Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 6

Second Cold War
The article, rightly, listed in the See also section is in serious need of updates concerning recent events. Any assistance from contributors on this article would be great. Thanks!-- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some contention over whether or not the article should even exist. I support its existence, but should that issue be clarified first, so that we can then move on to discussing how the article should be structured, which would facilitate other users contributing to the article? Perhaps we could initiate a discussion on its talkpage? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for feedback in article overhaul
I terminated my somewhat still very superficial analysis of the conflict (3 days of work). I am synthesizing, and look for opinions. I consider making only one big section without subsections for background, moving all my synthesis in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, in its own background section. And transvasing most of the nato reaction part into this latter. Maxorazon (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC) P.S. Another option is to severe the redirect from Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War to the article documenting the 2014 unrest, and make a new article out of it? The thing is I'd like to try to paint a full picture, not only a historical one...Maxorazon (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC) A third option is to place the analysis in Russia–Ukraine relations. A fourth one is to make somewhat of a portal as in the first link above... Maxorazon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but if it is synthesis it has no place here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that synthesis has its place here, WP:SYNTH clearly states that if done right it can be accepted. And synthesis belongs to the fundamental essence of this encyclopedia. Maxorazon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any so" implies that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that synthesis necessarily implies an ideological payload, a thesis? It can be just putting ideas together, make links, as the basis for our web? Maxorazon (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal on changing article structure re recentism
Proposal The structure of this article is highly skewed by recentism. The worst section is the Invasion section, which has an unstructured daily account. As per The 10 year test articles should be written so that they make sense in ten years time. Some good examples of similar tenish year old articles are: Russo-Georgian War, War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I propose that at least in the invasion section, it be restructured along the major themes, e.g. Initial attacks, Air battle, Battle of Kyiv, Battle of Kharkiv etc. Alternatively they could be called Kyiv Offensive etc. I would welcome any comments and feedback, including on improving the rest of the article. I feel this is something that is best off happening now, even if quite a bit of content gets culled temporarily. It really needs consensus because any WP:BOLD restructure will just get reverted.Mozzie (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally Approve, even if WP:NODEADLINE, godspeed with the overhaul. Maxorazon (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Approve. I've been trying to put the text into past tense, but that is clearly not enough. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's too early to move away from a chronological structure, as it'll inevitably risk turning into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH until more sources are available. As a tertiary source, we record history but we don't write it ourselves, we follow what expert sources have to say. Most of the invasion section should be moved to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and you're welcome to start transferring/cutting some of the less important details (you can use the section sizes tool at the top of this talk page to help, which shows that the sections most in need of shortening are "24 February", "Sanctions", "Reactions#Other countries and international organisations", and "Protests#Outside Russia"). However, it's important to emphasise that's there's no rush, and we don't want to end up losing valuable information in the process. Much of the information in the invasion section is still helpful to readers, and it's far too early for us to build a sophisticated account of the invasion's history – not least because we don't know how broad the topic scope will be – will this article eventually transform into coverage of a longer war? Will it cover a month-long invasion? Or a year-long invasion? These possibilities would drastically change the appropriate level of detail. The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet. Let events unfold, shorten where necessary to maintain a decent overall length, and we can collectively make editorial decisions when things are a bit clearer. Jr8825  •  Talk  09:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NORUSH apply here. The idea is about how to structure the article in some semblance of what it would look like in ten years time, it isn't about adding original research or synthesising conclusions. And NORUSH doesn't talk about these kinds of large structural changes. This is about directing people's efforts towards making a good wikipedia article, because as it stands the house will have to be torn down and rebuilt anyway.Mozzie (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No rush is general guidance, but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply – particularly for a subject such as this where scholarship will take time to catch up with news. Jr8825  •  Talk  10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules... Mozzie (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is down to you to convince people this is a valid suggestion. And IAR is not carte blanche to ignore consensus and do as you please (I will also invoke IAR to ignore IAR). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. I didn't have time to write a long post..... WP:IAR doesn't say ignore all rules. It says we should improve Wikipedia. Jr8825  wrote "but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply" I see two ways of interpreting the word apply here. One is that because it is a policy it is a hard rule. That is clearly false. Policies on Wikipedia don't always apply (unless there are legal implications). The other is to that because policies always apply anything that whiffs of synth is forbidden. Also clearly false. Moreover, SYNTH explicitly states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.". How is changing and rearranging articles to reflect the style of more mature (with mature consensus articles). How is that combining information to reach different conclusions as per the wording of the policy?  To quote from WP:EDIT: "This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"". Mozzie (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify further, your suggestion is likely the way this article should go in time, but it's not possible to create such sections yet without restoring to synthesis, as all we have is news reports and disjointed facts. Jr8825  •  Talk  11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "Invasion" section is not the worst, but the most important part of the page because it provides the most of the factual information about the events. So, I do not see this as something problematic, at least at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Caution advised: I'm not totally against this. I agree that the article structure may need to be changed at some point but I think  nailed it with: "The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet." The Russo-Georgian War article focuses on a 12 day conflict in Aug 2008 but uses reference material written in 2010, 2015, 2016, even as late as 2021 - 13 years after the focal point of events. History is barely one week into the topic of this article and we still lack a clear (and WP:NPOV) indication of how long it will last. To be blunt, the subject of this article as currently titled is recent. At this early stage I think my sentiment on WP:10YT is "proceed with caution." Editors making decisions now about what will have lasting significance is not impossible but it might flirt with WP:SYNTH or other WP policies. I note that WP:RECENT guides us with, "Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time" (emphasis mine). --N8 18:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , - I just noticed and am very confused at the recentism tag on the invasion section. That whole section is exclusively about recent events, not slanted towards them. The notice suggests keeping things in 'historical perspective' and adding more content about 'non-recent events'. That's a really tall order for a topic so young. Are you sure this is the best tag for the type of clean up this section needs? I see  reverted once already so asking here to be sure. Please double check the text of that notice. --N8 20:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The maintenance tag may not be worded the best way but it is the underlying principle of WP:RECENTISM, a tendency to focus on every little recent detail without regard to what details are historically significant if you were looking at the issue from a WP:10YEARTEST perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that we don't have a crystall ball, it can still be quite obvious when a certain detail is obviously NEWS-y and not something you'd include if you were writing about something that happened 50 years ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Overly detailed? --N8 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that would probably raise less eyebrows. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All good points. The overly detailed tag seems much better suited.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Horlivka offensive (2022)
The map was updated to show the new Ukrainian offensive (capturing of Horlivka), but no offensive arrows were added to the map, so can someone update the map with an arrow showing the Ukrainian offensive? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Cancellation of Switzerland's neutral position
On the 28th of February 2022, Switzerland has canceled its neutrality for the first time since 1815 due to the dishonorable Russian invasion of Ukraine. Bern has already joined EU sanctions against Russian Federation and its president personally. Source: Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/neutral-swiss-adopt-sanctions-against-russia-2022-02-28/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимур Сорока (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * quick point of clarity: This WP:RS doesn't mention 1815 as a reference point, and there have been previous sanctions from the country. That's not to say these aren't unique in some way of course. Thank you for the reference. --N8 23:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Protests
Text required: Should to mention most of russians scared to criticise govenment since october 1993 crisis when protests in Moscow were suppressed by tanks. PavelSI (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv
I think including information on the Ghost of Kyiv would be a very interesting addition to this article. Although most of the information currently presented is still uncertain to be fact or propaganda, our collection of media does play a significant role in the interpretation of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffe2302 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is getting pretty long as it is. We're going to have to trim and cut. This article can't include every single thing from this war. Ghost of Kyiv is on Kyiv-based subpages and that's where it belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is linked in the template at the bottom of the page (and all those related), for whatever it is worth. -- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Ghost of Kyiv" story is likely a product of the fog of war. I've not seen any reliable confirmation that this person even exists, nor is it clear that this many aircraft have been downed. I suggest it not be linked yet. Also there's a good chance that it will not be possible to confirm his kill tally until after the war is over - possibly long after. --Maxcelcat (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (4)
Add Alexander Lukashenko and the Belarus Prime minister, and other Belarusian Generals to the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the chart. LeftistPhilip (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Error in the casualty box
Source 16 is an article that doesn't state anything about Russian civilian ships being hit. Plz check the source and refresh 2607:FB91:481:595F:91DE:7B67:E98D:576A (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source states the following:
 * Meanwhile, Russian news agency TSS reported that two Russian ships had been hit by Ukrainian missiles in the Sea of Azov north of the Black Sea, causing several casualties. The report claimed the vessels that were hit were civilian commercial ships.
 * Seems to check out to me. BSMRD (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Impact on Ukraine's unique airfreight industry?
Ukraine is home to Antonov Airlines, which has a fleet of unusual aircraft, including some of the largest and indeed the largest aircraft in the world, the AN-225. This airline could do things that no other could, carrying large and heavy cargo halfway around the world in a matter of days.

