en.wikipedia.org

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

  • ️Tue Nov 19 2024
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Reference desk.
Censorship warningWikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine, No consensus, 31 December 2022, discussion
  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), Procedural close (speedy), 18 January 2023, discussion
  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), Moved, 26 February 2023, discussion
  • RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moved, 14 March 2023, discussion
  • RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine, Not moved (speedy), 2 July 2023, discussion
  • RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine → Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), Not moved, 19 August 2024, discussion

Older discussions:

  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 26 February 2022, discussion
  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 28 February 2022, discussion
  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022), Not moved, 21 July 2022, discussion
  • RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 15 December 2022, discussion

The last RfCs on the topic were over two years ago:[1] [2] [3]

Question: Should countries be added as supporters of Ukraine to the infobox?

Option A: No.

Option B: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom, EU and NATO.

Option C: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom and individual countries as merited.

Option D: Something else. (please explain in the comments) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option B. While "supported by" is deprecated, exceptions can be made in case there is special/extraordinary/exceptional support that warrants inclusion.
WP:RS have called the support given to Ukraine "unprecedented". Checking the Cambridge dictionary, synonyms of "unpredecented" are exceptional, extraordinary, unique.[1] The Collins dictionary agrees with this, and also adds unusual and abnormal.[2] But not only is the support unprecedented, it is also "vital" and "critical".
  • For the United States:
"Since February 2022, the U.S. has provided an unprecedented amount of equipment to Ukraine."[3]
"the United States is providing Ukraine vital military assistance to defend itself"[4]
  • For the UK:
"the United Kingdom has provided unprecedented aid to Ukraine"[5]
"Ukraine and the United Kingdom have signed a new unprecedented security agreement."[6]
"Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position" on a trip to Kyiv where he signed a "landmark" 100-year pact with the war-stricken country."[7]
Some analysts have suggested that the war continued because of the actions of Boris Johnson.[8][9][10]
  • For the EU:
"The European Union (EU) and our 27 Member States remain united and determined in our unprecedented support for Ukraine."[11]
"The European Commission stands firm in its commitment and solidarity with Ukraine. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the EU and its Member States have mobilised unprecedented economic, humanitarian, and military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians"[12]
"This crucial funding will help Ukraine keep its administration running, pay salaries, pensions, and provide basic public services, as it continues to defend itself against Russia's aggression."[13]
  • For NATO:
"we need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs in terms of training, in terms of equipment, to prolong the fight and to prevail in this fight"[14]
"Mark Rutte branded Ukraine his "top priority" as he formally became NATO secretary-general at a ceremony in Brussels on Tuesday."[15]
"NATO's secretary-general said he wants to discuss ways to put Ukraine in a position of strength for any future peace talks with Russia"[16][17]
"Rutte praised Ukraine's resilience in the face of Russia's military onslaught, emphasizing the alliance's resolve to ensure Ukraine prevails."[18]
  • The scope of the assistance to Ukraine:
70% of weapons Ukraine used in 2024 came from abroad, ~30% from EU, ~40% from US.[19][20]
"The document noted that a record influx of foreign aid in December allowed Ukraine to cover state budget expenditures"[21]
"More than 100,000 servicemen of the Ukrainian Defense Forces have already been trained in the territory of partner countries, says Deputy Chief of the Main Department of Doctrine and Training of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Yevhen Mezhevikin"[22][23]
"Ukraine's allies were preparing for a lengthy conflict."[24]
"Austin announced the creation of a standing Ukraine-focused "contact group""[25]
According to Wikipedia "By March 2024, mostly Western governments had pledged more than $380 billion worth of aid to Ukraine since the invasion"
For context/comparison, the value of lend-lease assistance given to the Soviet Union was $180 billion (in today's dollars).[26]
EDIT: I'd like to address the two arguments that seem to be against inclusion: 1) "The Supported by is deprecated" - That may be so, but "Supported by" exists in the infobox already, it is against WP:NPOV to include it for one side but not the other; 2) "addition requires there to be special/exceptional circumstances" - Please read my comment above, because WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", which satisfies the exceptional requirement. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as nothing has changed, and Russia was a beligerant in WW2, so its not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years ago you were in support, to quote you: "I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is.[27] Wikipedia doesn't exist to make Russia, or any country for that matter, look bad. Please consult WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct the one thing that has changed is we now deprecated "supported" in fnfoboxes, what I meant is that nothing has changed to overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed adding them as a beligerant at that time, and only supported "support" if we added it, we did not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that blogs and forums are not RS. Also why not all aid, why not Poland or Iran? In addition, Belraus in fact was used in the invasion, which is why its included, because it sits between support and beligerant. As (as pointed out is every RFC about this, and Belraus and North Korea) how do we determine what is and is not significant aid (we go back to Iran, lets add china)? No new arguments have been presented from the last time this was raised. Nothing has changed on the ground. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Note that blogs and forums are not RS."
    There are 27+ links, to which are you referring?
    "how do we determine what is and is not significant aid"
    We go by what WP:RS say. WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", "vital", "critical", "crucial", and so on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These do not all mean significant, I can give an unprecedented amount, that would not however be significant. How about vital [[4]], so again why not add China? Or "comprehensive strategic partnership” [[5]] so why not Iran? This is the point, where do we draw the line, or do we end up with a bloated info box, Poland, Germany, France? It will be a mess. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first link [6] talks about China as a "vital [economic] partner" as the article states that China has not given any weapons to Russia. Your 2nd link [7] talks about Russia purchasing weapons from Iran and the article is mostly about Syria, rather than the conflict in Ukraine.
    There are WP:RS calling the military assistance to Ukraine significant or significantly increased, however:
    "Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, bilateral military assistance has been significantly stepped up"[28]
    "Over the course of 2023, European allies and partner countries have significantly increased their investments in assistance to Ukraine," and "European countries have significantly increased the pace of security assistance to Ukraine in 2023, spending nearly the same amount on security assistance in just the first six months of this year as they did during all of 2022."[29]
    "the United States is sending Ukraine a significant new package of urgently needed weapons and equipment to support the Ukrainian military"[30] TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Option B is not valid in any case given that Nato, EU are no countries (and overlap) and in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't) or that the organisations do (they do not as they do not have much own budget but rely on member states). Option C would be a nightmare as the word "merit" would lead to endless (my country does, does not contribute, my country contributes X% of GDP, but my country does more monetary value.... etc etc ) debates. In any case if we were to include weapons supplies as support than we should also expand the Russian supporter sides with each and every country that supplies weapons (and possibly even all those that help Russia evade UN sanctions), which would create yet another endless discussion stream. Arnoutf (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't)"
    That can be explained with a footnote.
    "In any case if we were to include weapons supplies"
    It is much more than weapons supplies.[31]
    "From 2014 to 2022, the US employed a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to support Ukraine, encompassing humanitarian, judicial, economic, and security sector assistance. For security and defense, the US leveraged a diverse array of tools, including the European Deterrence Initiative (formerly the European Reassurance Initiative), USAI, the Global Security Contingency Fund, FMS, FMF, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs."[32]
    There is also sharing of intelligence between US, NATO and Ukraine.
    "The United States provides some intelligence to Ukraine on Russian forces in Russia,"[33]
    "Indeed, in Ukraine the United States has gone particularly far in bilateral intelligence sharing—a level of exchanges associated more closely with the Five Eyes countries or Israel—while Ukraine remained somewhat guarded in its disclosures. Nevertheless, the course of war during 2022 has revealed other information domain aspects where U.S. —and international—assistance has proved significant."[34]
    "American and British intelligence disclosures in the prelude to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine were at an "unprecedented scale", according to some observers." and "When Putin decided to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO was unified, and in that sense, the Anglo-American campaign was successful in rallying Allies."[35]
    Do you have a source saying the support for Ukraine is "just weapons"? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes would bloat it all and that is what I try to avoid. And no I do not have a source just weapons (also there is military training), just as much as you have no sources that Mars aliens do not support Russia. It is unlikely that there are sources for all things that do not happen. Arnoutf (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Support Option B There's no good reason to include Belarus but not the US. It's frankly intelligence-insulting to neutral readers. JDiala (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many Ukranian attacks on Russian territory were launched from US soil? If that number=0 there is your good reason (There is plenty of evidence Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory were launched from Belarus soil). Arnoutf (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is intelligence-insulting stuff. Everyone knows the US is far more intimately involved in the conflict than Belarus is.JDiala (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Supplying weapons is not the same as active combat.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just allow, people to say their point,. and then we say ours, and not turn this into a huge tit for tat argument. someone has to read this and make a choice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • A/No. - I don't believe anything has changed since the last RfCs, besides North Korea's direct involvement in combat operations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - We've been through an entire cycle of removing information that needs caveating from the infobox. Let's not reverse that work - the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how concerns of peripherality arise for NATO but not NK/Belarus. Serious NPOV concerns here. JDiala (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're so concerned about NPOV, how come whenever these expand infobox suggestions come up it is always just add ″NATO″, interestingly never accompanied by also adding countries aiding Russia like Iran and China. For whatever reason, the expansion is only desired if it means Ukraine having more support added, and this desire only seems to have grown more desperate since another belligerent actually joined the war with thousands of boots on the ground, except it was on Russia's side. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Iran's and China's material involvement in the war allegedly in support of Russia is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the United States support of Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's laughable to claim the entirety of NATO, including countries like Hungary and Slovakia, are Ukraine supporters. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I am coming round to the point of view of removing Belarus too. I understand the POV that Belarus's involvement is special, since the invasion was launched from Belarussian territory and so-forth, but I would like to see whether e.g., academic analysts treat it that way.
    Too often on Wiki we have essentially editor-created standards for things that should necessarily be decided by reference to reliable sources. Reliable sources are very clear about Russia and North Korea's involvement in this conflict, less so about Belarus. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option B. Giving 100's of billions in military aid is strong support. China/Iran seem to be willing to sell weapons to Russia but they don't give Russia 100's of billions for free. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (Summoned by bot) per arguments of Arnoutf and FOARP. 'Belligerents' has a fairly precise meaning which should not be muddied IMO. It's questionable whether Belarus should be included IMO, since allowing access to one's territory is still fairly passive involvement and does not constitute 'boots on the ground' or 'pilots in the sky', which constitute active involvement of one's troops. I don't see a reason to alter the norm here the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral per FOARP.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood the RfC. The RfC isn't asking whether to add "belligerents", but whether the support given to Ukraine warrants an exception to the deprecation of the "Supported by" heading. Editors have agreed that Belarus has provided significant, exceptional support to Russia and therefore is included as a supporting country to the infobox. This RfC is asking if an exception should be made to add other countries to the infobox as well. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it perfectly well, "supported by" is a sub-heading within "belligerents". I'm saying that for many reasons the box should not have that sub-heading. There are sound reasons for it having largely been dropped. It muddies the waters IMO and leads to endless discussion/dispute about the level and kind of support needed for inclusion. Clearly Ukraine is receiving massive diplomatic and material support and that should be recorded in text, but IMO not in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete - I too am coming round to the idea that Belarus should probably be removed, though this is a separate disucssion. Their position in this war is ~not entirely dissimilar~ to that of Sweden in WW2, and we never chose to include Sweden as a "support" or whatever. In an article about a war, only the actual belligerents should be included, which in this case is Russia and North Korea on one side, and Ukraine on the other. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A The Support field is poorly named. The issue is that 'Support' is a vague term, what level of support is 'Support'? What supportive actions constitute 'Support'? Would a loan on favourable terms be enough, unrestricted access to buy military equipment from the companies in a certain country, what if a country allowed private companies in its territory to train soldiers, what about something like Lend-Lease? These are all rhetorical questions, but it shows how complicated it would all become. The deprecation of 'Supported by' was meant to stop this, I don't see why it should be resurrected here. If the European countries (not EU as not all EU countries support Ukraine) allow Ukraine troops to invade St. Petersburg from Estonia, or there are reliable reports of those countries troops being on the front line, then there would be reason for a change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also EU has no military, almost no foreign policy (except on trade and general matters). Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. Defence forces of the European Union TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complicated topic area, but these are not an EU army per se. Instead they are essentially EU-authorised groupings to which member-states provide personnel and equipment. The situation is similar to UN forces - there are UN forces set up by UN member states, but there is not a UN army per se. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UN is listed as a belligerent in the Korean War despite not having an army per se. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is defensible given the specific context of the Korean war (i.e., all forces fighting under a unified UN command authorised by the UN security council) and is backed up by how the conflict is described in reliable sources (see, e.g., Britannica: "The United Nations, with the United States as the principal participant, joined the war on the side of the South Koreans"). No reliable source describes the EU as a beligerent in the Ukraine war. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't saying EU is a belligerent in the Ukraine War in the same way UN was in the Korean War, I am pointing out that "not having an army per se" doesn't preclude a party from being included in the infobox. Another example is the DPR and LPR, many editors have argued that the two aren't a recognised State/sovereign entity, yet they are present in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that if you want to discuss this further that the two of you moved it to a discussion section, or under your own comments? This doesn't have anything to do with my comment, only Pincrete's reply to my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (no). There were several RfCs on this page about it (here, here, here and more). All arguments are there. Nothing has changed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (oppose) nothing has changed since the last RFC—blindlynx
  • Option A The only thing that has changed since the last RfC is that North Korea has joined the war as an actual belligerent on Russia's side, unsure how that would translate to support being added for Ukraine, since NATO/Western/US/Japanese and whatever else is constantly being shouted about on this talk page reaction has been lukewarm. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The US and other Ukrainian allies have specifically and deliberately avoided actions that would classify them as belligerents in the war. Their support should be noted in a foot note since it is important to both the conduct and understanding of the war but they shouldn't be listed as supporters in the Infobox itself. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: I'm sympathetic to the arguments above that "support" is vague and that the supporters section of the infobox has been deprecated, and therefore should not be used. But we currently, on this page, are using it. I don't think that the support Belarus has given Russia is more exceptional than the support the US and NATO have given Ukraine. Either limit the infobox to belligerents or don't, but don't half-ass it, because that's far more deceptive than either option. Loki (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support removing Belarus. The reasoning for including them was basically OR (i.e., "this is my own interpretation of the facts, which is why they should be included as X"). Clearly they are a particularly important country supporting Russia, clearly launching an invasion from Belarus makes them way more complicit in this war than any country that isn't already listed as fighting on Russia's side, but that doesn't make them a belligerent. But none of this justifies including them in an infobox that really should only list actual belligerent states, which Belarus still isn't. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Pincrete (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you start an RfC on removing Belarus, I will support it, for the sake of consistency. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I don't think that the magnitude of arms supply is a useful benchmark, but rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war, even if the magnitude is unprecedented. A billion dollars in military gear would make a much bigger difference to Bob's Neighborhood Guerrillas than to Ukraine. And I think the effect of foreign arms supply in this war isn't much different than in other wars with other suppliers — there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments Placeholderer (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war"
    70% of weapons used by Ukraine came from foreign aid, this is according to Zelenskyy himself. I think it is safe to assume that the war wouldn't continue without foreign military support. That is quite significant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean to say is that the thing that is described as unprecedented is the quantity of support, not the effect of the support, and that the effect of the support is not unprecedented Placeholderer (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the effect of the support is not unprecedented"
    I can't think of another war between two countries that continued because one side received enough military support to fight the war.
    "there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments"
    Do you have some examples? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the mujahideen and Hezbollah Placeholderer (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are countries, the situation is a bit different. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, but there are some (maybe less explicit) examples, like Israel or the Allies before US entry. Heck, throw the US in there.
    There are also territory-holding pseudo-states like the Houthis or Rojava. Some, like Abkhazia/South Ossetia or Idlib, end up blurring the line between country and non-country Placeholderer (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't mean to assert that each one of these examples would've lost a war if not for foreign "support", I just mean to give a general sense that military dependency has been a thing Placeholderer (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Abkhazia/South Ossetia article there is a "Supported by" heading in the infobox. It makes me wonder if "Supported by" was deprecated just so that NATO countries wouldn't have to be included in the infobox of this article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it pre-dates the deprecation in that infobox and didn't get updated — could be worth changing after this. Infoboxes where "Supported by" got removed explicitly because of the deprecation include Sudanese civil war (2023–present) and The Troubles Placeholderer (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option A: No YBSOne (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) lists no supporters War in Abkhazia (1998) it was added today (How odd). Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add "See {{sectionlink|Support for Ukraine}}". Per WP:Infobox the Infobox should summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article, and we have a whole section on support for Ukraine. This solves the issue of arbitrarily determining which countries to include, and is consistent with how we deal with the aftermath parameter when the situation is too complex to essentialise. Also, leaving the parameter empty gives the reader a false impression. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't intend to change anyone's mind with this, but I do have some last thoughts on this prompted by recent statements by Zelenskyy.

