User:RadioactiveBoulevardier/RS Prep for Infobox Novel Arguments

This page is a workspace to gather RS for novel arguments regarding the infamous Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, in a publicly visible and accountable space rather than a secret cabal.

Frankly, I’m surprised that this hasn’t been done yet. A long time has passed since the last discussion. A bulletproof argument based on copious RS and novel arguments other than “but they’re supplying arms!” (although, objectively speaking, other WP articles use that standard in analogous cases, this argument was declared “no consensus”) could be made to add the US and UK, at minimum, to the infobox, based on at least three documented activities:


 * Intelligence activities and sharing
 * Large-scale training activities
 * Purposeful intent to provide a large volume of support as part of a systematic, large-scale committed effort, communicated in unambiguous official statements

Obviously, one does not simply start a highly controversial discussion on a high-visibility talk page. So I’m waiting until I have a bit more headspace to gather sources. It might take weeks to get Real Life squared away to a sufficient extent.

Why it matters
The Encyclopedia has recently had a lot of EE-related attention in the public sphere over behavior in another topic area by some of the same users who have helped drive our less than encyclopedic coverage of RUSUKR (although it must be said that the most intense POV pushers have not, to my knowledge, been involved in the Polish Holocaust controversy).

I see partisanship over RUSUKR as a test case for future situations. It really isn’t about the ideological struggle currently being played out IRL, so much as whether, in general, overwhelming support for one side among the community of EC editors will leak into content.

''' Most importantly, it will set a significant precedent as to whether future controversies will be covered in an encyclopedic manner, or, heaven forbid, a journalistic one. ''' "One thing I am seeing is a perception that the zeitgeist is permission for Wiki [sic] to be openly partisan. Russia is doing enough to blackwash itself without Wiki needing to guild [sic] the lily. Taking a position that Wiki should be more circumspect will get one labelled as a Putinist."

–The well-known voice of reason, User:Cinderella157, on 29 March 2023

The Global South
The other issue is that a large percentage of the world (India, Africa, many MENA countries, South America, etc.) sees things a little differently. This needs to be given WP:DUE. I’ve seen editors make comments about the West and the Global South that, in another topic area, might have gotten them canceled.

This, too, is a test case for whether WP is committed to addressing Systemic bias. Myself, I lean toward pessimism that Wikipedia’s decentralized approach toward content production and revision, and our increasing trend toward a focus on disciplining behavior while allowing anarchy to spread

Selective coverage of subtopics
The sheer amount of characters devoted to the refugee crisis, relative to other comparable ones in non-white (there, I’ve said it) countries, concerns me. And the grain crisis doesn’t get enough prominence.

Intelligence cooperation
NYT coverage of US tactical intelligence sharing before and during fall 2022 counteroffensives:

International Committee of the Red Cross definition of "transmitting tactical targeting information for an attack" as constituting direct participation in hostilities:, p. 48

Purposeful support via large-scale arms supplies
Primary source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3408923/secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-and-joint-chiefs-of-staff-chairman-gene/ Secondary (Deutsche Welle): https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-war-right-to-self-defence/a-66420497
 * CJCS Milley: “[W]e are supporting and supplying and help training and advising and assisting Ukraine.”


 * UK "encouraging others to have greater political courage": https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna87362