It appears that on the 24th and 25th of February, during the Battle of Antonov Airport, Russian shelling destroyed the AN-225 and a number of other aircraft, effectively hobbling this important Ukrainian company. Which will in fact have a global impact, their planes were often involved in humanitarian missions, and delivering vital equipment of great economic importance. For example, they shipped a huge generator from Europe to Western Australia in a matter of days, rather than six months, which prevented a vast mining operation from having to shut down.

Anyway, perhaps a section could be added called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine", and a section beneath that called "Destruction of Antonov Airways Fleet".

Thanks for your attention!

--Maxcelcat (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably better to make a separate article if there's sufficient material and sources, and just bring back a brief summary here. There is already a discussion above by people trying to improve the structure of this article, which is huge in size. The COVID-19 pandemic has a huge number of more specific, related articles, so it would surprising if this one didn't. Boud (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There's already an "economic impact" section but two subsections of that called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine" where such could be included, and "Long Term Economic Impact on Russia" respectively (which could then include the effects of sanctions and so on) could be a good idea to add eventually I think. But it probably should not be added now right, because how could anyone know the long-term economic impacts of any of this.. a long time has not passed yet. :) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remove two paragraphs from August 25
Please remove the two one paragraph sentences from August 25. They are both unconfirmed and all things considered not needed in this broad review of the activity of that day. Here is the full ABC report for the first one re the school bombing: "— The mayor said a school building was hit by a Ukrainian shell in the rebel-held city of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine, killing its headteacher and a teacher; rebels who hold Donetsk said the city's main hospital was damaged by shelling but there were no casualties." The second paragraph that needs to be removed from our article reads, "reports circulated of a Ukrainian missile attack against the Millerovo air base in Russia, to prevent the base being used to provide air support to Russian troops in Ukraine." The source is written in Russian. "Reports circulated" is not encyclopedic. Sectionworker (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy
This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see some examples, but as a general note: almost the entire world is against Putin's war, and this extends to reliable sources discussing the war. So it's not really surprising that most sources portray Putin's involvement negatively and Zelenskyy's positively, especially given Ukraine's predicted odds. Since Wikipedia reflects reliable sources (per WP:DUE etc), it follows that the same portrayal will exist in this article, otherwise we'd be doing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section looks more like an op-ed piece that have no business being on wikipedia. Moreover, your claim that almost the entire world is against the war is simply untrue as proven by the International Reactions section, close to half are neutral, made no comments or are supportive.Nebakin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Close to half are neutral [...] or are supportive" is an interesting way to put it, as there are only a handful of countries supporting Russia here (and Belarus and Syria are Russian puppets). Phiarc (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have at least tweaked this section slightly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1074838524&oldid=1074838374&title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diffmode=source given the existing sources.  ·addshore·  talk to me! 13:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the context of this war, what "positive portrayal of Putin" would you like us to give? Maybe we could praise his dress-sense? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets see some RS praising him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Made no comments" doesn't mean appraising Putin. In addition, no comments means there isn't anything we can write... P1221 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, kind of my point. Not having an opinion is not the same as having a positive opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section for now and copied the text below for discussion, as I think it needs a heavy rewrite before it's ready. I agree it reads like an op-ed piece/WP:OR, in particular the WP:TONE isn't impartial/detached, which means it violates WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. There are also a lot of exceptional claims and subjective statements, which require excellent sources and clear in-text attribution. Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to say, in article voice, claims such as "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine" – who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or "His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces" – again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE is also a concern (and a part of NPOV), So far we have seen no sources praising Putin, so to argue "we have to be neutral" when it's clear RS is not is a false balance argument. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't largely object to the substance of what's written, my issue is with how it's written. All of these claims, which I largely believe are correct, are written as fact in article voice, which is inappropriate. Pretty much every sentence is problematic. In-text attribution is required for assessments of how Putin may have been thinking, or subjective assessments. We don't write "Hitler thought X", or "Churchill believed X", we write "According to historian X, Churchill believed X". For example, "Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" – according to who? Writing "Zelenskyy was widely seen as being highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" is different from stating this assessment (a judgement of effectiveness) as fact. We don't make our own assessments, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community" – this is a subjective opinion, not a fact: what constitutes a "pariah"? What does "shunned" mean? How much of the global community is "much"? We need to be accurate and factual, not sweeping and subjective.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, the Ukrainians are getting help from all kinds of places (even countries traditional Nuetral), and Russia has pretty much been treated as a pariah. So do we really need to attribute what is staring us in the face? Sure if it was open to some doubt that Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies" (in truth allies should be removed, as many of them are not allies) you might have a point (the same with Putin's Pariah status) but it's not the case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Zelenskyy's effectiveness is perhaps the least controversial claim, so I accept that may not need attribution. Putin's status as a "global pariah" is not something Wikipedia should proclaim in article voice, however. Kim Jong-un doesn't say "he's a pariah". Has China (world's largest population) condemned Putin? Or Iran? Or Venezuela? These are also members of the global community, even if they have unpleasant regimes. The democratic world is not the entire world. That's why such a statement should be attributed to whichever expert is saying it. What do the sources supplied actually say? And yes, we do need to attribute the obvious unless the reliable sources are unanimous about it, in which case we don't need to attribute it. So if all the sources say Zelenskyy was effective, that's fine. But the reason we need to avoid stating as fact the things we find obvious is that we don't all agree on what's obvious - tertiary sources collate other sources without adding any additional analysis, which is why readers can trust them. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but if we list the countries that are outright sending arms compared to those not condemning which is larger? But we do in fact say (in the first line "According to the portrayal in Western media") and we go on "was shunned by much of the global community", and this https://www.statista.com/chart/26946/stance-on-ukraine-invasion/ implies it is most of it (look at all that blue). If anything we downplay the degree to which he has been condemned. Hell he is being stripped of honorary titles and wards, by people like the IOC (hardly known for not being neutral) Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we need to compromise on what's being said or water it down – the general content is fine, it's just large parts of it are clearly analysis, and Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) do analysis in its own voice. So we can either attribute the analysis, or demonstrate the validity of the analysis by providing relevant facts. Unfortunately, the use of these sources in the paragraph below is poor. Look for example at the Guardian article for the statement "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like: Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, this is all wrong for a number of reasons. For example, "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine." No, he was not "the sole architect of the war". General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was, not mentioning a lot of other people who are now sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As the primary contributer of this section, I welcome the use of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and than Jr8825  for using it. In writing this, I found it very difficult to adopt a neutral tone. The best available contemporaneous reliable sources say are highly praising of Zelenskyy and generally damning of Putin. How do we come up with NPOV tone here? Is it even possible? To quote WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." and then goes on to say with respect to bias in sources: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Is this article better served by leaving leadership out altogether? It is clearly a significant issue in the conflict.Mozzie (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. —Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy
The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon.