On February 14 Zelenskyy, the current president of Ukraine, said that without US support Ukraine would have low chance of survival[36]/probably can't survive[37], that they would last "six months"[38].

In the discussion that deprecated the "Supported by" section the closer wrote: "However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes, with even some supporters of this proposal noting that in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted." "However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article."

Regarding this conflict, we have a situation where the leader of one of the parties in the conflict is saying the US support is necessary, the former president of the US Biden stated "it has been a top priority of my Administration to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to prevail."[39], we have WP:RS calling the support provided by the US "crucial", "critical", "unwavering". The total aid given to Ukraine by US and its allies is described by WP:RS as "unprecedented".

In addition to providing support to Ukraine, the US has sanctioned companies that aid the Russian war effort. The former US Treasury Secretary saying explicitly the sanctions aim to "further diminish and degrade Russia's war machine" and that they will "continue to take decisive steps against any financial channels Russia uses to support its illegal and unprovoked war in Ukraine."[40]

Is the vagueness of the infobox policy to blame?

We have a case where a country is both supporting one party to the conflict and actively taking measures against the other party in the conflict. I think this is definitely a case where an exception to the amended infobox policy is warranted. If this doesn't justify inclusion, then the question is, what does? But that's a discussion for another place and another time. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason for deprecating "Supported by" was to make policy less vague, since if all notable support is included there's no good way to distinguish what constitutes "support". I think the way to keep policy as clear as possible is to reduce the use of "Supported by" as much as possible. The question of "If this doesn't justify inclusion...what does?" is very relevant here—Belarus was included because people (not including me) decided that use of territory was a difference in kind from other forms of support, while not rising to belligerence Placeholderer (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"people (not including me) decided that use of territory was a difference in kind from other forms of support"
Yes, and that decision was based on what individual editors think, rather than on any WP:RS or anything verifiable. It is an arbitrary decision, because the support Ukraine received from US and other countries has helped Ukraine magnitudes more than Belarus has helped Russia in the initial invasion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were RS used in the discussion, some of which (including the ISW) call Belarus a co-belligerent, etc.
But we digress Placeholderer (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before. The inclusion of Belarus was probably warranted early 2022 as the use of its territory allowed the direct surge towards Kyiv. At that time that support may have been major. However, in the (now sadly 3 years of war) the relevance of that initial support is getting less and less important. Therefor I would argue that in the larger scope of things removal of Belarus is a relevant consideration. I would not promote adding all countries that either financially, through measures, or through statements have supported either party as that would become an endless list. Arnoutf (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about my proposal above? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think if we link to Ukraine support in that way we might need to link to Russian support as well Placeholderer (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/unprecedented
  2. ^ https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/unprecedented
  3. ^ https://www.gao.gov/blog/ukraine-aid-important-so-oversight-funding-and-assistance
  4. ^ https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/use-of-presidential-drawdown-authority-for-military-assistance-for-ukraine
  5. ^ https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3856626-britains-aid-to-ukraine-already-over-25b.html
  6. ^ https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-velika-britaniya-uklali-bezprecedentnu-bezpekovu-88281
  7. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgem31jekvo
  8. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia
  9. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/ukraine-war-could-have-ended-in-2022-if-it-wasn-t-for-boris-johnson-russian-ambassador/3414740
  10. ^ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
  11. ^ https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
  12. ^ https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-reaffirms-support-ukraine-and-its-people-after-1000-days-war-2024-11-19_en
  13. ^ https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-leaders-agree-eu50-billion-reliable-financial-support-ukraine-until-2027-2024-02-02_en
  14. ^ https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_232051.htm
  15. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/1/rutte-declares-ukraine-top-priority-as-he-takes-over-as-nato-head
  16. ^ https://www.voanews.com/a/nato-chief-aims-to-put-ukraine-in-position-of-strength-for-peace-talks-with-russia/7906333.html
  17. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/18/nato-wants-to-put-ukraine-in-a-position-of-strength-for-any-russia-peace-talks
  18. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-for-allowing-ukraine-to-use-western-weapons-without-restrictions/3397692
  19. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/30-percent-military-equipment-ukraine-used-2024-made-domestically-zelenskyy-2025-1
  20. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/zelenskyy-names-percentage-of-weapons-from-1736977398.html
  21. ^ https://menafn.com/1109066301/Ukraines-Budget-Deficit-Widens-To-42-Billion-In-2024
  22. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/number-of-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-abroad-1729346310.html
  23. ^ https://kyivindependent.com/general-staff-over-100-000-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-in-partner-countries/
  24. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-russia-united-states-defense-consultative-group/
  25. ^ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/26/us-allies-to-meet-monthly-on-ukraine-defense-needs/
  26. ^ https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/
  27. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_8#c-Slatersteven-2022-04-27T15:59:00.000Z-Mindaur-2022-04-27T15:21:00.000Z
  28. ^ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
  29. ^ https://www.usglc.org/the-importance-of-u-s-assistance-to-ukraine/
  30. ^ https://ua.usembassy.gov/united-states-announces-significant-new-military-assistance-for-ukraine/
  31. ^ https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2025/january/6/us-support-for-ukraine-a-critical-lifeline-for-ukraine-an-opportunity-for-us-business
  32. ^ https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/between-now-and-nato-a-security-strategy-for-ukraine/
  33. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/politics/ukraine-intelligence-russia-targets.html
  34. ^ https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/us-assistance-ukraine-information-space-intelligence-cyber-and-signaling
  35. ^ https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/12/16/intelligence-disclosure-as-a-strategic-messaging-tool/index.html
  36. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250215-ukraine-will-have-low-chance-of-surviving-without-us-support-zelensky-says
  37. ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14/ukraine-us-help-zelenskyy-00204487
  38. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/17/we-will-last-six-months-if-trump-pulls-us-military-aid-from-ukraine
  39. ^ https://it.usembassy.gov/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-u-s-support-for-ukraine/
  40. ^ https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2725

The war has been going on for nearly three years and is way past the invasion stage. Still, the article name hasn't been changed to Russo-Ukrainian War to reflect that. This has lead to inaccuracies like North Koreans being listed as belligerents in the invasion, even though they are only participating in the reconquest of the Sudzhansky District, Kursk Oblast, Russia, or related articles having to contain strange phrases like:

On 6 August 2024, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

instead of the more readable (and sensible)

On 6 August 2024, during the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

On top of that, the article for the broader conflict holds the name this page should have. (I may add that it's very unusual for conflicts with ceasefire phases in-between to still be referred to as "wars". In most cases, they are simply called "conflicts".)

Therefore, I suggest, renaming Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict and splitting this article into Russo-Ukrainian War which covers the entire war and (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine (with or without the year) which just covers the invasion phase, the first three months.

(The fact that the article name isn't WP:COMMONNAME compliant, either, has already been highlighted enough. So, I won't go into that.)

