isn't the right place to put it.

Specifically, RUSI published a really interesting report on the 7th on the air war to date, which I think would be a great resource to draw on as a secondary source.

I think it would make sense to split the air war section into its own article so that this article can have a much more summarised description, and then the new article can have as much detail and information as needed. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreement with above editor and article is now split with link added to new main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Some missiles crossed into Poland, killing 2 people in Przewodów, which led to top leaders of Ukraine to hold an emergency meeting." I'm pretty sure it's the top officials of Poland holding an emergency meeting, not Ukraine. Also, the source is missing, as it is currently reusing a source about the annexation of Crimea. Underfell Flowey (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

True. Sources also state that Poland's top leaders have called an emergency meeting. Some are Bloomberg, and AP. Sarrail (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word "likely" gives two readable meanings in a sentence.

Change: "The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II" to: "The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides and has caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II" Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only because of the various mainstream news reports of Russian usage of Iranian suicide drones, but the additional reports of Russia purchasing Iranian ballistic missiles as well as the Institute for the Study of War reporting on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members present in occupied Ukraine training Russia on how to use the drones mentioned earlier. The arms sales, training, and diplomatic support (“The Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations.”, Iranian Foreign Minister, largely echoing Russian messaging) justify the addition of Iran to the “supporting Russia” list in my opinion. DBA78 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. Teammm ^talk
_email 05:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Support: Been reports by British and American Intelligence of Iranian troops in Crimea to help Russia with Kamikaze drones. Pikachu3408 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If NATO and its member countries, which have given hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid to Ukraine, is not listed as "Supporting Ukraine", then Iran definitely should not for giving Russia some missiles and drones. To do so would be an egregious double standard and violation of WP:NPOV. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Iran sold them weapons, they didn't "give them." Just to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.23 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding Iran would be a serious double standard.

We should maintain a high bar for addition (provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public) for "Supported by".

A lower bar, if applied, should be applied evenly!

That would mean Iran, Syria and China for the invading forces, and USA, UK, Poland, France, Germany, Canada, see: https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ XVI Chancer (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

By this standard, provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public, Belarus would have to be removed. BogLogs (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is here because of the military access it provided to russia. But yes, Iran and several Western countries should be listed. Super Ψ Dro 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