In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation.

Please Add This to Article: 3 March ICC (International Criminal Court) announcement (Citation is provided, see below)
Please add this to the article, feel free to re-word if needed. **Citation is included.

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

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus
For those totally unaware of the relevant geopolitics, this implies that Crimea is not a part of Ukraine. It doesn't necessarily imply that it's a part of Russia either, but the wording here should be revised such that the implication is clear that Crimea is a part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia. Maybe the addition of something like "Russian-occupied" prior to Crimea. -- zaiisao (talk 08:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Furthermore, the intro states that Russian forces openly crossed the international border and entered the breakaway territories in Ukraine on Feb 22, but then “Russian ground forces entered the country” on Feb 24. This falsely implies that the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk are not in the country, tacitly recognizing the mainly unrecognized “states.”
 * Why is February 24 the start of this invasion, when it’s stated forces invaded two days earlier? —Michael Z. 06:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in section "War Crimes"
A paragraph begins: "On 27 February, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russian before the International Court of Justice...". Should "Russian" simply be "Russia", or should it be "Russian [entity]? Mckenzie Weir (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct in the first instance that you mentioned. I better let someone else fix that, however. My account is acting strangely.


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia taken down?
I'm watching NBC News Now after the 2022 state of the union right now, and a reporter on location in what appeared to be Ukraine said that Wikipedia was being taken down in Russia. I did a quick search and the only thing that comes up is Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia which took place in 2012. Keep an eye out for RSS about this.

I was also wondering earlier today if we should be making lists of reactions/sanctions on Russia by individuals and private companies. Apparently the pornhub ban was a hoax, but I've heard legitimate stories about Visa and Mastercard, semiconductors, BP and Shell, ice skating events, Warner Bros. film releases and others. I also see that Russia itself is blocking twitter and Facebook, and facebook and tiktok are blocking Russian media.

I just think at some point this project can expand to include lists of such actions in the same way that these three lists were made about the George Floyd protests. Something to think about. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is this article on RT Russian media watchdog warns Wikipedia over ‘Ukraine invasion’ entry, a deprecated source WP:RSP. Rusty5231B (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's it. I seem to remember the reporter stating it was the other way around. Wikipedia would be punishing Russia by taking itself down, but that really wouldn't make sense after some contemplation. Hopefully, that's all it is. Thanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia"). Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is furious about Russian version of the article and wants to block Wikipedia. The technical aspect is that blocking of one article means the blocking of whole Wikipedia (Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish and others Wikis). K8M8S8 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything recent on Talk:Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems we should update the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia")? Perhaps provide a link pointing to this discussion? Kire1975 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It was moved to archive Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Information
The casualties of Russia and Ukraine are not right Russia has actually lost 6000 men as dead, wounded and captured, not all dead. Ukraine states that it's losses are low but actually it's losses are really high, not as army loses but as civilians, materials, buildings, equipment and what not. About 4000 Ukrainian civilians have become casualties. 2409:4052:98A:8FDC:7B10:1CBB:6AB9:3C88 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox contains up-to-date estimates from the various governments and media (WP:RS). Phiarc (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties according to UN should be 136+ not 136 (by the reference). 2001:7D0:88F8:ED80:BC36:DE8F:D407:D413 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mind reading
"Before the invasion, in an attempt to provide a casus belli, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

This assumes to know what Putin was thinking and what motivated him to say this. Barring some kind of mind-reading device in Putins head that I'm quite sure we do not have (though it would likely be highly interesting) this is actually unknowable and hence unverifable. Yes, it might be "my source is that I made it the f*ck up", but he might believe this too. It's not really for us to speculate on. And apart from not being verifable, it would be original research. (atleast as fas as someone can call speculation "research")

This also (fortunately) seems to be the only place in the article that attempts this mind reading, whether on Putin or anyone else.

So that part should really be removed. Just that he said it and that it was dismissed. Ie "Before the invasion, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

78.78.200.165 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If the source stated the goal of cries of genocide was to provide a justification for war, and that is clearly the objective (which it is), then it is to be written in the article. Unless, of course, contradicting info arises.Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, the sources doesn't really state such. The first one, being a news outlet (BBC News), reports the respective statements. (Putin said X, this was rejected as baseless by Y) The second source does some speculation on motives as it is analysis / expert opinon by a commentator. (Source is the conversation) But it does not state as fact what Putin is thinking or not.


 * And obviously, it couldn't. It's not even an issue of sourcing, it's an issue of verifability. If something by its very naure cannot be verified, then it cant, even the most reliable of sources cannot work magic. (And if they claimed to, that would render them unreliable)
 * "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable."
 * Ie expert opinion/analysis (such as in the conversation) would be free to speculate on what goes on in someones head, though do note they don't statet this as a matter of fact. Wikipedia isn't.
 * 78.78.200.165 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This Man is Now In Charge of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (and is under orders to intensify / accelerate it)
From the BBC (source link at bottom of this post)--

"Viktor Zolotov

...he runs Russia's national guard [strength 400,000 troops]...

...Vera Mironova believes the original Russian plan was to complete the invasion within days, '''and when the military appeared to be failing, Russia's national guard [led by Victor Zolotov] took the lead. ''' The problem is that the national guard's leader has no military training..."

SEE CITATION / SOURCE LINK HERE: '''[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60573261 Ukraine conflict: Who's in Putin's inner circle and running the war? (See section near bottom of article-- "Victor Zolotov")]'''

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * How would you like to have Zolotov added in the article? As a commander in the infobox or as a sentence somewhere in the article? However, to me, the source seems to state an opinon rather than a fact... P1221 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (Irpin)
Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (in Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (in Irpin). 103.47.135.149 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? P1221 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Lukashenko be added to commanders?
Seems like he should be, even if Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war. He seems at least as important as the separatist commanders. 2003:C8:CF04:6389:FC8D:D71:3CC8:14AF (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you "Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war", so he is the commander of a combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would concur with the above opinion, but if Lukashenko formally announces he's sending troops to fight in Ukraine or if it's discovered that Lukashenko and Belarus is in a more active role than perviously thought, I would not oppose his addition. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Supported By"
If Belarus is noted as supporting Russia in the sidebar under Belligerants because they are providing materiel and passage, then shouldn't the list of states providing military arms to Ukraine be listed? As noted in the introductory paragraph of the article:

>Both prior to and during the invasion, various states provided Ukraine with foreign aid, including arms and other materiel support.