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 23:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. You need some clear way to distinguish the events of 2014-2022 with those of 2022-. Not sure about the COMMONNAME situation, but COMMONNAME can be disregarded on grounds of ambiguity or naturalness concerns which I think apply here. The invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia is really the defining feature of this war. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 Annexation of Crimea was a covert invasion of Crimea that saw little fighting and had concluded after about one month.
The 2014-15 War in Donbass was a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine, that lasted about a year and ended with Minsk II agreement. There were smaller skirmishes later, but they were not part of the main war. Compare with Armenian-Azeri skirmishes after the first war ⇾ those didn't extend the war. Similarly, the 2014 Gaza war is distinct from the 2023–present Gaza war, even though there were skirmishes in 2018, 2019 and 2021. (Wikipedia is also unique here in insisting that the Donbass war lasted 8 years.)
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War started in February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
All together are the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THIS. THIS. THIS. (More or less). 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:CC79:793D:B460:23D3 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely support your proposal. When it comes to the period 2022–2025, "war" is definitely the common name, compared to "invasion", which continues to be used less and less over time. Indeed, "invasion" does not seem to be an appropriate term to describe what is going on now, especially with prolonged combat within Russian territory, as you note.
I agree that the end of Russian operations in northern Ukraine in April 2022, which represent the end of their attempts to capture Ukraine's capital, would be an appropriate cutoff point for the "invasion" period, unless a more appropriate date emerges through careful analysis of use of terminology by reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and is ongoing. That is the scope of the article. The Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022 marked a new phase in the ongoing war. That is the scope of this article. It is neither anomalous nor surprising that the events since 2022 are also referred to as a war since they are part of the ongoing war. Retitling Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict would be an artificial distinction contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. These other conflicts are a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which is only valid if they represent best practice and are directly comparable. At this point, I see no good reason for change. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying the Iraq War already started in 1990 because of the Gulf War.
    The 2014 Annexation of Crimea and the 2014-15 War In Donbass, as well as subsequent skirmishes, are distinct from the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    Only Ukrainians insist that it's the same war (for whatever reason).
    ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Cinderella157, we've discussed this over on the Russo-Ukrainian War talk page, but I think it's clear that most reliable, independent sources no longer follow the POV that the post-2022 phase was simply an escalation in a war that began in 2014. Instead, the majority of high-quality, reliable, independent news media sources have switched their coverage of the post-2022 conflict to "Russia-Ukraine War" (or similar), reported 24 February 2024 as the "second anniversary of the war" (or similar), and reported 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war" (or similar).
    Additionally, academic analysis of the conflict tends to refer to is as the "Russia-Ukraine war" (or similar) using a formula of pre-24 February 2022 as "pre-war" and post 24 February 2022 as "during the war". This is particularly seen in statistical analysis (e.g., medical, economic, scientific, or environmental) where accurately defining a start-date to the conflict they are covering is important. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is true that there were a thousand days of warring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this make a good headline for NEWSORG sources. But NEWSPORG sources live in the present for the next story. I don't think they are a good basis for renaming an article such as this. I doubt they gave much consideration (if any) to how we name the post 2022 events and the 2014 to 2022 events. For this, we should be making an objective survey of good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming. The sources added here do not represent such a survey. If there is no clear consensus, then there is no clear reason to rename these. What we call these articles is much less important than the quality of the content within the scope as defined by the lead. Do we really need to change these titles? Arguably not unless there is a substantial benefit. It is clear that these articles can be easily found. At the time, I would have preferred that Russo-Ukraine War covered the events pre 2022 and Russian invasion of Ukraine covered the events subsequent in much the way that War in Donbas ceases at the time of the invasion. That way, Russo-Ukraine War would have remained relatively stable and complete. It would still be a much better approach. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the academic source describing post-24 February 2022 as “during the war” and pre-24 February 2022 as “pre-war” are pretty clear here as what those period should be described as. It’s certainly true that the way in which we cover these two topics has been decided in a way that probably made sense in February 2022 but makes much less sense now. The present war is undeniably the WP:PRIMARY topic for “Russia-Ukraine War” or similar, not the earlier Donbas war. FOARP (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be missing the point I was making. We are not going to rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian pre-war. We need to look at good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming [both events]. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing that move. I am saying that these sources do not consider there to have been a war pre-24 February 2022 in the sense that there was after 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times - "Russia Ukraine War" (paging laboriously through this archive it appears to start in 2022 - for some reason they won't just let you input a page number in the URL)
  • The New York Times - "Russia-Ukraine War" (the earliest article under this heading was 20 July 2023, and therefore it has only been used about the present war, not the conflict 2014-2022).
  • The Guardian - Now using "Russia-Ukraine War" in headlines, though the section is called "Ukraine war". States that this is the section about the conflict starting in 2022, coverage began in January 2022 and was originally called "Ukraine Crisis".
  • BBC - Uses "War in Ukraine", paging back to the earliest page in the archive this section started in 2022. Looking at archived pages from 2015 (e.g., this one) the pre-2022 fighting was typically referred to as "Ukraine crisis".
  • The Telegraph - the URL and section-name (you have to scroll to the bottom to see this) is "Russia-Ukraine War". Paging through to the earliest page - page 285 - this section began in early 2022.
  • Associated Press - Russia-Ukraine War.
  • Britannica - "Russia-Ukraine War" (2022-), though the article is a bit of a mess frankly.
What we can see from the above is that reliable sources are no longer using the name "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the conflict beginning in 2022. Whatever else might be the case, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common name for the present conflict, nor can it really be defended as a descriptive title now either since the conflict has long-since spread outside the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine (e.g., conflict in the Black Sea, fighting in Kursk).
Additionally, the idea that the present conflict was simply an escalation of the conflict beginning in 2014, is not supported by these sources. Instead, whilst the above sources began their coverage in early 2022 with names like "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine escalation", they are now coalescing around the name "Russia-Ukraine War" for the conflict beginning in 2022.
It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict (though "Donbas war" or similar were more common), but we can now see that this has changed and when sources refer to "Russia-Ukraine War", they are talking about the conflict starting in 2022, and they do not include the pre-2022 fighting as part of the same war.
This was also made very clear in the widely-reported 1,000-day length of the war, which only happened recently if you consider the present war to have begun on 24 February 2022:
For this reason I favour moving this article to either "Russia-Ukraine War" (first choice) or "Russo-Ukrainian War" (second choice), and moving the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian War to a different title such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common, especially in non-Ukrainian sources. [10] [11] [12] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Ukrainian POV should be discounted just because it is Ukrainian, but the governing consideration when deciding a page-title is how it is described by reliable sources *in English*. In English it appears that most sources typically refer to the war that began on 24 February 2024 2022 with Russia's full-scale and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, as a separate war to that which came before. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that FOARP is referring to the date 24 February 2022. If that is the case then I agree with what FOARP is saying. BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, thanks for the correction - yes I mean 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I fully agree with your reasoning; the Ukrainian PoV should not be discounted, but all I'm saying is that Ukrainian sources would have been more likely to use the term "war" in 2014 than Western sources may have. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common
We need to analyze the situation as of today, not in 2014–15.A quick look at Scholar gives "2014 war" "2014 war" Ukraine - Google Scholar about 2 times advantage against "conflict" "2014 conflict" Ukraine - Google Scholar. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert - Unfortunately, due to (completely unwanted) changes in the Google algorithm you can no longer rely on Google to provide accurate counts for the number of results that use a particular phrase. Have a look at the results you're getting in your search - they include hits that do not include the phrase "2014 war" at all (e.g., the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war). Additionally many of these hits are mentioning the 2014 war in Gaza (e.g., this, this, and this). FOARP (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war
There are deficiencies in this quick approach. But we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict", given there are solid sources naming it "war".Also, your source still refers to it as "2014 Russo-Ukrainian war". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict" - 1) Why not? As we've discussed a Ghits search is no longer reliable enough to show what the common name is, 2) We have a separate article about the 2014 war - War in Donbas, 3) as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war". FOARP (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war".
This is not how you show "overwhelmingly".
ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing books and articles published in 2015 (Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine), January 2022 (Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War), 2019 (Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine), 2015 (Hiding in Plain Sight), 2016 (The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine), 2016 again (Journalism in the Crossfire), 2017 (Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine), and 2020 (Energy Resources and Markets).
I think we all can agree that none of these sources seriously impacts the present discussion, which is about what the common-name is for this topic which did not exist until February 2022 is in 2025. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
Well, we still need to show a preference in some stats, not just collect a list of preference of ours. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no? Were there other broadsheet newspapers/magazines or high-quality broadcasters I should have included? Maybe Newsweek, the Economist, the LA Times, the Globe and Mail, NBC, CBC? Who else? Because I don't think there's many I missed in this review.
Saying "the sources have to be academic" is not supported by WP:NEWSORG because an ongoing war is not primarily an academic topic, but even with this standard the best that can be said is that academia is equivocal on the topic (honestly I think they're pretty clear on 24 February 2022 as the start of the war actually) so the overwhelming preference of high-quality reliable news media for this being a war that began on 24 February 2022 should be decisive. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no?
It's just the list of your preference, not the preferred wording of a whole set of sources.And again, we should give preference to academic sources - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources WP:SOURCETYPES. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s just a list of my preference, then which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include? Tell me and the odds are I will find an article where they refer to 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include?
You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources, or in a significant and representable set of all the reliable sources.Or, to show how the reliable sources say the subject should be called. And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war" - Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Manyareasexpert-20250122112800-FOARP-20250122112500 ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources" - I analysed in all of the high-quality broadsheets and broadcasters that I am aware of - and they *OVERWHELMINGLY* cite 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. Which did I miss?
"And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war"" - all of them predating 2022 or doing so in a way that made it clear they were arguing against a perceived consensus. And even with that, we have an article about the War in Donbas that will remain where it is. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard no. Renaming it as per your suggestion would severely compromise the neutrality of this article by suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are both equally responsible for this war taking place. This war is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, hence the title of this article. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any reasonable reader thinks the name Sino-Japanese War means that China and Japan were both equally responsible, or that the name Iraq War means that Iraq just happened to start a war with itself. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME of conflicts. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the Sino-Japanese War means that China is also responsible? Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, rational readers will analyze which side launched the aggression and for what purpose, and will not think that it is black and white. At present, the attitude of the United States has also changed drastically, and the war in the Gaza Strip at the same time is indeed a neutral name. The name of the Russian-Ukrainian war should also be changed. Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree on that. As I've already explained before, a distinction should be made between direct military engagment between the regular armies of Russia and Ukraine and other types of military campaigns/proxy wars/covert incursions etc. Rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict (ongoing since 2014 even in the event of a coming ceasefire), split Russian invasion of Ukraine into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February-April 2022, ended with Russian strategical failure to take Kyiv and them focusing on a positional war in southeast Ukraine) and Russo-Ukrainian War (24 February 2022-present; since August 2024 Kursk incursion by the Ukrainian Army technically it makes less sense to call it a Russian invasion anymore) CapLiber (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long list of high-quality media sources referring to 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war"
Long list of academic sources defining the start of the war as 24 February 2022

FOARP (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
    We need to find an adequate naming for both then.The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
    ... I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. Two sets of agreements, called Minsk I and Minsk II, ended that stage of the war in diplomatic terms a year later, in February 2015. Nevertheless, an undeclared war involving shelling and shooting across the demarca- tion line in Ukraine’s Donbas region continued for the next seven years, killing more than 14,000 Ukrainians but attracting little international attention. That phase ended with Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Minsk agreements and the start of its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only one source; WP:COMMONNAME or even simply the "correct" name is not determined by one source, even if the author states his opinion very strongly. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Serhii Plokhy and bought that book when it came out. However, this is Wikipedia, not Plokhypedia. As even Plokhy admits, this is is strictly his own interpretation. This is also a source that was originally published in May 2023 and would have been written in 2022, so we can ask if Plokhy's view is prevailing in 2025 - based on my review of high quality sourcing I don't think so. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know there are more sources for that. See Google Scholar search above, which, while not perfect, do not favor "conflict" term.Russia's Overlooked Invasion - Google Books
    The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As is hinted at even by the title ("overlooked"), Jakob Hauter's book explicitly states that it is against what they believe the consensus to be:

Extended content

The war in Ukraine did not start on 24 February 2022. It began eight years earlier in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region. In his new book, Jakob Hauter investigates the escalation of violence in the spring and summer of 2014. He demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the pre-2022 conflict was not a civil war. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian invasion since the armed conflict's very beginning.