From a neutral point of view, the Iranians should absolutely count as supporting the war just from the drone training alone. It counts as support when NATO had troops in Ukraine (and now currently have Ukrainian troops on NATO soil for training) on training missions while showing how to use Western arms and suppling. It's a double standard for Iran not to count when they are doing the same thing: deploying troops on a training mission and supplying Russia with arms. It is not violating WP:NPOV. DBA78 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not just add both then? Have NATO supporting Ukraine and Iran supporting Russia. I mean, they are being supported by them, it's not like it's a lie. SusImposter49 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the countries that provide considerable materiel aid support and/or training should be added to the infobox as supporting their respective parties. BogLogs (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Boots on the ground: “Iran Sends Drone Trainers to Crimea to Aid Russian Military,” NYT. And they are designated terrorist boots of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.  —Michael Z. 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree: boots on the ground. According to publications, the military personnel of Iran directly guided at least some of the drones from Crimea (an occupied Ukrainian territory). Importantly, these guys remained the military personnel of Iran while performing their duties in another country, just like Soviet "advisors" in old times. If USA were to provide F-16 manned by US Army pilots, that would justify inclusion of USA to the box. However, if they just were to provide F-16 for Ukrainian pilots, then presumably "no". My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure how “designated terrorist” is in any way relevant to this question. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think that the time has come to add all those countries who are providing weapons under "support". According to the archives, LouisAragon proposed it back in February 2022[56] but the proposal clearly suffered a degree of railroading by those who had no sensible policy based reasoning to oppose the proposal. The only known allegation at this moment is that Iran supplied drones to Russia. But right now it does not deserves to be on infobox unless the aforementioned proposal has been accepted. Segaton (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am in agreement. My opposition to Iran added being to "Supporting Russia" is contingent only on the on the plethora of western nations providing copious amounts of aid to Ukraine, and any other relevant party, being added as well. I suspect there will be some sort of RfC regarding this soon. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No, let's stick to the subject of this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I am. I only support adding Iran to the "Supported by" section of the infobox if the basis by which it is is enforced consistently. I.e., if Iran is to be added, so too should all the states sending hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and military hardware to Ukraine. To say you are against the equal implementation of article criteria is essentially an admission of bad faith. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that equipment and training for said equipment is quite the same "boots on the ground" discussed in previous requests for this type of change. It's one thing to send a drone and the guys who can teach you to control it, and another entirely to send battalions of soldiers in to fight under orders of the supporting government. King keudo (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There was a large distinction in Vietnam between the USA first sending special forces advisors to provide advice to them, as opposed to when USA later started sending combat troops to do battle in Vietnam. Does this distinction apply to this discussion of Russia's invasion; is the support advisory or is it participation in combat? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm for using that type of distinction when it comes to personnel support. Generally advisors and training staff are labelled as non-combatants, correct? If so, these trainers for using the drones would count not as "boots on the ground". King keudo (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No, special forces would be boots on the ground. According to publications, these Iranians personnel were not just advisors, but actually guided the drones. And even if they did only training on the occupied Ukrainian territory (such as Crimea), they would still qualify. If they did such training in Iran, then probably "no", that would be just training. That's why NATO countries do not do training on the Ukrainian territory. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If supplying weapons as well as military personal to conduct on the ground training and possibility also combat missions does not qualify as "supporting", I'm not sure what does. Iran should certainly be added. JLKlein12 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. People seem to be conflating supporting with participating. NATO and Iran are supporting, even if they may not be participating in a legal sense. entropyandvodka (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• If Iran is to be added due to selling weapons to Russia, then states which give weapons to Ukraine, e.g. the US, Germany, and a plethora of other states, should absolutely be added as supporting Ukraine. If they are not, then I oppose this. If they are, then I would support adding Iran to a list of supporters. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is not about selling weapons, but about Iranian military servicemen taking part in hostilities at the Ukrainian territory. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think the presence of military advisors helping with drone operations makes them any more of a supporter in the war than the US or any other country is. If there’s no consensus for listing the US (and others) as a supporter of Ukraine, then it should be the same for Iran and Russia. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to report by Institute for the Study of War, [57], "the Iranian instructors directly control the launch of drones on civilian targets in Ukraine, including in Mykolaiv and Odesa oblasts. The IRGC is notably the primary operator of Iran‘s drone inventory, so these Iranian instructors are likely IRGC or IRGC-affiliated personnel." My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree adding them as "supporting Russia", especially considering the revelations of Iranian troops being stationed in Crimea to support the attacks on Ukraine with their drones. BananasAreViolet (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. ^[1] There are sources like this, there are even high definition pictures of the drones flying overhead in Ukraine. You could cross reference it yourselves with Hesa shahed 136. Unlike Belarus, I would specify Iran (Arms support) in the supported by tab. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this addition, following the recent reports in several reliable sources regarding Iranian troops stationed in occupied crimea. I believe there should be a footnote however, barring future acknowledgement from either Iran or Russia of the postings, that the information is claimed by the US. Pax Brittanica (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*Support* Iran should be added akin to Belarus due to their servicemen being in Crimea to support Russian attacks on Ukraine in addition to the arms sales. If it were solely arms sales then I wouldn't be in support of including them in the infobox. 71.13.0.142 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*Support* Iran has active military personnel in Crimea. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but per this CBS article, the U.S says Iran is now "directly engaged on the ground" (with trainers and tech support for the Shaheds) in the fighting. If Belarus which has not sent any of its forces as yet to fight in Ukraine is listed in the infobox, I'd say Iran belongs there too. I mean, direct combat support goes a step above basing/overfly agreements and weapon donations. 2603:6000:A640:BB00:E5E9:3C66:7779:48FE (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Just like Russia says NATO is a belligerent in this war. Segaton (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia says a lot of things. Russia says Ukrainians are a nation created by a centuries-old international conspiracy against Russia, and their elected president is a Nazi Jew controlled by foreign powers. So please check the sources you are citing before putting your name on a comment.  —Michael Z. 14:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• tasnim monitor, iranintl, mehr , iranintl