Shouldn't these "various states" also be listed? Asking because I don't know what all constitutes needing to be under the "Supported" listing in the sidebar. Fephisto (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's listed as supporting Russia because Russian troops are entering through, and firing missiles via, Belarusian land, and potentially now we have Belarusian troops involved in the invasion too. That's a significant tactical advantage, indeed it's the quick route for Russia to get to Kyiv. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning why Belarus is listed as a supporting party, I agree with you there (obviously). I'm questioning why other countries are not listed as a supporting party.  E.g., the U.S. has provided sat recon and Estonia has given Ukraine a lot of Javelins, while the U.K. has offered volunteers, material, and recon so why wouldn't they be listed as supporting Ukraine?  Is the ruling condition for "supported by" in the sidebar as used in other, similar military articles just "right-of-way?"  Fephisto (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I now see the above talk on this, sorry.  Fephisto (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Letting another state use your territory for aggression is aggression, according to the UN’s definition (Article 3f). Sounds like a belligerent to me. —Michael Z. 05:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning why Belarus is listed as a supporting party. I'm questioning why other countries are not listed as a supporting party.  Fephisto (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Day by day - too much
I don't have any specific changes in mind, but prior articles like the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq don't give a day-by-day account of the war. This article will get extremely long if this continues; I suggest a lot of that content be moved to a "timeline" article. Although we aren't deep enough into the future to know what will be relevant to people 10 years from now, so I'm not sure. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly do agree with you. I went through only one day and there was way too much detail. I suggested a cutback of the first paragraph a day ago and was ignored.  Now I suggested a few more paras that could be cut but will perhaps again be ignored.  Sectionworker (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article needs to contain the most important things only. Everything else can be moved to a subpage or cut entirely, if it's too minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its clear this wont be over in a few days, a day-by-day is already too much, and is only going to get worse. Perhaps a week-by-week summary may be more appropriate as it goes on, and potentially month-by-month if we reach that stage. BSMRD (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine might be a good place for specific details that don't belong in this article. It might be helpful to add content there and then specifically request it be removed from here. At least then cautious editors know it hasn't been lost entirely. I've also updated the tag in the section to Overly detailed to reflect these concerns. --N8 03:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I may just be a filthy IP ;) but yeah.. I absolutely agree.
 * There's just so many claims being made about this conflict that this article is going to go on forever if every supposed little engagement is to be reported separately. Of course, there's also a problem of picking what to report and I don't know whether a good job has been done so far... and I don't really think anyone who's not there can say that much about the military action at this pont. Unfortunately, almost everyone who is there is pretty much aligned with one or the other side. There is very little to prove the various claims being made: The only thing that seems somewhat certain is where there's battles going on and whom holds what.


 * Not to soapbox too much but having followed some other conflicts.. the "fog of war" here is downright insane and I think social media is a really a big contributor to it. Unlike most wars where the reporting is done by people with some actual clue (and people in general stay out of it) people who are on the ground. Here everyone is cheering for a "team" (mostly Ukraine of course) and while understandable, it also becomes a real problem for verifiability and trying to keep some neutrality in terms of, let's call it reporting. Various claims instead go viral near-instantly and is even picked up by the media. And obviously, especially when they're good news for the popular team so to speak. (See ghost of Kyiv etc) I think denialism and echo chambers is going to be - likely already is - a real problem here. I don't think this is going nearly as bad for Russia as some claim (no food, no fuel, enormous casualties etc) and I don't think it's mostly smooth sailing for Russia either as its supporters in turn seem to believe.


 * Basically, I'd say we know very little. We want to know more than we really do.
 * I'd suggest day by day summaries of the major, undeniable, changes (and lack thereof) for now.
 * Might need to be weekly summaries, even monthly if it drags on.
 * 78.78.200.165 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely support moving the day by day stuff to a new article, and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like a good fit. I strongly oppose simply deleting any of the text... it might be overly detailed for the main article, but I think the content is well sourced and useful to keep. However, when splitting off an article, we usually leave a summary in the main article. What should go here to replace the day by day stuff? Fieari (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that putting a summary on top of the timeline is a good idea. I did something similar for the Italian Wikipedia (still a draft), which doesn't like very much the timelines. P1221 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have moved all of the content to the timeline article. This should hopefully spur on the creation of an appropriate summary of that content here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much RandomCanadian! I wasn't able to finish the task. P1221 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Naming of article as “invasion”, should other articles be renamed?
Hi

With regards to previous articles including Iraq, Syria, Lybia, they are regarded as “interventions”, this article as “invasion”.

I think and worry that the naming of those articles creates a “white knight” subconscious bias, thus I raise this discussion.

Those interventions, especially Iraq, are not widely regarded as invasions, and illegal.

Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_%282014–2021%29

Thanks 2A04:4A43:45EF:E03F:1908:6E10:9B91:2551 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please address the titles of other articles on the talk pages of those articles, and offer any reliable sources that use the terminology you feel Wikipedia should use. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is widely regarded as an invasion, like – for example – the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian media attention previous to the invasion
Should the treatment of the issue by private and state-backed media in Russia in the days prior to the invasion be included? Anton Krasovsky (wiki article with external references) 190.192.176.38 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is particularly notable, in my opinion. Other analysts foretold that an invasion was probable. P1221 (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

support for Ukraine in the infobox
The US, the UK, Germany, Czech, Finland, France for example have donated arms to Ukraine. These countries should be listed in the infobox under support for Ukraine.

38.121.70.49 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See FAQ #2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian nuclear arms
Russia has stated that they are willing to use nukes should we address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.7.4 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way (that we already do not do)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 3rd on timeline
The timeline hasn't been updated to include events on March 3rd, but the March 2nd section keeps being updated. I don't know whether more information about March 2nd is becoming available, or if people are putting March 3rd information a day behind, but there should at least be a March 3rd section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March (2) 2022
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1499673468794773507 P4p5 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why British English?
Why does the page use British English (and the talk page has the banner saying so?)? The first instance of the article used American English and according to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON, this should not be changed without a reason. This should be reverted back in compliance with Wiki policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The initial revision was a WP:SPLIT from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which uses British English (see Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wether or not it was a split does not matter. The original page as written/split contained American English. And WP says that there should be a socifci reason to change styles, which in this case there is not. WP don’t say anywhere than the style or English should be inherited from other pages. Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't American English. The original revision contains the word "recognized", yes (currently present in the original article too), but it also contains "authorised". Clearly the issue is just that we've moved past the days where people spend extortionate amounts of effort standardising English varieties within articles, so you end up with inconsistencies. Regardless, the original revision can't be called American English, both in isolation and by considering the fact that it copies content from an article explicitly labelled as being BE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Consistency is one thing, but the template should be removed because, even if the article is written in BE, there is no requirement nor strong reason why it should,. That template is reserved for articles that have a clear reason for being AE or BE. Eccekevin (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What argument would there be for US English? Precedent seems to be the only reason applicable either way.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And in support of BritEng there is the geographical argument that when European countries (like Ukraine and Russia) use English, they use British English. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. EU does use British English. These are not it. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to conclude that first revision is in American English. The -ize ending is called Oxford spelling, and is a valid way to spell British English. I can also see use of -our in 'favour', so it seems quite evident that the first revision is in British English.  Mel ma nn   17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well for God's sake let's not start World War III over it. EEng 05:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty much like Canadian English to me. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because the -ize endings are used in Oxford spelling, which also complies with Canadian spelling too or pretty much any variety of English except NZ English. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile in Ukraine children are being blown to bits while we argue about grammar.Larsobrien 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian space chief suggests ISS could crash into US or Europe as a result of sanctions
Source: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/02/25/ukraine-russian-space-chief-suggests-iss-could-crash-into-us-or-europe-as-a-result-of-sanc
 * It's so exceptional of a claim, and not really being taken seriously by the rest of the world, that I don't think it warrants inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an article (in Italian) which demystifies this claim P1221 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022 (3)
Please add it into the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" of the section "Media depictions" of the article:

On 3 March 2022, the board of directors of Echo of Moscow voted to close the station down. On the same day, Natalya Sindeyeva, CEO of Dozhd, announced the suspension of a broadcasting for an indefinite period due to coming legislative changes which would make impossible to objectively cover an events. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * K8M8S8, added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! You've added aforementioned text into the subsection "United Nations" instead the subsection "Censorship and propaganda". Please fix it. Thank you! K8M8S8 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, let me fix it real quick CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Worth including: Russian Major-General killed in action
More than adequate sourcing is provided in his dedicated article, Andrey Sukhovetsky. I think this is worth including, as officers at this level being killed in action are very rare in the modern era. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have added it to the infobox and sprinkled it in casualties too. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

article banner portal for context
Dear fellow Wikipedians, As per WP:NORULES, I added on top of the article some contextualisation that might prove useful. It is a WP:PORTAL, made to bootstrap a dynamic. It does not really matter what this is technically, the important is to have a place for hope and not only for documenting atrocities and resignation.