There is of course nothing wrong with arguing against a perceived academic consensus, and Hauter's work (a review of open-source documents available on the internet) is surely a valuable contribution, but it is not evidence of what the consensus is right now.
You see something similar in Fedorchak's book - he openly acknowledges that he is arguing against a consensus when he identifies 2014 as the start of the conflict ("In the perception of the global audience... the common perception..."). FOARP (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not substituting "popular belief" and "common perception" with "academic consensus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely are not taking pieces where it is clear that the author is arguing their opinion against what they perceive as a consensus, as evidence of what the academic consensus is though.
And this is all setting aside the easy-to-demonstrate tendency of media *AND* academia to define 24 February 2022 as the start of the war.
I'm happy to set aside this discussion until the 24th of next months when the media, think-tanks, politicians, and academics will again overwhelmingly herald an anniversary of this war. If they don't that will be evidence that you are correct - but do you really think that is likely? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
an anniversary of this war
This is not an argument to rename the 2014 war as "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone proposing renaming War in Donbas? FOARP (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Russo-Ukrainian War started with the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Russo-Ukrainian war article covers both the 2014–2022 war in Donbass and the 2022–2025 war in Ukraine, in addition to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2018 Kerch Strait incident.
One interpretation holds that this series of events constitutes ten (soon eleven) years of war. Another interpretation holds that the 2014–2022 events in Donbass and the 2022–2025 events throughout Ukraine constitute two separate wars. I would argue that these two framings are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not necessarily need to embrace one and reject the other, acknowledging that both interpretations have their merits, as well as their passionate adherents.
The main issue at hand in this talk page discussion is that a growing consensus of editors regard Russian invasion of Ukraine to be an unacceptable title for an article covering the events from 2022 to 2025. The debate over the future title of Russo-Ukrainian war is secondary, and can be resolved in a number of ways that do not entirely reject the "ten years of war" interpretation. One potential compromise, though it would be confusing, is:
Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–present)
Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
There is also the option of shortening the scope of the former article:
Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–2022)
Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd welcome any of these as an improvement. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through all the previous comments, I should also note that I share your preference of "Russia–Ukraine" over "Russo–Ukrainian" per WP:COMMONNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also raise WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here: the conflict that began on 24 February 2022 is inarguably the primary topic for "Russia-Ukraine war"/"Russo-Ukrainian war", not the invasion of Crimea, nor the Donbass war, nor an over-arching conflict beginning on 26-27 February 2014 (or earlier). To see, this, the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Crimea last year was barely noted in IRS news media, but the second anniversary of 24 February 2022 and 1000th day since then were widely marked. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in to this discussion to say that I'd support renaming this article to "Russia–Ukraine war" (I don't think "Russo-Ukrainian" is adequately supported in COMMONNAME; those combining forms of country names have largely faded out of modern English). For the overarching conflict beginning in 2014, I think "Russia–Ukraine conflict" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" works best, I have no preference for "Russia" or "Russo" in that case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to repost a statement I made a month ago on this
☁ TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it got deleted, but TLDR "Look at how we sort Japan's invasions in the 1930s, look at Nagorno Karabakh, look at Sudan, thank you" TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have supported this proposal for years, but it has consistently been shot down by editors who support the status quo. For that reason I recommend that, as this move will affect two highly visible pages, an RFCBEFORE should be followed (like this), to gather sources that support this move. It should be an easy job, since few sources support the current title. Once an RM is opened, I will enthusiastically support. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is basically a WP:BEFORERFC anyway, since it is not a properly-formatted RM discussion. I've found it useful because when you dig in to the sources they're very clear: the topic of this article is a war that began on 24 February 2022. at this point, here in 2025, it is neither strictly accurate, nor does it represent the common name of this conflict, to call it simply Russian invasion of Ukraine. EDIT: if, as seems likely, this discussion is archived without action, I will - if everyone is OK with this - open a proper WP:BEFORERFC on this after 24 February 2025, which I expect to be widely reported as "the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, we should have 3 articles.
    One for the overarching conflict from start to present, including the long frozen conflict period.
    One for the initial 'limited war', far less involved in scope than the 2022-present conflict, but still notably hotter and more intensive than the frozen period(Feb 2014-Feb 2015, the Ukraine equivalent of Japan invading Manchuria)
    One for the full blown, full scale, war, which started 3 years ago. This one. This one should be Russo-Ukrainian War. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You (the OP) are correct, of course. Russo-Ukrainian War was invented purely by accident, by Wikipedians. It used to be a conflict article, with annual RMs to extend the date. Some years before this invasion, it was renamed in participation of like 3 editors. The title and the idea that there has been a standing state of war since 2014 to 2024 was complete fiction. It's incredible that article has survived with that title so long. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my understanding of the timeline of events (feel free to correct if I'm wrong): Prior to Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, there was a Russo-Ukrainian war article that focused on conflicts such as how Russia took over Crimea, and "civil war" that took place in Luhansk and Donetsk. Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, which led to the formation of this article. After Russia failed to capture Kiev, Ukraine began counter-offensives that pushed Russian forces east of the Dnieper River. After that, Ukrainian began counter-offensives in Fall 2022 such as in Kherson and Kharkiv, taking back parts of those oblasts. After reaching success in this, Ukraine executed the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive to take back the remainder of Russian-occupied areas. However, that ended in "operational failure" (to quote the article), and Russian forces continued pushing to capture the rest of the territory that had been annexed back in September 2022. This continued throughout 2024, when Ukraine launched an invasion of Kursk in August 2024. Since that time, Russia has continued to advance in those four oblasts while also fighting in Kursk, which leads to the present day. Now, in 2025, reliable sources no longer refer to a "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but instead a "Russia Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" or other words to that effect. So then the question becomes, what should be the scope of this article? Should this article's scope continue indefinitely into the future, with perhaps an end of Russia captures all of Ukraine, or if Ukraine recaptures all currently occupied Ukrainian land? For comparison, look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article's scope, where the scope of the article is limited by the date when President Bush declared that major combat operations are over. Is that what we are waiting for? Either Zelenskyy or Putin announce something similar? If not, what are the alternatives? I think one straightforward alternative is to limit this article's scope to the year 2022, covering the February invasion, and Ukraine's immediate counter-attacks defeating Russian forces. However, when Ukraine begins launching counter-offensives, it seems like it would be appropriate to not cover them as part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but perhaps a new article such as Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) that can cover the war beginning from Ukraine's 2022 counter-offensives onward. The current Russo-Ukrainian war article should be renamed to Russo-Ukrainian war (2014-2022), and its scope should be restored to what it was prior to Russia's invasion. For editors opposed to this, my question above (where would you cut this article off?) remains.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that my proposal would solve the current issue with the infobox listing North Korea as a belligerent in the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" when it clearly was not. Russian invasion of Ukraine would list Russia and Belarus on one side, with Ukraine on the other. Then, the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) article can list North Korea as a belligerent.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the following article construction if it were to change: keep the current umbrella Russo-Ukranian war article, a new "Russo-Ukranian war (2014-2022)" covering the first 8 years of the war, rename this article "Russo-Ukranian war (2022-present)" covering the latter 3+ years of the war, then a new article of "Russian invasion of Ukraine" detailing the actual invasion itself. Pretty clear to me that the following is true: this war has lasted over 10 years now but has two distinct segments; the invasion ended years ago and we are now in a war phase. Shocked that some editors above think the invasion wasn't apart of the already commenced Russo-Ukranian war though? Russia and Ukraine have been at war since Russia's first invasion of Crimea and it escalated with its further invasion of the rest of the country in 2022. Yeoutie (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, would your proposed Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) include the invasion period which you want to create a separate article for? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my own proposal, there would be a short section in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) that describes how Russia invaded Ukraine, which would also have its own article providing more detail about how exactly the invasion occurred. But, the invasion would be treated as just one part of the Russo-Ukrainian war, similar to how the German invasion of Denmark was just one part of World War 2 (and is described in the World War 2 article here). JasonMacker (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated my position on this in the section below. My view is now that Russia-Ukraine war is the correct name that covers 2022-present. JasonMacker (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 RFC on this topic can be found here.

Belarus is presently listed in the infobox under Russia and North Korea in a section headed "Supported by:". Should this listing of Belarus be removed? FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Options:

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (please define)
  • Yes - For a number of reasons:
1) Whilst Belarus is clearly an important enabler in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, there is no secondary sourcing analysing all of Russia's supporters and singling out Belarus as a special class of country that Iran and other backers of Russia do not belong to. Listing them as such is therefore WP:OR based on editor interpretation of primary sources.
2) The designation of Belarus as a "special supporter" is something that requires detailed explanation that is not suitable for the infobox. Per the 2023 RFC that deprecated the "supported by" section in infoboxes for wars in general, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE only the most simple information should be included in the infobox.
3) No sourcing is provided for Belarus being a supporter of North Korea, yet, with the addition of North Korea to the list of belligerents on Russia's side, the infobox now states that they are a supporter of both Russia and North Korea in this conflict.
4) Consistency with high-quality articles such as World War II, where there is no list of supporters, special or otherwise. This despite, for example, the role of Sweden in allowing Axis troops to cross their territory, and the USSR's pre-Barbarossa support for Nazi Germany, having some parallels with Belarus's role in this war.
For all of the above reasons Belarus should be removed from the Infobox, with no other changes to article content. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as we have sources that say they were a belligerent [[13]], [[14]]. We do not need an explanation, just a footnote. We have plenty of sources for them allowing Russia to attack in the body, and this is unlike any other example given, neither Sweden or Russia allowed attacks from its soil. As such it goes well beyond just support, but stops short of being a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does sourcing describing them as a belligerent support the listing of them as "supported by"? FOARP (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that there is a middle ground. That this is not a black and white issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Identifying a middle ground that is not stated in a reliable source is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These and other sources say that Belarus was a direct participant in the war in a lot of different ways, such as providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, hosting Russian military forces and nuclear weapons, giving up to Russia nearly all military equipment and ammunition they had, uniting in the same state, kidnapping Ukrainian children, and helping to resolve the rebellion by Wagner forces. That is why Belarus should be included to the infobox either as an "ally" to Russia or "supporter". My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but we're not saying in the infobox that Belarus is a direct participant in the war. We're saying "supported by". FOARP (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Belarus support Russia during this war per multiple RS? Yes, it certainly did. Hence, this is correct info. Even though I think we need to include Belarus as a "co-belligerent". My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We not only need to show RS cites showing Belarus support for Russia/North Korea, we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that (according to RS analysis) other countries (e.g., Iran) don't give Russia/North Korea. I actually have more sympathy for a belligerent status than I do for "supported by", but ultimately am against it because it gives us nowhere to go if Belarus ever does directly intervene with their army in this war. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that other countries don't give Russia. Yes, of course. And such "very special support" is noticed in numerous RS. It includes: (a) providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, (b) hosting Russian nuclear weapons, (c) kidnapping Ukrainian children as a part of genocide conducted by Russia, etc. None of other countries helps in the same way to Russia or Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do RSs treat that as a "special support"? FOARP (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoNeutral - We all agree that Belarus let Russia invade from Balarusian territory, right? If that's not support, I don't know what is. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one's denying Belarusian support for the invasion. The question is whether it makes sense to call them out in the infobox like this given we don't mention any other supporting country (e.g., Iran) and generally don't name supporting countries in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great question. What defines "support"? My understanding is that Iran sold Russia weapons used in the conflict. If selling weapons is "support", we'd probably need to list a whole bunch of people. My sense is that letting another nation's troops on to your territory is more meaningful "support" than simply selling weapons. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously Belarus has given important support, but it's very hard to draw the line in a way that makes including Belarus and no-one else make sense. Particularly, reliable sources don't seem to do this. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Drawing the line at "has provided troops" and/or "has allowed use of territory for launching attack" seems like a reasonable line to me.
    Asking for a source that says "These countries count as supporters and these countries don't" is a bit of an extraordinary request. I can't imagine there are many sources for many conflicts that really lay things out like that.
    The problem is that "Support" is always going to be somewhat subjective. For us, and for sources.
    If we follow your reasoning, we'd basically have to eliminate "support" from all infoboxes of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eliminating support from all info boxes was basically what was decided back in 2023. An exception was made for this info box, but I don’t think that makes sense. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link the 2023 decision? NickCT (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the RfC's more closely; it's not 100% clear to me why the template RfC calling for the removal of "Supported by" from the template doesn't apply here. While I think saying Belarus "supported" the Russian invasion is probably neutral and verifiable, the rationale for stripping "Supported by" from these templates also seems pretty good. I'm changing my position to neutral. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The RfC was about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was about the manner of usage of 'infobox military conflict', which that template page uses. The RfC also explicitly refers to 'related templates' and applies to them. It does apply here. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with RnD. If you look at the closing rationale for the RfC, all the same reasoning would seem to apply to this template. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC about the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine was more recent, and specifically about this page and this template. Hence, it ether overrides the previous RfC for this page or simply is an RfC about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC at Template: Infobox military conflict (see here) clearly applies to similar infoboxes such as Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, which incidentally also invokes Template: Infobox military conflict. The closers comment was: ... in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted. However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. A strong affirmative consensus is reasonably interpreted as an RfC. Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs. The 2003 RfC referred to in the OP of this herein for retaining Belarus under "supported by" (see [15]) was initiated because "supported by" had now been deprecated and the OP in 2023 specifically linked to that. Per the close of the discussion at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, the 2023 RfC for listing Belarus created an exception to specifically list Belarus (and only Belarus) under "supported by". There is no reasonable doubt as to the scope and relationship between the two RfCs. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per FOARP, it’s a bit ridiculous to have Belarus there and not the US etc. If it is to stay, Ukraine’s support parameter in the infobox should say Various, see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Support for Ukraine Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as they were a co-belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The majority of sources characterize Belarus' actions as "aggression" or "violation of the law of neutrality"[16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. - please have a look at this Times Radio (which I do not endorse in any way, btw) YT video - guest comments about Belarus and Russia : "Why pausing war in Ukraine could signal a Russian invasion of NATO" HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Informative video but does not actually seem to explicitly address the nature of Belarus's involvement in this war or its role as a "belligerent" or "supporter" thereof. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. He speaks of how Belarus's military is now joined at the hip with the Russian Federation's (in so many words.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    20:58-22:47 – His main takeaways regarding the Belarusian military were that it is small and of poor quality, lacks combat experience, and is needed internally by Lukashenko in case of civil unrest. He thus came to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that they would take part in the war.
    8:13 – He spoke of the existence of some "combined battalions" composed of paratrooper companies from both the Russian and Belarusian militaries but did not elaborate on whether or not they had taken part in combat in Ukraine or otherwise acted as "supporters" or "belligerents" in the war.
    18:54 – He spoke of a Belarusian officer publicly warning Belarusian forces in 2022 not to participate in the war in Ukraine, without suggesting that any Belarusian forces had actually done so.
    What am I missing here?
    SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There have been extensive discussions regarding the status of Belarus in the infobox and most particularly the 2023 RfC. By virtue of allowing Russia to launch attacks from its territory, Belarus is a party to this armed conflict (arguably a belligerent/co-belligerent) but it is unique in that it is not a combatant in that it has not physically engaged in the conflict. Note that the parameter in the infobox is called combatant but those listed as combatants appear under a heading belligerents. The consensus in the 2023 RfC was to list Belarus under "supported by" because of this unique situation. I believe that it probably remains the best solution. The fact that Belarus's support was for the initial invasion but not subsequent does not alter that Belarus has been involved. That involvement remains a key fact. Also, I give no credence to the argument of ambiguity because Belarus supported Russia but not North Korea that is now listed as a belligerent. Infoboxes are blunt instruments that supplement the lead, where such detail is clarified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Belarus allowed Russia to utilize its territory to launch the initial invasion and missile strikes against Ukraine, but hasn't committed its own troops. The infobox is sufficient as a general overview, with more context in the main body of the article. I would also be in favor of adding Iran under Russia and NATO under Ukraine. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Cinderella157 summed it up well, we have not had some timeline alteration where Belarus uninvolved itself from the invasion since the last time this was brought up. It remains one of the only nations on either side (now with another obvious example being North Korea) directly involving itself in the invasion outside of materiel and economic support. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but we have North Korea as a belligerent. It appears the majority of posters here supporting Belarus being in the infobox consider Belarus to be a belligerent, not simply a supporter. That being the case, shouldn't we just list them as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other I support pretty much any change to the status quo. I think it should either be removed or (2022) should be added, or even add Belarus as belligerent. The current version seems to just cause confusion/frustration about why the generic West isn't listed on the other side, as seen in dozens of discussions on this page—could even make an IAR argument to this effect Placeholderer (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to see this because I honestly feel the same. The host of "No, Belarus is a belligerent" !votes seem to breeze straight past the obvious problem with that position (if they are a belligerent then we should list them as such, not just as a "supporter"). However, people don't seem to have any problem with that contradiction and there's not much that can be done if they don't. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion to be put here. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not again, did we not have of thee a few months ago? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions but no RFC (unless I missed it in my search in which case please feel free to post a link - I only saw the 2023 RFC), and a number of editors in the above discussions have voiced dissatisfaction with listing Belarus, which indicates consensus may have changed. Additionally, adding North Korea to the infobox has created an ambiguity in listing Belarus as a supporter. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think that placing North Korea to the infobox has created any ambiguity. Why? The placing of North Korea is very much obvious and unrelated to Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is right under North Korea in a section labelled "supported by". A natural interpretation is that North Korea is supported by Belarus. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No its does not, that is a total misunderstanding of how headings work. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list that reads:
A
B
Supported by:
C
Naturally implies that C supports both A and B. I don't see the misunderstanding here. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my say, and suggest readers read wp:bludgeon, nothing has changed since the last RFC. So I am out of here with a firm no, nothing has changed so we should not change anything .Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is nuanced on the topic of removing Belarus. The access Belarus gave to Russia to launch attacks on Ukraine were at that time a substantial and unparalleled support to Russia. So therefor in the first year of the invasion there was clear merit to make the exception to the "avoid support" suggestion and add Belarus. The impact of Belarus support has been less substantial after that initial phase as far as I know. Hence, in the larger scope of the ongoing war, this initial support of Belarus becomes less and less influential in the scope of the entire conflict. Therefor I can imagine that at some stage the support of Belarus does no longer warrants inclusion in the infobox (although it should remain in the main text). That also means in my view that the longer the war goes on, we should be open to review our position in the light of the extended war (hence not focus too much on RfC that were relatively long ago). Whether the moment to remove Belarus is already here.... I have no opinion on that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think their recent hosting of Russian nuclear weapons was such a thing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context – key to the RfC discussion were the ISW, which considers Belarus a direct co-belligerent in this specific conflict[2] and the OSCE which considers that 'use of force' (i.e. initiating combat) triggers party status.[3][a] It is retained under the 'supported by' heading because that had existed from early in the article's history. A more precise heading, if retained, would be 'contested status'. The 'supported by' heading is both misleading and has been a recurring problem: if x's support is listed then why isn't y's? That's a legitimate question to ask, especially with how weakly handled the inclusion of Belarus is presently. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in their multiple publications [5]. We could include it as a "co-belligerent (disputed)". My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per ManU9827[21], Euromaidan Press says co-belligerent too[6] Placeholderer (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth considering to add a timeframe (e.g "During 2022") in the infobox to try to communicate that Belarus's involvement was by far concentrated at the start of the war? I feel like there's valid reasoning to include Belarus, but most of it applies only to the initial invasion, and I'm not sure that they're still actively maintaining the exception-worthy support from before Placeholderer (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously advocated for using Supported by:  Belarus (2022); see discussions of July 2024 and August 2024.
The primary argument to include Belarus as a "supporter" is the fact that a Russian army group travelled through its territory in order to invade Ukraine. It is very important to note that this arrangement only lasted for ~40 days of a nearly 3-year-long war – today is day 1,070, so that represents under 4% of the duration of the war.
Belarus's "support" ended with the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in April 2022, and to leave this unaddressed in the infobox falsely implies that Belarus's "support" has been continuous through 2025.
That being said, I have some concerns about whether or not this is a level of nuance unsuited for the infobox and whether or not this proposal approaches WP:OR per FOARP above, and I may be leaning towards excluding Belarus from the infobox outright. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this change (appending the year) is necessary and helpful if we opt to retain Belarus as a supporter. Personally I'm in favour of this as Belarus permitting the initial assault of Kyiv to be launched from its territory was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Jr8825 • Talk 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Ironically, as some commenters noted, this help by Belarus played against Russian forces. If, instead of attacking Kyiv, they kept these forces in reserve and/or use them at the South and East of Ukraine, they would occupy a lot more and faster. But who could predict what had happen? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Every single "No" votes I've seen so far is essentially stating that Belarus is a belligerent. At present Belarus is listed as a supporter, not a belligerent. Should we have another option for simply adding Belarus as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to having another option: By my read, the responses of the "No" voters My very best wishes, Slatersteven, YBSOne, Eluchil404 and Cinderella157 all make the argument that Belarus is a belligerent and/or invoke sources that do; there may be a stronger consensus among the No party to list Belarus as a belligerent rather than as a supporter. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes

[edit]

Notes

  1. ^ This note is a personal opinion – pre-emptive reminder that WP:OR explicitly does not apply to talk page discussions – from reading and analysing other reliable sources – specifically Chatham House – on determining 'party to a conflict' status. It is categorically incorrect to claim that 'use of force' is the only factor to determining party status. For specific examples where party status can exist outside direct combat, see the following verbatim from Chatham: [b]y contrast, if military advisers of one state assist in the planning of specific military operations by another state, to the point that both states are involved in the decision-making process for specific operations in the conduct of hostilities, there can be both a sufficiently direct connection to hostilities and a sufficient degree of cooperation and coordination [t]ransporting the troops of another state to the front line or providing air-to-air refuelling to combat aircraft as part of specific military operations in the conduct of hostilities could, however, have a sufficiently direct connection, and would also involve a sufficient degree of cooperation or coordination and finally, and most pertinently here of all presented examples, [b]y contrast, when a state allows its territory to be used as a launchpad for specific hostilities against another state or armed group, this may constitute a sufficient connection to the hostilities.[4] The point is that this is more complex an issue than merely 'use of force' as the OSCE source presents it.

The war crimes section on this article exclusively includes war crimes allegedly committed by the Russian forces, and presenting allegations as fact. I believe this is obviously biased, and we should reference Ukraines alleged War Crimes even if there are far fewer, and state Russian war crimes to be Alleged War Crimes, rather than just War Crimes. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing reliable sources that describe such war crimes, or allegations by notable people (e.g Putin)? Placeholderer (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one case I direct us to another wikipedia article.
Other sources on this specific torture of POWs include: Reuters, HRW.
A more general article is: Al Jazeera.
Kakhovka Dam: Reuters, BBC (Blame by both sides).
In Kursk: 9 News Australia.
From the Russian Government: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office in Geneva (On Donbass Shellings.)
And for the Crimean Bridge: ABC Australia, PBS.
Hope this helps. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This mostly belongs to another page, War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it is included there already. Here we should only provide a brief summary of the content from the main page. Yes, it could be updated using most recent publications, something published in 2024-2025, rather than 2022. And I would rather focus on proven facts here, rather than the highly questionable allegations by Putin. There are many proven facts noted on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, but I think along those lines it would be appropriate to exclude the Budanov statement from this article (it's a pretty WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to include as an accusation). I do think it would be helpful to briefly (as is due) address the topic of Ukrainian war crimes, maybe mentioning that Russia accuses stuff but being clear the extent to which it's supported by independent sources.
For what it's worth I tried to clarify that the ICC probe was into violations committed in Ukraine, not just by Russia Placeholderer (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will say that, of those accusations, the indiscriminate shelling and POW mistreatment would probably be the most appropriate to include, since civilian infrastructure attacks don't seem to be in the scope of the section (otherwise Russia's infrastructure attacks would be included). The Al Jazeera source is hard to use, since it's an opinion piece Placeholderer (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be false balance. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely be false balance to have the same amount of text as for Russian war crimes, but I think there's probably a way to fairly address the issue that isn't just not mentioning it Placeholderer (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The extremely few Ukrainian war crimes that there are, are already mentioned though. This is like complaining about there being no Jewish war crimes mentioned in the article about WW2. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to where they're mentioned in this article? I don't see mentions in the POW or war crimes section here — but mistreatment of Russian POWs and etc. are definitely discussed in the war crimes article Placeholderer (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary (a few sentences at most) of Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian prisoners of war probably belongs in this article under #Prisoners of war, as this is where Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POWs is mentioned. Care needs to be taken to avoid undue weight, though. Jr8825 • Talk 13:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see false balance anywhere. 99% of RS are talking about the crimes by Russian forces, rather than by the Ukrainian ones. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While relatively few Ukrainian war crime are highlight, is it not clear that there are is avalanche of back-to-back claims against the Russians? 2.30.22.148 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When your war crimes can be seen from orbit they are not really "Alleged".©Geni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, why are people wasting their time in attempting to get some degree of fairness or balance when it come to the war crimes section? For no matter how questionable the bloody images at a railway station might seem, Wikipedia point-blank refuses to admit that the photographs might have been staged. Perhaps to do so could highlight their anti-Russian POV? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Wikipedia" isn't one monolithic voice; 2. If you would like to challenge the validity of the photos, please provide reliable sources that describe what you mean Placeholderer (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, if Wikipedia would like to defend the validity of a dodgy-looking photo - why not provide reliable information about that image? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on our image policy, but I think WP:FFD is the appropriate place if you have concerns about the encyclopedic usefulness of a file Placeholderer (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on I think that's not the place for this type of concern. Let me have a look... Placeholderer (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through a bunch of arcane media policy and not finding helpful guidance I'm left with the impression that this is, in fact, the right place to discuss the factual reliability of images. Anyone with image knowledge: please correct me if I'm wrong!
I'd guess that the same conditions of WP:RS apply. If you're referring to the railway photo from this revision of the article (also being discussed below for reasons other than reliability), it's from the Ukrainian MoD, so if you want to challenge the factual reliability of the image you'd probably want to provide reliable sources that say the MoD posts fake/staged images.
I'll add that Wikipedia policy doesn't generally require all sources to be explicitly cleared as "reliable" by other sources in order to be used Placeholderer (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Existing photo

    Existing photo

  • Suggested replacement

    Suggested replacement

I recently replaced the photo illustrating the war crimes section as the existing one shows a close up photo of a dead body with blood trickling from an identifiable dead person. Citing WP:GRATUITOUS, I replaced the photo with one of the attack with the bodies removed, but the blood and personal effects still present, which is the photo used at the top of our article on the attack. My edit has been reverted TylerBurden, citing WP:NOTCENSORED.