Iranian IRGC in Ukraine

There are a number of little subthreads on this and I’m not sure if everyone’s on the same page, so creating a sub-section to take a straw poll.

Facts (from memory): the USA and Ukraine say that a small group of Iranian trainers are in Crimea to provide additional training, and appear to be participating in the operation of Iranian drones that are being used to attack Ukrainian infrastructure and cities.

Based on this, I would include Iran in the “Supporters” subhead under “Belligerents” in the infobox, with supporting text in the article. Support or Oppose? —Michael Z. 23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose unless America, France, Germany etc. are included for their vast military materiel aid as supporters on the Ukraine side. BogLogs (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s not about material aid. It’s about sending military to participate in the conflict in the war zone. None of those states have done that.  —Michael Z. 04:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, France and Germany have traded military matériel to Russia too.[58][59]  —Michael Z. 04:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, How many billions of dollars of military aid did they provide for Russia since the war started? Even back in May the US agreed to send 40 billion dollars alone to support Kiev [24]

Of what you seem to be suggesting is some great amount of aid, did France and Germany justify the aid as being used to defend Russia from an invasion force?

Sending military units to fight directly can be debated over whether it makes those nations either supporters or outright belligerents. Aiding countries with vast military aid, training, etc. to turn the tide of war makes them supporters. BogLogs (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Condemning the invasion in a UNGA resolution makes 143 states supporters. The infobox doesn’t have a “Supporters” field or heading, and its docs don’t have a place for supporters.

Neither $1 or $1 trillion of military trade or aid, either in peacetime or during a conflict, makes a state a participant in the conflict, that is, a legal belligerent.

Sending units to fight is not debated: it definitely makes a state a legal belligerent.  —Michael Z. 19:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Then why have a separate list for supporters at all and not simply list them all as belligerents? Or as has been done on conflict page after page on wikipedia(Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War as a few examples) why not list those states whose support are having a materiel outcome on the war? Also I'll just throw it out in terms of money a dollar vrs a billion, Germany donated war materiel to an allied nation that participated in WWII, can you guess which one?, I doubt that would make us question which side they were on.

Also I'm happy to discuss this further with you but wasn't your goal here to make this area a straw poll rather than a new discussion? BogLogs (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is an unusual case because it is guilty of aggression but not a direct participant. The template doesn’t have a list for supporters, and I don’t believe there should normally be one added. Some of those examples are extreme and confusing: in Russian Civil War, I have no idea what the difference between “supported by” and the second row is, so I have to read the text anyway. But the more specific descriptors like “medical support” are better, because they mean something (“support” could be a type of participation, a strictly commercial relationship, or pure rhetoric).

Yes, straw poll, but it doesn’t hurt to use it to shake out our facts, opinions, and consensus in the meantime.  —Michael Z. 21:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@BogLogs How is that relevant, if those accusations are true, it means Iranians are literally taking part in the fighting. 2A02:810D:A9BF:E9F6:8CAC:C44B:3582:C38B (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The participation of Iran is hugely important for a number of reasons, including the "nuclear deal" of Iran with other countries becoming the history. One should wonder what could force Iran to unilaterally nullify the nuclear deal. Probably a direct transfer of nuclear technologies if not even ready-to-use nuclear weapons from Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Given that US intelligence alleges that Iran presently has boots on the ground in Crimea providing direct military participation in the form of drone operators, this seems like a fair distinction to the NATO/EU/AUKUS training and materiel support that Ukraine receives, as these supporting parties are not directly participating in the conflict on the ground. If need be, I'd be fine with a "(alleged)" written beside Iran in parentheses. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the sources are weak. US is an involved party thus a US intelligence is a very partisan source for this conflict. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We really need to have a set definition for what sorts of activity merits "supported by" inclusion in the infobox, applied consistently on both sides. Iran's "boots on the ground", allegedly even controlling the drones directly, would certainly merit inclusion if the definition requires boots on the ground. But this would preclude Belarusian inclusion. If one further expands the standard of inclusion to include providing one's territory as staging grounds for military logistics, then Belarus can remain, but arguably so should Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania (and NATO, let's be honest).