I did a bad job with the NATO RfC, this time I believe that I am doing, quite a good job. I think that I am willing to die - metaphorically, as a Wikipedia account!, for this page to stay up there at least a few days. Do not, please, revert, instead open talk sections and help assembling knowledge further!

Best regards, Maxime Maxorazon (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IAR? and WP:SOAP. Firestar464 (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read in WP:IAR "A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities." from Solzhenitsyn? And WP:NOTOPINION. Please help me kill my god complex, and remove stupid egotistical things that would obscure the value proposition, which latter is I think well worth it. BR Maxorazon (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IAR is not a free pass to treat Wikipedia like a blogspace or a soapbox. Firestar464 (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
 * I have a very strong emotional and intellectual engagement in quite all 3 key elements mentioned in the article. I already warmly proposed and asked to help me cut the soap out of the box. I think that I achieved the best neutral point of view that I could in such short amount of time, see the previous talk sections that I opened. I think that such contextualisation is urgent in this article that reaches 1million hits per day. This has nothing to do with an autobiography, and I suggest to let it live for a few hours and catch reactions. Best regards Maxorazon (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the Portal:Go_and_see,_my_love is quite the textbook of what an encyclopedia strives for: satisfy the hunger for knowledge, present it nicely. BR Maxorazon (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am looking for helping people re-ligare. To bind again to each other, and not tear apart more. The verbal escalade in my home country against Russia worries me a lot and I find it extremely dangerous. I am looking for people to compassionate. Maxorazon (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are concerned about the situation, but there are alternative ways to express this. Disrupting Wikipedia is not the right way to go about it. Firestar464 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can an admin "hat" this section, please? The user has been topic-blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
please add supported by NATO to the Ukrainian side on belligerents Orhan Mollaoglu (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is a distinction between 'NATO allies' and 'NATO'. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??
It would seem the ukranian military are losing their head in more ways than one. :S They are saying on their offical facebook that they're going to murder any russian prisoners of war: https://www.facebook.com/usofcom/posts/3212999028931719

"Отныне никаких пленных русских артиллеристов больше не будет. Никакой пощады, никакое "пожалуйста не убивайте, я сдаюсь" уже не пройдет. Каждый расчет, не важно: командир, водитель, наводчик, заряжающий - будут зарезаны как свиньи. Ссыте в штаны, мы за вами уже пришли."

Google translate: "From now on, there will be no more captured Russian artillerymen. No mercy, no "please don't kill, I surrender" will not pass. Every calculation, no matter: commander, driver, gunner, loader - will be slaughtered like pigs. Piss in your pants, we've already come for you."

Seems like an insane decision, this is textbook war crime. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) it would have to be reported in RS for inclusion; 2) it would have to actually happen for it to be a war crime (as opposed to just being Facebook venting or a hacked account, neither of which would make a strong case for inclusion). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all) but no, I would not argue that it should be added as "Ukraine are murdering prisoners of war" unless there is any confirmation of that actually happeing. It could just be a mere threat (I have no idea about the legality of threathening war crimes) but it certainly does deserve mention as what it is, "the Ukraine military said on its official facebook that it would execute any russian prisoners of war". Could also give their stated reasoning, "due to claimed russian shelling of civilians" etc. Much like other claims of war crimes under the same section.


 * Also, here are some RS for it. Ukranian media are not making any secret of this. It's not a hack.
 * https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/03/2/7327569/
 * https://ukranews.com/news/838284-za-bolnitsy-i-detskie-sady-spetsnaz-vsu-obyavil-ohotu-na-rossijskih-artilleristov-v-plen-brat-ne


 * 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pravda isn't _an_RS... considered a reliable source]. Misread this as Pravda.ru. I couldn't find an entry for Ukrainian News Agency. Given the rampant misinformation in and around the invasion, ideally I'd want to see stronger sources before considering adding this.
 * As for it being added because it's extraordinary, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there are reliable sources stating this, then it should be added. But right now the sourcing is thin. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Struck comment about wrong Pravda Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is Ukrayinska Pravda (ie literally "ukranian pravda"), not the russian one. Ukranews is a ukranian paper as well. Both are pro-ukraine, not pro-russia. Why would they be unreliable exactly? (the "reliable sources" page mostly just discuss why certain sources should be regarded as unreliable btw, yes?) The sourcing is not thin I'm afraid, I can provide more if you want. See below. Yes, I know this seems kind of a crazy thing to say. But are we really going to say that everyone saying this, from newspapers (pro-ukranian newspapers), to the official bluemarked facebook of the military itself.. thats just some.. what exactly? The russians have taken over large parts of the ukraninan press? The pro-ukrainian press no less? (and they're still pro-ukranian..) The evidence is quite extraordinary (of the claim/threat, not of them actually doing it, mind, but I don't suggest writing that either). If any claim seems extraordinary, it's the claim that this is not a real statement. There's absolutely nothing to support it but that we don't want it to be real. Should really stick to NPOV here, not wishful thinking.


 * https://newsmedia.com.ua/mainstream/59148-plennyh-ne-budet-sso-ukrainy-obyavili-ohotu-za-russkimi-artilleristami/
 * https://ua.tribuna.com/others/1107350870-komandovanie-sso-ukrainy-rossijskim-artilleristam-nikakoj-poshhady-nik.html

78.78.200.165 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With regards to extraordinary, respectfully, you said the following I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all). As such, you've already said that this is an extraordinary claim. I agree that it is, and as such requires strong sourcing.
 * With regards to Pravda, I apologise. I had misread the domain name and confused it with Pravda.RU. I've struck this above now.
 * As for the claim potentially being false. I would draw your attention to the following; Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, The Guardian, ABC News, Reuters, the US Department of State, and the European Commission. As I said, there is a substantial amount of Russian misinformation being spread currently. Given the circumstances I hope you can agree that such extraordinary claims require stringent verification and sourcing. The more reliable sources that can be provided, the easier it is to show that a piece of information is verifiable and DUE for inclusion.
 * At present, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is due. As it's now 2am in my timezone, I won't be able to check the sources linked thus far in detail until tomorrow. That said, I am open to be convinced to add some of this information; that what appears to be the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces has made a (put mildly) controversial statement. However unless they actually undertake this action, we cannot say they will commit a warcrime. As Wikipedians we state what happened, not what may happen. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I will agree absolutely that we need to be careful of disinfo. Unfortunately, it is really quite the stretch that both the pro-ukrainian press and it's own military is spreading russian disinfo. (though I assume that's not really what you're suggesting either) As for mention.. I'll repeat that I'm certainly not suggesting saying this has happened. Or even necessarily will. We have no confirmation of any action, only the threat of them. But the statement itself is certainly warranted to include, because as you say it is very controversial (and maybe I should have used that word instead of "extraordinary", I am no expert on wiki terminology but I don't think my choice of word is the issue either. And I would also say that several news outlets, all of them pro-ukranian, and the bluemarked account of said military, is quite alot of RS?). Further, to consider NPOV here: Would there be a discussion about whether to include this if it was the russian military saying it? (and they might reply to this with some nasty statement of their own so should probably be on the lookout)