I fully appreciate NOTCENSORED, and do not object to necessary offensive content, such as the photos of dead soldiers and civilians in the casualties section, as these photos are informative and likely the best available to illustrate the subject matter, or in cases such as the video of a man's death in Saigon Execution. However, per our policy on offensive material, we should not favour excessively offensive material over equally adequate material that is less offensive. The relevant parts of GRATUITOUS are:

  • "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials."
  • "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter."

In this case, we have an alternative photo that shows the attacks without violating the dignity of the dead individual. A close up photo of their corpse is unnecessary and does not have more encyclopedic value than an overview scene of the attack's aftermath. If the aim is additional shock value to convey the horrors of the attacks, then this is an inappropriate form of editorialisation. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do go with Jr8825 that the need for an (easily) identifiable individual civilian casualty is prolematic. I do see the problem more in lines of privacy protection of/moral decency to the victim and his family than to gratuity though so I would for arguments against this photo more in Foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people. Perhaps a relevant moral dilemma question that might bring the morality of using this photo close to home would be whether you would be happy if a recognizable photo of a family member appears in the School shooting article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even factoring in the need to be honest about the brutality of war the wider range of pictures on the page already covers that pretty well.©Geni (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It's needlessly gratuitous. People die in wars, shocker. We don't need to see the blood and gore on the encyclopedia. It's not an issue of "censorship". A common misunderstanding is that WP:NOTCENSORED merely posits that offensive material may be permissible, not that it is always necessary or desirable. JDiala (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I went ahead and changed the image. Feel free to change the description if you think the current one is lacking. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against Wikipedia, meant to be an uncensored encyclopedia of knowledge, shying away from graphic content. This is quite clearly not an instance of using graphic imagery for the sake of it, as it is directly related to and showing the results of the section it accompanies, namely attacks on civilians. Why is it better to show an image of the scene after it has started being ″cleaned up″? That blood in the suggested replacement came from somewhere, so dancing around it by showing a later aftermath photo seems less valuable than actually showing what happened.
Now I am sure your suggestion is in good faith, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean you can't have human decency, but who are we as random Wikipedia editors to decide if the victim's family does not want the image displayed or not? Because that's what I'm guessing this is, assumption. They could just as easily be in support of it so that people can see the consequenses of such attacks. I'm not convinced (especially not by the version TurboSuperA+ took upon themselves to implement, which conveniently cut out the casualty toll that was added in your original edit) this change is for the better, even though your intentions are likely good. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are five editors that think the image
should be changed. This is not the first time you went against editor consensus and I think WP:OWN might apply. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual arguments, just acting as if Wikipedia consensus is a WP:VOTE. I don't think your ″vote″ is as valuable as you seem to think it is, given all you do here is try to push Russian narratives supported by a broken understanding of Wikipedia policy, the same goes for JDiala, who is dropping comments like ″people die in wars, shocker.″, way to show how you're on the right side of morality for wanting to scrubb off the image from the article.
This is long standing content, and evidently I am not the only one who thinks the replacement is not an improvement, so I believe we need to have a stronger ″consensus″ than whatever this is. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"all you do here is try to push Russian narratives"
Do you have evidence of this? And what is a "Russian narrative", exactly? Anything you disagree with?
The gore adds nothing to the article, it is meant to shock and elicit an emotional response rather than impart knowledge or give context to the text.
I would be OK with removing the picture altogether, because I am pretty sure that people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them.
Your behaviour is close to WP:SQS and WP:OWNERSHIP. I would also appreciate it if you stopped insulting me by implying I am "pushing narratives" instead of giving my own opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, try clicking on your contribution history, which is filled with policy violations, for example violating WP:DUE to insert your favorite NATO special forces in Ukraine theories and edit warring, removing referenced content about North Korea, etc. And that's just on this article, you're clearly a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It's ironic that you say I WP:OWN the article, because as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you attack them and WP:BLUDGEON discussions to no end, which people can see by simply scrolling up to the RfC on support. I don't see how it is possible to discuss anything with someone who unironically makes arguments like ″people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them″. I guess we should get to work removing most images on Wikipedia then, since they include things that people know. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that proves that I am "pushing Russian narratives." You didn't say what a "Russian narrative" is, either. Are you accusing me of being a paid actor or do you recognise that my contributions and opinions are my own? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you of anything other than being WP:DISRUPTIVE (violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it) and WP:TENDENTIOUS (giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories, attempting to remove content about North Korea, applying double standards based on content presented) which I believe you have demonstrated with great efficiency. This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it)"
Not true.
"giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories"
Example?
"attempting to remove content about North Korea"
Not true. I tried to add content to the article, not remove it.
"applying double standards based on content presented"
Again, not true.
"This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time."
Implying it is just as egregious as saying it. All your ad hominems amount to a bunch of personal attacks. You're not engaging with the arguments in this topic, instead you choose to insult me, only because I disagree with you. You have been doing this for a while, writing threats on my Talk page and pinging administrators. I ask you, once again, to stop harassing me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no point in going in endless circles with you, especially not here, I will end this by simply providing the diffs so that your lies are on record.
Adding undue weight
Removing North Korea content
Removes North Korean content because ″no evidence″, ″evidence″ suddenly no longer matters when it comes to NATO special forces in Ukraine.
It is an interesting tactic to keep making blatantly false statements on a website where every single edit you make is recorded. Goodbye. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that proves that I am "pushing a Russian narrative". Or have you forgotten about that since you throw around accusations hoping something sticks?
Adding a book source is not undue, you just don't like what it says.
You seem to disagree with my edits, but that doesn't make them wrong. I don't think there is a policy that says one must not disagree with TylerDurden. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden: is it fair to say your opposition to my change is that you feel the replacement image is too sanitised? I chose it simply because the other article was using it. I believe the current image is unnecessarily (i.e. gratuitously) obscene and I'm sure we can find an alternative photo which still conveys the war crimes adequately. There is a whole category on Commons of civilian deaths that we can draw from.

Alternatives include:

  • Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution

    Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution

  • Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred

    Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred

  • Bucha mass grave

    Bucha mass grave

  • Bucha mass grave (2)

    Bucha mass grave (2)

  • Bucha bodies

    Bucha bodies

  • Bucha executions

    Bucha executions

  • Bucha civilian

    Bucha civilian

  • Avdiivka market

    Avdiivka market

Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too sanitised no, I oppose because you yourself admit that the reason you want to change it because you consider it too graphic, and I disagree with the insinuation that it is included without justification. Graphic content should be justified yes, and in this case it is since it accompanies relevant content. We don't shy away from showing the horrors of war on other articles like World War II, Vietnam War etc, why should this one be any different? --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I find it too graphic. I think it's "obscene", i.e. morally offensive and disagreeable (at least to most readers) to use a photo of this man's death to illustrate a broad section when other options exist. I don't believe the use of the photo in this context is encyclopedic. The photo labelled 'Bucha executions' above is a far better fit, for example, and it is also very graphic. Jr8825 • Talk 03:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the picture not encyclopedic? It's easier to look at ″faceless″ bodies, that arguably makes them less impactful and encyclopedic. I think it would be morally offensive to keep using the image if people who actually knew the victim objected to it being displayed, like I said before this is going on assumption that could just as easily be incorrect as correct. This is Wikipedia editors taking offense on behalf of a person who is dead. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may hold European moral values here, but with such a recognisable picture my point is that we need explicit statement there is no objection from next of kin before showing it, instead of assuming it is ok unless someone complains, which is the position you seem to take. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd comment about what continent your ″moral values″ are attached to, please stick to the topic which is the image and the policies relating to it. I think your suggested approach is very unrealistic for an encyclopedia like this, the image has been on commons since April 2022 without issue. It is valid with or without the outrage of a handful of Wikipedia editors with no relation to the person depicted. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are "European moral values"? As an Englishman, I would love to know. 2603:6080:21F0:7210:C125:1D13:123C:710D (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TylerBurden that the existing picture is better as it provides more insight.Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What insight does it provide? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the exact additional insight provided by the easily recognisable face of the victim (the recognisability makes the image seriously problematic to me). Given the current timing of the war most next of kin and friends are probably alive (which makes it different from e.g. WWII). Nobody so far has given a reason for the additional insights provided by this recognisability. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMGCONTENT tells us: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. ... Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate.
The section where the image under discussion appears is War crimes and attacks on civilians. The death of civilians in war is not ipso facto an attack on civilians. the Kramatorsk railway bombing (as it is described in the caption) is not necessarily an attack on civilians or a war crime. Railway infrastructure may be a reasonable military target and the death of civilians unfortunate but proportional. The section where the image appears makes no mention of the Kramatorsk railway bombing that would establish context, that the railway station was not a reasonable military target and/or that the action was not proportional. We as editors, with a knowledge of the subject might know this but the reader does not. This particular image does not satisfy the cited P&G in this case. It should therefore not be used here. This image appears to be more about coatracking the caption, which is not a reason for retaining it. We write the article (prose) in the readable prose. A image caption is not readable prose.
There are lots of images that might serve to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter ... [and] have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. Dead civilians, even lots of bodies in a grave, do not necessarily do this - it is common to use a mass grave in a war zone. A picture of a mass grave does not tell us how or why they came to be there. However, the image of those bound an killed (even if not of the greatest quality) illustrates something that is pretty clearly a crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view most of the objections to the specific photo included is that it shows an easily recognisable face which may be very tough on people who know the victim and is hence (in my view) morally problematic. The additional insight or value of showing a recognisable individual is not justified by anyone so far. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion and understand your rationale. I acknowledge the concern. Even so, if the image use here was consistent with the prevailing P&G, it might nonetheless be appropriate to use the image. However, its use in this case is not consistent with the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having also read the discussion above, I agree that the photo is a candidate for being replaced. My main rationales:
  • First, WP:GRATUITOUS closes with the following: "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images." The mere fact that this image is graphic and describes a graphic topic does not alone merit its inclusion.
  • Second, as other editors have noted, there is an identifiable face in the image. It is true that WP:BDP only applies to recent deaths, and we are now well outside of the period after which it ceases to apply. Nevertheless, the identifiability of a non-notable person needs to be weighed against the merits of other images that do not have the same concerns.
  • Third, the image itself is not notable. Arguably, the Bucha massacre photos included above as examples are more notable; many networks carried those images at the time that the scale of the massacre was revealed. The non-notability of the image is evident, in my view, from the fact that it is not even included in the article about the train station attack itself.
  • Finally, also as noted above, the image does not "increase readers' understanding" of the topic of war crimes, nor does it "have a clear and unique illustrative purpose" in its inclusion. A dead civilian after a military attack is tragic, but is not necessarily a war crime absent other factors. The Bucha massacre is widely understood to have been a war crime, and the example images above of civilians executed in basements or placed in mass graves does serve an illustrative and explanatory purpose.
--Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense, the purpose of graphic images is to inform readers on graphic realities, this is an article about an invasion in which thousands of civilians have been killed in reckless attacks. Your assumption is one of bad faith. It is just as easy to say that the purpose of replacing the image is to hide such realities, we now have a generic picture of body bags, aka an image of a situation after it has been cleaned up, rather than the direct consequences which would actually inform readers of what such a scene looks like. In other words, moral outrage on behalf of editors with no relation to victims of the invasion and censorship defeats information. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained what extra information or context a picture of a dead body with its brain splattered on the pavement provides over a picture of a dead body? If the images are equally as informative, then the picture without gore should be used per WP:GRATUITOUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GRATUITOUS, "Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Yes, it is exactly the purpose to use these images. Personally, I do not see such images as anything "offensive". Offensive for whom? For the perpetrators of the war crimes. Tragic - yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a picture with someone's brains blow out increase readers' understanding more than an image of a dead body without the gore? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos. Actually, something like Come and See is even more graphic, and informative. This is not just about people being killed. How exactly they have died is important. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos."
Are you saying readers won't understand people die in war unless there's a gory image for them to see?
"How exactly they have died is important"
An image of a person's head blown out doesn't give any clues or information in regards to how the person ended up like that. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said something obvious. Consider the famous photo of Saigon Execution (the head blown out), for example. Such photos are extremely important for understanding the effects of war and many other things. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of alternatives have been proposed that do show bodies (namely the Bucha images) but do not have the same issues as the image in question. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include graphic images; it is only a protection against excluding images for the sole reason that they are graphic. WP:GRATUITOUS guides editors on whether a graphic or shocking image ought to be included and makes clear that graphic images are not privileged over non-graphic images. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes, @TylerBurden: you are both against replacing the current image because you feel showing the dead body is more informative than the photo before the partial cleanup at Kramatorsk. What is your opinion on the alternative images I linked above showing the Bucha massacre? Specifically, the images labelled "Bucha mass grave" and "Bucha executions". These also show civilians who have been killed, as well as being from the most well documented Russian atrocity, so seem like a suitable fit for the war crimes section. Do you feel either of these (or any of the others I linked, or from the Commons) are an adequate replacement? Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 7-3 split with (Jr8825, Arnoutf, JDiala, TurboSuperA+, Geni, Cinderella157 , Delta1989) for replacement and (Myverybestwishes, TylerBurden, Jeppiz) against. The no side isn't even bothering with trying to construct a convincing policy based argument, with their argument (frankly) boiling down to feelings and allegations of bias.