Right now, there really isn't a consistent standard for what actually merits inclusion and I think that needs to be properly hashed out before we can agree on what to do with he latest news regarding Iran. --haha169 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, a deeper discussion or another RfC may be warranted to decide soon what merits inclusion. BogLogs (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with this. A consistent definition of what constitutes support would clear up a lot of problems going forward. That definition should adhere to NPOV, and should reflect gradients of participation in line with the meanings of the terms "belligerent" and "supported by" such that a reader need not be aware of any special criteria. entropyandvodka (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, that is nonsense. Ukraine is not staging forces in those states and invading Russia across their borders. Ukraine is not retreating its forces into their territories to escape the battlefield. Ukraine is not firing cruise missiles from their territory into Russia. —Michael Z. 18:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree we need to have a discussion about inclusion criteria before we start to argue over individual cases. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that has been debated on this talk already (see archives) and resulted in the following current consensus for inclusion to the infobox:

1. Providing weapons to a belligerent (sales or free of charge) - no.
2. Providing military bases and airfields to attack another country - yes.

The only question in this case if "boots on the ground" should be counted as involvement in the hostilities, and the answer seem to be clearly "yes". My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And what does "boots on the ground" mean? Because all these Irianain are "advisors", well I seem to recall reading we have advisors on the ground. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Which means we should focus on Iran (the subject of this thread) rather than on general criteria for the inclusion. Speaking about people, there are different categories. Some individuals are enrolled to the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine, frequently against advice of their governments. This does not mean the involvement of the corresponding countries (where these citizens belong) as belligerents. By the same criterion, Syria should not be included to the infobox just because their individual citizens have been voluntarily enrolled to Russian army. A very different category would be people who remain in the active military service of their country and were sent by their state to take part in the hostilities. Those are "boots on the ground". For example, if there were US "instructors" operating on the ground in Ukraine to direct Ukrainian drones, that would be an involvement. Of course one could object saying that what difference does it make if they provide an intelligence to Ukrainians and operate from Pentagon? That would be a reasonable argument (and perhaps the inclusion of USA would be justifiable), but it is not so clear cut and possibly needs a separate discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a separate discussion about this, and about a NPOV-compliant criteria defining a supporter. Ascertaining intelligence about troop movements and giving that information to a belligerent such that they can destroy or kill enemy units is playing a supporting role in a conflict. entropyandvodka (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If your second bullet is correct then we definitely need to have a new rfc. The criteria of providing military logistics to invade another country, to me at least, seems specifically designed to include allies of Russia and exclude allies of Ukraine, because only Russia and her allies are "invading another country", as Ukraine and her allies are fighting a defensive war. It is not a balanced criteria. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I said "attack", not "invade". Yes, it does not matter if this is an offensive or defensive side. Consider an imaginary example of Poland helping Ukraine to attack Belarus from the territory of Poland. That would make Poland a belligerent. I am not saying it would be good/bad, only that it would justify the inclusion to the infobox.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s not “logistics” (although Belarus does also provide transport and weapons). It’s legally the international crime of aggression when Belarus allows Russian forces to fire missiles into Ukraine from its territory and invade Ukraine across its borders.  —Michael Z. 18:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

True. Moreover, Russia and Belarus are officially a Union State, and they have joint military forces. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but add the word "alleged" similar to the infobox at Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) per WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)