 * The war crime section is already about various claims, accusations (or comments if you will) about potential war crimes so far so it certainly belongs even if just a statement/threat. There is very little confirmation of any warcrimes, including russian ones.. yet. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Against. Needs several Reliable Sources. The talk has been over Pravda and a Facebook page, if it were to be included then the sources being discussed should be the NYTimes, BBC, Economist, etc.: sources of unquestionable journalistic integrity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What an absolute piece of fluff. This discussion is as serious as Mike Tyson asserting "I want to eat his children". Cheap talk is nothing more than bravado. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This (assuming it is true) appears to be the orders given by the commander of one formation, so its inclusion would violate wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Alcibiades979 "The talk has been over Pravda and a Facebook page". As stated, Ukranian Pravda is a different newspaper than russian pravda. And I had provided 4 ukranian newspapers so far (I can likely provide more but I don't see why it's not enough) along with the facebook page, which is confirmed by facebook (bluemarked), ie it is not some random account. So that's simply wrong. If you want to argue that it's not RS, that's fine of course. But you should provide a reason why the ukranian (let me also reiterate, this is pro-ukranian) press is to be regarded as wholesale unreliable on this matter. Realiability can't just be a matter of mere opinion, there's nothing under the rules of verifability (section sources that are usually not reliable) that seems to apply here about why these sources would not be RS.


 * @WWGB. Hardly. That (even) Tyson is very unlikely to really eat children in a boxing ring does not need to be said, whereas a military (or usually parts thereof) at war killing prisoners is not exactly unheard of but something that has occured repeatedly throughout history. So the analogy is near bizarre. Yes, this can be cheap talk, but it can obviously be much more than that and the very statement is, as already said, a very controversial one to make given that it would be a clear war crime to actually do it. It is hard to argue that open threats of war crimes being made on through an offical military channel is something that should simply be ignored.


 * @Slatersteven. It is undue that the ukraninan military, on its offical page, is posting a threat to kill prisoners of war? How? This is not some individual soldiers private social media account, if it was, then I would agree with you. But this is coming through an offical channel and from a large and important part of the military, and that it is posted through an official channel means that others also stand behind it. Would this be regarded as undue if it was the russian military saying it? And that "formation" as you call it is the command for the special forces of Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces_of_Ukraine This is not some random nobody platoon commander. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify "They are saying on their offical facebook that they're going to murder any russian prisoners of war" is not correct. What they said is they will no longer take prisoners of artillerymen because they have killed innocent civilians. they did not claim that they will kill prisoners of war, they will kill artillerymen when in combat. Also there is no evidence that this is more than a threat.


 * (Please sign your posts; text above is another user.)
 * Post has been updated: The text in question appears to have been removed from the facebook post. I think it's fair to leave this alone unless other WP:RSs turn this into a significant story. --N8 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

Since the other discussion was locked for "original research" (despite 5 different secondary sources.. can't see the originality in that and would ask the editor who locked it to explain what was original research) but you asked about what "SSO" means, I'll simply reply what it means here. This terminology could also be good to for everyone to know if any future reference to SSO is made somewhere.

SSO simply means the Special Operations Forces (in this case, of the Ukraine. In other cases it could also mean Russian) First, please refer to the page here on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Ukraine) Search the term "SSO" on that. Then switch the page to ukraninan and note the term "CCO", that's cyrillic for SSO.

Here's the text from the Ukrainian language version of said page. "Сили спеціальних операцій Збройних сил України, ССО ЗСУ — окремий рід сил Збройних сил України, до складу якого входять частини спеціального призначення і підрозділи інформаційно-психологічних спеціальних операцій, що комплектуються спеціально навченими фахівцями, які мають спеціальні можливості у сферах розвідки, прямих акцій та військової підтримки для виконання складних, небезпечних, інколи політично чутливих операцій, що проводить командування ССО."

Here's the google translation: "Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine support for complex, dangerous, and sometimes politically sensitive operations conducted by the SSO command."

So the ukraninan special forces uses the acronym "SSO", which the russian one do as well, and for the same reason. But the english page for the ukranian SSO does not make this acryonym clear at all for an english speaker (it is not derived from english) and only uses it once on the page. The english page for the russian SSO does explain this acronym however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Russia) "The Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, commonly known as the Special Operations Forces (Russian: Силы специальных операций; ССО, tr. Sily spetsial’nykh operatsiy; SSO)"

Hope that helps clear this terminology up.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