Consensus has been reached in this discussion. There is no need to entertain further filibustering. The edit has been implemented. JDiala (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 7-3 split with (Jr8825, Arnoutf, JDiala, TurboSuperA+, Geni, Cinderella157 , Delta1989) for replacement and (Myverybestwishes, TylerBurden, Jeppiz) against
Consensus has been reached in this discussion
Contradicting statements.But I would say Bucha crimes are the most notable for this invasion, so probably some photo representing those would be a better fit. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be the worst attempt at a close I have ever seen, neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements, and you are directly involved in the dispute. If a change is to be made, it should be to something that illustrates the section while staying relevant, such as Bucha which has been suggested by several other editors. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements"
Why are you mentioning me? I made no recent changes to the article. I have asked you repeatedly to stop accusing me of things. Please edit your comment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you made a near identical edit, which JDiala is now claiming has consensus. Neither of you have consensus, even the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians, instead of an image of the scene after it has started being cleaned up with minimal context provided. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that the current photo is not desirable. 7-3 is a consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. Involved editors can conclude non-RfC discussions. I'm happy to select a Bucha image instead, in fact I'd prefer that and will do that now. The main issue is that there seems to be some filibustering and WP:BLUDGEONING happening here, where we have one person (you) taking up disproportionate text space when in reality your position is a clear minority position. It is particularly egregious when said text space contains little in the way of policy arguments, mostly just accusations and insinuations towards other editors which are better suited for ANI/AE. JDiala (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
″Consensus does not require unanimity″, very convenient for you to cut out the part about WP:CONSENSUS that comes after, which is ″nor is it the result of a vote″. ″7-3 is a consensus″, that is a vote, and contrary to what you say, not one based on policy but on moral judgements and ″I don't like blood and guts on Wikipedia″. I guess it is only bludgeoning when someone argues against your viewpoint, otherwise you would be calling out the actual bludgeoning on this article talk page by TurboSuperA+. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a vote, but in practice the vote tallies do matter significantly. At some point, a decision needs to be made, and a handful of bludgeoning editors cannot bring the entire process to a halt. The pro-replacement side also clearly has the far more compelling policy-based arguments read e.g., Turbo, Delta, Cinderella's detailed rationales whereas the non-replacement side is pretty weak on that (just a vague and unconvincing insistence that a more bloody image is somehow more informative). JDiala (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment from experience that it's hard to not look bludgeony when giving a minority opinion.
I'll also comment that in terms of being strictly informative, there is a line to be drawn where not every image has to be a graph or map Placeholderer (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Because you made a near identical edit,"
That was a week ago.
"the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians"
And I agreed[22] that an image with bodies can be used. Your accusations are misplaced. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved: strong neither is appropriate. Some editors, including me, seem to feel that the recognizable face in the current image is just bad taste and not necessary. If the person or the cause of death was noteworthy it would be different but they look like just any victim (no disrespect meant). The replacement image is clearly sanitized. I think both images are clearly biased toward one position or the other.

Speaking of bias, I also noticed a posed image of four Ukrainian soldiers. Sammy D III (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sources for this? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean for the article as a whole, here are about 750 sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that 740 statements highlighting how Russia positively did carry out war crimes, and ten claims that the Ukraine might have carried them out? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
750 sources for the article as a whole Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ualosses update to 70,500/65,000 99.68.139.151 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true the war began with russia's invasion of ukraine in 2022 but one factor not given thought of is that in 2024 ukraine invaded russian territory specifically kursk. as this war is now on both sides I argue that the name be changed from "russian invasion of ukraine" to "russo-ukrainian war" or anything of similar scope. To be noted that this title is not biased to either side nor am I. General Phoenix (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article called that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5153983-pence-denounces-trumps-claim-ukraine-started-war/

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/02/20/7499285/ 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D12F:E70A:5A9A:57A6 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2xngznyego TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the best example for what you (and I) are trying to demonstrate, even though it contains lines such as three years on, the war has changed and the rhythm built up in three years of war goes on. In above discussions, when presented with quotes very similar to these, certain editors have made the case that such quotes do not necessarily imply that the war began three years ago. I imagine to convince this faction of editors, you'd need something more explicit like the war started three years ago. I do expect that many such quotes will enter publication within the coming hours and you can expect an RM shortly thereafter.
That said, the article you shared does demonstrate the inadequacy of the continuing to use the article title Russian invasion of Ukraine here, as reliable sources continue to diverge from the way we are using the word invasion on Wikipedia. Immediately after the first talks, held in Saudi Arabia, between Russia and the US since the 2022 invasion does imply that the "invasion" was distinctly a 2022 event; the word invasion is noticeably not used in that piece to describe any events after 2022. At a volunteer centre in Kyiv in the first days after the invasion would even imply that the "invasion" was a single one-time action that took place on 24 February 2022. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The language in the articles shared by the Canadian IP serves as an example of what I mean by explicitly identifying when exactly the war started:
his recent claim that Ukraine started the war with Russia, a conflict that has been ongoing for three years.
the statement on the third anniversary of the full-scale war
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-three-years-war-trump-hands-russian-economy-lifeline-2025-02-24/ 2001:56A:6FC1:3AC5:8069:BE1D:D370:99D6 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use LLMs, which don't know Wikipedia's rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a focused critique of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article as presented, identifying its flaws, gaps, and areas for improvement. Given the article’s length, I’ll prioritize key issues rather than exhaustively covering every section.

1. Overloaded with Detail, Lacking Synthesis
  • Problem: The article is excessively detailed, packing in timelines, casualty figures, military movements, and international reactions without consistently tying them to a broader narrative or analysis. For instance, the "Events" section lists battles (e.g., Kyiv, Mariupol, Bakhmut) with granular updates but rarely steps back to explain their strategic significance or long-term impact beyond immediate outcomes.
  • Why It Matters: Readers drown in specifics—dates, troop numbers, weapon types—without a clear sense of how these pieces fit into the war’s trajectory or Putin’s/Zelenskyy’s overarching goals. This makes it more a chronicle than an encyclopedia entry.
  • Fix: Summarize repetitive battle updates (e.g., merge similar fronts into broader phases) and emphasize why key moments (like Kyiv’s defense or Mariupol’s fall) shifted the war’s course, using analysis to connect facts to consequences.
2. Bias and Neutrality Concerns
  • Problem: The article leans toward a pro-Ukrainian/Western perspective, subtly framing Russia’s actions as uniformly aggressive or unjustified (e.g., "baselessly claimed," "sham elections") while rarely questioning Ukrainian or Western claims. Russian perspectives—like Putin’s historical revisionism or economic motives—are mentioned but dismissed without exploration.
  • Why It Matters: Wikipedia demands neutrality, but this tone risks alienating readers seeking a balanced view, especially on contentious issues like NATO expansion or Donbas separatism, where Russian grievances have some basis (even if exaggerated).
  • Fix: Present Russian rationales (e.g., NATO as a threat) with more depth, not just as propaganda to debunk, and include caveats about unverified Ukrainian claims (e.g., casualty estimates) to mirror skepticism applied to Russia.
3. Incomplete Global Context
  • Problem: The "International Reactions" section focuses heavily on Western condemnation and aid (e.g., NATO, EU, US sanctions) but gives scant attention to the Global South’s mixed or neutral stances beyond a brief mention. Countries like India, China, and African nations—key players in trade with Russia or abstainers in UN votes—are underrepresented.
  • Why It Matters: The war’s global impact extends beyond the West, affecting energy markets, food security, and geopolitics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This omission skews the article toward a Eurocentric lens.
  • Fix: Expand on non-Western reactions—e.g., India’s oil purchases, China’s drone support, or Brazil’s mediation efforts—drawing from the "Support for Russia" section to show a fuller spectrum of global alignment.
4. Casualty Data Discrepancies and Lack of Clarity
  • Problem: The "Casualties" section is a mess of conflicting numbers—UN’s 12,340 civilian deaths vs. Ukraine’s 12,000 vs. estimates of 80,000 military deaths—without clear reconciliation or explanation of methodology. It notes both sides inflate figures but doesn’t guide readers through the fog.
  • Why It Matters: Casualties are a critical measure of the war’s toll, yet the article leaves readers confused rather than informed, undermining its authority on a heavily scrutinized topic.
  • Fix: Consolidate data into a table with sources and date ranges clearly labeled, add a paragraph explaining why estimates vary (e.g., propaganda, access issues), and avoid burying key figures (like 1 million total casualties) in dense text.
5. Uneven Coverage of Key Topics
  • Problem: Some sections, like "North Korea" under "Foreign Involvement," are disproportionately long and detailed (e.g., specific troop numbers, dates), while others, like "Economic Impact" or "Peace Efforts," are cursory. Environmental damage gets a subsection but lacks depth on long-term implications.
  • Why It Matters: This imbalance suggests editorial priorities rather than encyclopedic necessity, leaving critical areas—like economic ripple effects on global trade or failed Minsk agreements—underdeveloped.
  • Fix: Trim redundant minutiae (e.g., daily North Korean updates) and bolster thin sections with more analysis—e.g., how sanctions reshaped Russia’s economy or why peace talks stalled beyond stated positions.
6. Source Reliability and Gaps
  • Problem: References are a mix of solid outlets (Reuters, BBC) and weaker ones (e.g., vague "Ukrainian government" claims, unspecific "Western officials"). Some bold assertions—like Russia’s $250 billion war cost or 1 million total casualties—rely on single sources without corroboration or context.
  • Why It Matters: In a conflict rife with propaganda, uncritical reliance on partisan or unverified sources risks misinformation, especially on sensitive topics like war crimes or troop losses.
  • Fix: Cross-reference major claims with multiple reputable sources, flag unverified figures (e.g., "alleged" or "reportedly"), and cite primary documents (e.g., UN reports, ICC warrants) directly where possible.
7. Temporal Inconsistency
  • Problem: The article’s timeline jumps erratically—e.g., "Initial Invasion" ends April 2022, but later sections like "Winter Stalemate" (November 2022–June 2023) overlap with earlier events like Kherson’s liberation (November 2022). The "February 2025 developments" feel tacked on and speculative.
  • Why It Matters: This muddies the war’s progression, confusing readers about when and how phases unfolded, especially as it claims to be current to February 21, 2025.
  • Fix: Reorganize chronologically with clear phase delineations (e.g., "Early War: Feb–Apr 2022," "Counteroffensives: Sep–Nov 2022") and treat 2025 as a distinct "Recent Developments" section with less conjecture.
8. Human and Cultural Dimensions Underexplored
  • Problem: While "Humanitarian Impact" notes displacement and heritage loss, it skims over the war’s psychological toll, civilian resilience, or cultural erasure beyond statistics. War crimes are listed but not contextualized with survivor voices or legal outcomes.
  • Why It Matters: The war’s human cost—beyond numbers—defines its legacy, yet the article prioritizes military and diplomatic angles, missing the lived experience that encyclopedias should capture.
  • Fix: Add qualitative depth—e.g., quotes from displaced Ukrainians, details on Russification policies, or ICC case progress—to humanize the data-driven narrative.
Overall Critique

The article is a sprawling, ambitious attempt to document a complex, ongoing conflict, but it buckles under its own weight. It excels at compiling raw information—battles, sanctions, troop counts—but struggles to distill meaning, maintain neutrality, or balance scope. It’s more a first draft than a polished entry, overwhelmed by minutiae and lacking the synthesis needed to guide readers through a war that’s still unfolding. Its Western tilt and uneven depth further erode its credibility as a definitive resource.