War crimes
The Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stated via Facebook that Russian artillerymen would not be taken prisoner in case of their surrender, but rather 'slaughtered like pigs'; the war crime of no quarter has thus been officially encouraged, although to my knowledge no specific incidents have hitherto been confirmed. Adding a mention of the aforesaid to the 'war crimes' section is hereby suggested. Maciuf (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I brought this up too and suggests the same, see 31 of this talk page: "Ukraine to murder prisoners of war??" And with this polish source, that's now a total of 5 different sources and the bluemarked facebook account. (I linked to the facebook page and 4 ukranian newspapers). But so far there seems to be little support here to include this statement in the article for some strange reason. Reasons given has ranged from outright dismissal of the ukranian (pro-ukranian!) press as unreliable on this matter (though no clear reason has been provided why it is unreliable) to suggestions that the command of the special forces of Ukraine (cited by a military channel representing the ukraine armed forces) is just "some formation" and therefore somehow wp:undue. :S There is understandably alot of shock and disbelief at such a statement, but we probably should not pretend it wasn't made or that it's actually irrelevant, simply because we hate the fact it was. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason is this is just one formation. Also, until a crime has actually been committed it has not been committed. In addition I am ha8inv trouble finding any official body called The Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but this may be a translation issue. So we need to wait until mainstream western media takes this up, so we know what was said by who. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you dismiss the entire special forces of the Ukraine as "just one formation" and what is even the relevance of such a claim? That reason you keep giving here is simply your say-so, not some sort of fact. I have also never said that they have actually done this, but consistently said that the statement/threat should be included because it is certainly relevant. I would appreciate if you could stop leveling that accusation now and go by by what I'm actually writing. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See User:N8wilson below. The post has been edited to remove key words and does not appear to be official policy. KD0710 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Saw and replied to it. Official policy is not the question and his comment does not in any way, shape or form, somehow reduce the special forces of the ukraine to a "mere formation". That's not a matter of opinion, there's an article here on wikipedia about them. I suggest people read it and go by that, not their own opinions of what they are. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm of quite the opposite on this. I think the article should remove all references to war crimes that are not actively being investigated or acknowledged by a third party, such as the UN. Both sides are using the accusation of war crimes as propaganda . There is a difference between an actual war crime and a horrible side effect of war. KD0710 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, a crime is not a crime until it has been persecuted. wp:blp applies even in war. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To an extent, I agree. But none of us are actually able to determine if something could be considered a war crime, outside of having an opinion. KD0710 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "none of us are actually able to determine if something could be considered a war crime"
 * Lol. Really? Yes we are, there's a clear definitions of war crimes, right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime "A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war" 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A trial is required to ascertain whether a crime has been commited. However, it does not appear necessary when a crime has been directly encouraged in written form. Maciuf (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If it has been commited, not what constitutes a war crime. Ie the definitions are still quite clear. I am unsure about every one of them though, such as whether threats of war crimes are by themselves war crimes. But the statement is simply so jaw-dropping (especially since it is from the actual military, the command of a whole branch thereof and not some random soldier) that trying to argue it is "undue" etc, frankly, seems absolutely bonkers and hardly anywhere close to NPOV. I mean if this was a branch of the russian military? It would not be included? Come on. :) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The original facebook post has been edited to remove the lines referencing the "no prisoners" claim. It seems clear this is not official policy of the combatants. --N8 16:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The said addition, if rendered properly, does not seem to be invalidated. Maciuf (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Without documentation of official policy or proof that the said actually occurred, a rant on social media is not actually proof of a war crime nor does it seem to meet the level of significance that should be included in the article.KD0710 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an official channel and a statement made by a branch of the military. "rant" is mere POV. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The only thing an edit proves is that it has been edited. You interpret this in a benign way ("so they dont support this, maybe it was just some angry hothead"), someone else may interpret it in a malignant one. ("so they're trying to hide their call for war crimes") These are mere interpretations, not fact. We don't know motive, we are not inside peoples heads.
 * And whether or not this is official policy is hardly the question. Because we do not know if this was ever going to be carried out, has been carried out, or is a mere empty threat. And we obviously shouldn't state that they have actually done this without confirmation and I don't think anyone has suggested that. I would like to believe it is mostly just a threat but it is the statement itself that's the issue and there's no problem with including this edit either. Indeed it should be included. For instance "in a facebook post on the official facebook of the ukraninan military, the command of the special forces of Ukraine threathened to execute russian prisoners of war, but this statement was later removed". There. What actually happened and certainly relevant. If there's some sort of explanation and consequences for it coming (such as somebody getting fired for it along with some official statement etc) then that can be included later as well. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidelines/policy points here are WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE, and WP:NOR.
 * With regards to whether or not this was a threat, or was actionable, it is not for us to speculate per CRYSTALBALL. Doing so would be original research (OR).
 * As for the original form of the Facebook message, at the moment sourcing is still pretty thin. We'd be straying into NOTNEWS territory by reporting on it. That the post has since been edited to remove the most egregious parts of it has not been picked up by any RS as far as I can tell.
 * On the whole, without stronger sourcing, I don't think this is DUE for inclusion. The statement was edited several hours after publication, per the original reporting of it in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whether or not in that time it was actioned by that group is unclear. In lieu of stronger sourcing, I would be inclined not to add this to the article at this time. Per WP:RECENTISM will this statement be relevant when analysing this war in ten years? Short of Ukraine being brought before the International Criminal Court for documented warcrimes, I suspect not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I stated that a crime has been commited. To my mind, however, advocacy of war crimes by a division of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, even if later abandoned, deserves a reference within this article. Maciuf (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Though to be pedantic, it's not a division anymore than a "formation", it's a branch of the Ukranian military.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Ukraine)
 * "The Special Operations Forces are one of the five branches of the Ukrainian armed forces, with its headquarters in Kyiv, Ukraine."
 * This is not exactly some individual random nobody private from the national guard. (like that "Azov is greasing bullets" thing) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it not? who wrote it then? It is marked as a statement by The SSO Brotherhood of Ukraine, who are they? Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The definitions of original research
EverGreenFir, you seem to be locking sections as "original research". Those two sections included five (5) different secondary sources confirming a certain statement and the discussion mostly revolved around whether to include it or not. Would you please explain out how that constituted original research. Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research If you wouldn't mind, point out the violations, the original research, using actual quotes. Thanks in advance. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The OR is that this constitutes a war crime, which none of those sources (as you were told) support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I closed sections that were not about improving the article and were discussing opinions of "war crimes" without any discussion of reliable sources. The FB post does not belong in the article. We don't need multiple sections and dozens of comments to determine that (1) it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it and (2) WP:SYNTH to say anything about war crimes.
 * Please keep this talk page to discussions about the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, this was a social media post (not a method usually used to send orders to special forces). So there is no indication this was an official order (and in fact no indication it was anything more than the person typing it geeking off). Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "The OR is that this constitutes a war crime, which none of those sources (as you were told) support."
 * That what constitutes a war crime? Killing prisoners? Yes, that would be a war crime and is not OR but what would be generally referred to as well known fact, much like that the capital of France is Paris. (direct example from here of such facts) But again, no confirmation of that occuring.
 * The statement? Nobody has claimed that the statement itself is a war crime, or atleast not me, I said I don't know if the threat of war crimes are a war crime. Whether the statement is a war crime was not argued as the reason for inclusion either. The reaso argued was that the statement should be included because it is an important, never mind "controversial", statement made through an official channel. Again, if you want to claim I do OR, then cite it. This "it's just one person geeking off" is mere interpretation. The simple fact is that this was stated on their official page and that several secondary sources are confirming it. Is that not the facts? Your opinions that it is irrelevant are just that, you are certainly entitled to them. But claims of irrelevance are not fact nor does it make claims to the contrary OR.


 * "Please keep this talk page to discussions about the article."
 * We were discussing the article, as in the content of it and whether to add content. Then you locked the discussion for OR. And you have still not pointed out anything that actually was OR. You keep talking about the facebook post, again, there are 5 secondary sources. There are more, but really, why is 5 not enough now? Most claims here do not even have 2.


 * I ask again, please point out, using the definitions of that page, what actually was original research. Without these strawmen please, but by using what people actually wrote.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research
 * "The definition of original research in the policy is: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This definition is clarified in a footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research."


 * Indeed, your definitions of "original resarch so far seems to run counter to the actual definition? All I'm really discussing is whether to include this statement and I'm in favor for reasons given. That's all. If you want to argue relevance, sure. But argue that then, in an intellctually honest way, not by own definitions of "formations" and "rants". (a) Is it a "rant" when posted by on an official channel? b) does it matter if it is? Is there a criteria about "don't include rants" even when they're clearly coming from people of some note?) And don't argue OR when it's obviously not. If you want to argue irrelevance vs relevance, then do that and let others debate the same. Don't lock it with an unsubstantiated claim of OR that you cannot back up.
 * 78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to say this was said, its OR to draw any conclusions from it. Hell the original request was "Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war??", which borders on OR, as there is no indication this was an official order (as stated above). The" second was "War crimes" which this is not. All of the discussion stemmed from those two bits of OR. It was not an official order and it is not a war Crime. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, point out where I actually drew such conclusions. That title is a question hence the question marks, not a claim they're actually doing it nor "research". It's simply to draw attention to what they themselves said they would do. If I wanted to claim they really did it, I would have written "Ukraine are murdering prisoners of war" but I don't. I have said repeatedly that we should not claim that they're actually doing it but that the statement should be included. And I now repeated it again. The other subsection title I didn't write so can't answer for, but might as well just refer to the subsection named war crimes. It's speculative on our part, neither of us wrote it. And overall, titles of subsections are hardly OR and even trying to argue so is, frankly, silly. Should say the subsection "Russian wikipedia taken down?" be locked as well? Stick to one standard/defintion, and preferably the one already laid down by wikipedia.


 * Let me reiterate so there is no confusion: I am not saying that the statement itself is a war crime. (I have no idea if such statements are) I am not saying they will, or have been, carrying this out. It might have happened, it might not, it might never happen. We don't know. I argue that the statement should be included in the article (perhaps indeed under the war crime subsection as that seems the most relevant place as of now but I am open to suggestions), I have given reasons why and there are plenty of secondary sources to back the statement itself. I have even provided a suggestion for how it might be formulated, which I'll quote here: "in a facebook post on the official facebook of the ukraninan military, the command of the special forces of Ukraine threathened to execute russian prisoners of war, but this statement was later removed".
 * That is all. These claims of OR are well, nonsensical. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Warcrime as defined by article 40 of the protocols additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 august 1949
In regards to the statements, as verified by multiple sources under subsections 'Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??' and 'war crime', to the effect that the Ukranian SSO would render no quarter to Russian artillerymen;

Article 40 (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf#page=35)

'It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.'

78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No source besides a claim and ref to icrc. Also, I believe you just refreshed your IP from the now locked discussion above. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "No source".. apart from 5 previously listed secondary sources along with the previously listed primary one. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, give one source that says it was a war crime. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is right above you. Article 40 of the protocols additional to the geneva conventions. Is it not clear enough? The sources that it was said are 6 in number (5 secondary, 1 primary). You'll find them in the previous subsections discussing this. Do tell me what is hard to understand here. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as that is wp:synthesis, you need a source SAYING "Ukraine has committed a war crime. How you intep[erate it is not good enough, you have been told this mor3e than once and you are now wais ting everyone's time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all
 * "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim."


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed
 * "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced"


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_policy
 * "It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research. "


 * And quite importantly as well:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_directly_applicable_to_talk_pages
 * "A talk page is the right place to claim that something in an article is SYNTH. The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article. Drawing non-trivial inferences is the heart of argument, and on talk pages, you're supposed to present arguments."


 * etc etc etc
 * Now that it should be abundantly clear that your claim of SYNTH has no basis, can we move on?
 * 78.78.143.46 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Supported by
It's been said SEVERAL times before; but the countries and alliances that donated weapons and military hardware to Ukraine should be added under "Supported by:" in the belligerents section. This is the standard format for ALL Wiki articles about a battle or a war. It makes no sense what so ever that this article does not list them. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What other country's personnel, beside Ukrainians, are currently assisting their troops? We know DPR, LRP and Belarus are directly helping Russia, but not vice versa. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having personnel involved has NEVER been a requirement for inclusion in the belligerents section in a Wikipedia war-related article. Take for example the Wiki article "Soviet-Afghan War"; Under Supported By it literally lists quote: "India (Humanitarian aid)". And on the other side the United Kingdom is listed when their only involvement in the war was armament donations, the exact same as in this war. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Soviet-Afghan war is far over and well analyzed, so we know whom helped who. Here even Belarus still keeps denying it is helping Russia. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't debunk anything in that comment. It literally says India (Humanitarian aid) which contradicts the "personnel" statement. Also you can see in the Rfc above, a strong majority of Wikipedians surveyed agree with this sentiment. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Orca, you might want to at least formally note this in the RfC above as well instead of down here. Fephisto (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S., you also might want to list some of those other Wiki articles as examples.  Fephisto (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1499311646690492417 P4p5 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, until someone decides otherwise. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Existing article content is not essential, Read/listen Chomsky
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.222.125 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's not clear to me what you are asking for... Please remember that this page is used for improving the article, it is not a forum. P1221 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia is not a forum. But, the world is in a major crisis. Thank you for the link. I am hoping to put online the above synthesis during the night. BR Maxorazon (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A concrete place to start editing would be to create the article arms control in Europe, as suggested at the draft WikiProject Peace page. I'm sure Chomsky would agree that an article about Chomsky's own analysis is a lot less useful or interesting than an article about one of the core topics that he discusses. Arms control mechanisms, and the multi-decade European construction of security agreements+institutions, and its decay during the last decade or so, have plenty of sources, and Chomsky's analysis is highly relevant to that topic. Boud (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The root cause analysis of this conflict is blurred, sidelined, and politically correct ie. it follows strictly Western media disinformation - in this article. Chomsky is quite clear: Russia's concern about its security is understandable: US with Ukraine in NATO, what was vetoed earlier by France and Germany but ignored by US would give US possibility to further encircle Russia putting its ofensive missile systems too close to Moscow and other Russia's vital centers--109.93.67.114 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Obama funded the regime change in Ukraine in 2014 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/--109.93.67.114 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The link that anon intended to post literally says that is a complete lie. Chomsky’s is a minority opinion, possibly WP:FRINGE. Anyway, do conspiracy and other theories exonerating the Russian Federation for its aggressive stance and actions (including the Munich speech, Russo-Georgian War, etc.) belong in this article? Isn’t this topic covered somewhere in detail? Maybe Russia–NATO relations or Foreign relations of Russia. —Michael Z. 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read that post - just a clumsy denial of the facts, far from the "complete lie". An illustration of a "manufactured consent". As to Chomsky it's laughable to mark his analysis as a "minority opinion". Now, a bit more about true nature of this issue: "US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control" https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml-109.93.67.114 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to carry out exegesis of a 4 Feb 2022 interview with Chomsky, which is mostly off-topic for this particular article, but mainly related to arms control in Europe, a much broader article that none of us (including me) have made the effort to start writing. I would recommend someone start that article (properly, which would require some intellectual work; start looking at arms control first) and then argue about whether Chomsky's text is mainstream, fact-based or fringe on the talk page over there. (In fact, the discussions would hopefully focus on improving the article.) There is a popular tradition of exegesis of anything that Chomsky writes (or says), but this is not the right article. Boud (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many ways one can interpret “pants on fire.” —Michael Z. 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the issue -in the Backgound section we read: "American historian Timothy D. Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism.[92] British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.[93] Other observers have described the Russian leadership as having a distorted view of modern Ukraine and its history.[94][95][96] Ukraine and other European countries neighbouring Russia accused Putin of irredentism and of pursuing aggressive militaristic policies" This is a logical falacy - the truth is: Russia is fighting the US in Ukraine. The US has no friends, only enemies and subjugated. (or Henry Kissinger — 'America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests') The US, using printed greenbacks, subjugated Ukrainians, installed its "friendly" regime ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. --109.93.67.114 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See Manichaeism, which is a Wikipedia article, but not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Boud (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Under belligerents the US and all countries who sent arms to Ukraine should be listed and all countries who attacked the citizens of Russia through economic warfare should be listed
Surely under belligerents the US and all countries who sent arms to Ukraine should be listed and all countries carrying out economic warfare against Russia should be listed 178.197.234.45 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed several times under other subsections. There might be a case for listing them as support but not as belligerents. There does not seem to be any precedent for doing it; Nations that have rendered support such as money and weapons in other conflicts, were not listed as belligerents for those. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Updated on losses available
See here for an update on the losses: https://twitter.com/DI_Ukraine/status/1500066313464696833/photo/1

Could you please update the page?

Jan Vlug (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV: Nigel Farage view (UK Independence Party)
Nigel Farage view does not appear. According to the UK Independence Party leader, "Russian president was not going to invade Ukraine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.236 (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

After Feb 24th, and that is what most of this WP-page is about, Farage admitted to have been "wrong" and "Putin has gone much further than I thought he would", on the other hand "it made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick" (thelondoneconomic (blacklisted on WP) citing twitter) and "'the end is coming' for Vladimir Putin, as influential Russians begin to turn on their leader." --Fazhbr (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Farage's opinion, as a relatively minor figure with no notable role in a tangentially related country, isn't WP:DUE here. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Farage is an irrelevance, so his opinions are not relevant to this article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)