To improve, it should:

  • Streamline details into a coherent story of the war’s evolution.
  • Broaden its lens to truly reflect global stakes and perspectives.
  • Enhance clarity and sourcing to navigate the conflict’s murkiness.
  • Deepen human elements to match the military focus.

As of February 21, 2025, it’s a snapshot of a moving target—informative but flawed. 78.3.92.198 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soke of this is already death with "Putin espoused irredentist and imperialist views challenging Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, baselessly claimed that the Ukrainian government were neo-Nazis committing genocide against the Russian minority in the Donbas, and said that Russia's goal was to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine". Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult to fix because of the complexity of the subject and a lot of published misinformation. For example, #2 ("Russian rationales")... That was definitely not a threat of NATO, as the propaganda has claimed. The most common and simple explanation: that was just a grab of human, territorial and economic resources because Putin thought it will be easy. Another debated factor: the current political regime in Russia is intrinsically aggressive, and therefore will not stop. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now ask the AI about what specifically should be changed to what, then re-run with the new article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable source. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes recently added a bunch of ancillary prelude material which is better suited in the corresponding child article, not the main article. The main article size is too large (>19,000 words, far exceeding the limit suggested WP:ARTICLESIZE) so this should not be included in the main article. Note also that a number of editors e.g., Jr8825, Arkon are openly flouting WP:BRD by re-instating the edit without seeking consensus or attempting to engage with the point raised regarding article size. I won't continue the edit war at this time as a courtesy, but it should be noted that the other editors are in the wrong here per WP:ONUS; you need consensus for inclusion not exclusion. JDiala (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala The content appears to be a brief overview of Russian plans for the occupation of Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion, so seems important and relevant to this article. Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't addressing the article size issue. I would suggest reading WP:SS and WP:ARTICLESIZE. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the article size link: Removing appropriate content, especially summary style, and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Content removal § Reasons for acceptable reasons. The BRD threat is funny tho. You wholly missed out on the D. Arkon (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One, there is no threat. The is a bizarre WP:ASPERSION. Second, WP:ONUS. The onus is on the one including content to start the discussion. Third, the quote you copied clearly proposes the alternative solution of "moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting" which I proposed both in this thread and in the edit summary. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit.
1) What makes RUSI a good source for Russian plans?
2) "Captured documents" would need several WP:RS discussing them for WP:V, not just RUSI.
WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE are also relevant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That content was added previously by another user [23], but I summarized it more briefly. It is important to say about the plans by the Russian side for the war, i.e. what exactly they wanted to achieve. That was reliably published. Perhaps this material could be moved somewhere on this page, but this should be said. The size of an article is not a prohibition to improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not germane precisely who added it. It was added recently enough that WP:ONUS is applicable. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:RECENT also apply? DN (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have deleted someone else's contribution and added a WP:whatever does not shield your edit from being reverted.YBSOne (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the plans for occupation they do seem important for the reader to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action.YBSOne (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action"
This isn't a place to push narratives, WP:SOAPBOX and it certainly isn't a place to push a viewpoint, WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regime that, by source, wants to exterminate political opposition is a neo-totalitarian regime. YBSOne (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on those wishing to add content to argue why it belongs in the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article. Your combined effort is to remove any Russian wrong doing, even if it is sourced and confirmed. The less the better. Just like JDiala did here to name just one amongst many: Anna Politkovskaya.
According to OSW Russia is a neo-totalitarian regime. No pluralism, no democracy, only repressions. YBSOne (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article."
These aren't facts though, but allegations by RUSI analysts. We also can't include everything, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
"The OSW's key tasks are funded from the state budget on the basis of an annual decision by the Polish Parliament."[1]
They're not independent, and therefore exist to promote a certain view. In this case, that of the Polish government. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for invasion are notable and important. One of the reasons was to punish pro-democratic opposition ie eliminate them. YBSOne (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are jumping to conclusions what they promote based only on their funding. OSW does not exist in a neo-totalitarian regime and therefore can be independent. As opposed to state-owned media in neo-totalitarian regimes like Belarus or Russia. YBSOne (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should say somewhere that the military operation and the occupation were planned by Russia/Putin in advance and what they have planned to do. That was widely published based on orders received by Russian military and FSB/police units and other info. This is not only by RUSI which is a great source on this subject. One can use publications by the Institute for the Study of War, for example. I do not see what is the problem with saying it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your edit because there is no way to verify this supposed "plan" is real. The RUSI report states the following: "However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "The underlying source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public, this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study. Given the requirements for operational security, it is necessarily incomplete".
    Your edit uses WP:WEASEL words like "reportedly" without proper attribution. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TurboSuperA+ RUSI is a well respected, in fact leading, expert source on military affairs. It reflects a Western military establishment view, but bias does not mean unreliability. The fact that it explains that the origin of its information is confidential sources is evidence of its rigour, not its weaknesses... in an authoritarian regime, leaking incriminating evidence of planned abuses is obviously highly dangerous business.
    I think the content added is important to this article as I explained above, even if it would benefit from attribution. You've now edit-warred to revert 3 different editors who think it's important, citing various policies about process (inaccurately in my view) but not engaging with the substance of the content -- it feels a bit like "I just don't like it". Jr8825 • Talk 22:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my comment again. The authors of the report wrote themselves that it is not academic and it consists of opinions. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the source is notable and carries WEIGHT, even if it is an opinion, it might be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article as long as it's properly attributed. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WEIGHT here is actually very low as this has received scant attention from reliable secondary sources. JDiala (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the seeming lack of coverage, but who know whether it will get picked up by media in the US or Europe. Therefore, I think WP:RECENTISM might be a valid concern. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite unlikely that it will get picked up. It's over two years old. JDiala (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I think that's a very good point. Granted, what's going on there is horrific, but as editors WP:RGW always applies. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are clearly WP:SYNTH that a classified source is the same as non-existent source. It is not. Read your own quote again and focus on underlying sources for this data remains classified and source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public. YBSOne (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should focus on: "this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study."
    Not every opinion related to this war belongs in the article. Especially not one based on questionable evidence that has only been picked up by the Kyiv Post and Sky News, but has received no academic attention. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop manipulating and shortening the text to your desired section and don't SYNTH the meaning that isn't there: However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship. Because they are secret for now they cannot cite and therefore issue this disclaimer. YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you accuse me of shortening and manipulating when it was me who posted both of the quotes? I only "shortened" it in my next comment because you want to focus on a single sentence while ignoring the rest. The authors write the report is not academic, but opinion and testimony. Why that is doesn't really matter.
    Perhaps you should read WP:SYNTH yourself, as you are making a judgment that the report is more than an opinion based on your view, ignoring what the authors of the report say. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is also on you to demonstrate reliability. Prima facie a Western think tank very closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex seems to be a lower quality source compared to say academic scholarship or non-partisan journalism, as there are usually serious conflicts of interest involved. If the material is to be included, it's probably important to attribute it and usual WP:DUE considerations apply. Importantly, it seems that these shocking war plan revelations somehow escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN etc. ... if so many reliable news orgs are ignoring this it's probably a sign that it is not that important, not that interesting or potentially just unreliable. This combined with article size considerations and WP:SS conventions where only critical information is included in the main article (when a correspondingchild article exists) gives a pretty clear case to exclude. Not seeing much in the way of engagement with my policy arguments here. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex can you prove it or just using talk pages as a forum for your anti-west propaganda? Remind us is this another democrat partisan article? YBSOne (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE YBSOne (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is no way to verify..."??? It satisfy WP:V as something described in multiple RS. More importantly, no one ever disputed that Russian forces wanted to quickly seize Kyiv (they almost did it) and in fact established filtration camps. They did hunted and arrested former Ukrainian activists at the occupied territories. There is nothing questionable here. I do not understand why this is such a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I may jump in... to address the issue of article size I propose shortening the passage from:
The Russian plan for the war reportedly included seizing Kyiv and defeating Ukraine within ten days. After this, Russian troops would transition to "mopping-up" operations at the newly occupation authorities and their annexation. Filtration camps for Ukrainians were reportedly planned, and people involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity were to be put on trial and executed.. According to captured copies of orders issued to Russian units, all Ukrainians would be divided into four categories: those to be "liquidated", those "in need of suppression and intimidation", those to be encouraged to collaborate with Russia, and those whom Moscow had established as already being willing to collaborate.
to:
Russian war plans reportedly included defeating Ukraine within ten days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity.
with option of a clearer attribution. I think a shorter passage would also help mitigate the concern about weight Placeholderer (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be clearer attribution since it is based on opinion. I don't know why this particular opinion needs to be added though, WP:DUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING especially since it wasn't covered much by WP:RS. Just because it is uploaded to the RUSI website is not enough. If we included every single opinion on the war, its supposed plans or desired outcomes, the article would be endless.
There is no evidence or WP:RS that corroborate the RUSI report, and the supposed plans were not carried out. I don't think the article needs to be laden with someone's "what if" scenarios, the article is about the war and how it happened, not n possibilities of how it could have happened. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that the article doesn't need "what if"s, but a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that. As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka[24] and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity Placeholderer (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that"
But they aren't actual (confirmed) plans, but opinions of analysts. I'd agree to the inclusion of the paragraph if the attribution said something like "According to analysts from the British think tank RUSI..." (or something to that effect).
Also, Sky News and Kyiv Post are reporting the claims made in the RUSI document, they aren't reporting on any alleged plans in that document since they haven't seen it (they are like tertiary sources who trust the secondary source implicitly). The authors of the RUSI document aren't reporting anything either, but stating their opinion. The paragraph should avoid wording like "reportedly" when talking about the plans:
For example, "Russian war plans reportedly included" should be written as "are claimed to have included" (or something to that effect).
I would like to say that I am willing to collaborate to find a compromise, but I find it difficult in this case. I won't fight the inclusion with attribution and I certainly won't be 1AM. However I ask that you reconsider if this is actually a good addition to the article in the context of WP:DUE. Ignoring sides and narratives, does this information add anything of real value, does it impart relevant knowledge to readers who wish to learn about the war? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+ it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence. It does need attribution, however, as I acknowledged above, because it's not a neutral source (the researchers are linked to the Ukrainian and British military). Again, that doesn't mean it's propaganda or false – Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that follows established/respected sources; in-text attribution so our readers are aware of the source is the solution per WP:BIASED. The reason we reflect Western narratives more is a mixture of following sources with good reputations and common sense – academics and journalists inside Russia do not currently have much freedom. We need to work to avoid bias, but at the same time, we don't need to treat Russian state narratives equally (or at all, if they are only parroted by Russian politicians/media, and not in reliable sources), per WP:FALSEBALANCE and fringe.
I restored the text once because it wasn't clear to me at the time what the substance of objection was (article size isn't a good reason to remove content multiple editors believe is important), but I'm happy to get stuck in and workshop the text. I agree restoring the text isn't productive until we establish consensus. IIRC, I've read about these plans in other sources as well. I'll do some digging as more sources may help strengthen the weight argument for inclusion (although I personally think it's already met). It belongs in a high level summary about Russian approaches to areas it has occupied, so perhaps we can do some broader work here. The article as a whole needs to be gradually rewritten in the long term anyway to follow summary style. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence."
In the RUSI report they state that the report is not an academic work, but made up of opinions.[25] I am not talking about bias, or Western narratives, I am saying that opinions should not be admitted as statement of facts but treated accordingly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the supposed plans were not carried out". No, they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point. They did try to quickly seize Kyiv, exactly as was planned. They did conduct repressions against the civilian population at the occupied territories, exactly as was planned. No one ever disputed these facts. This is pretty much a non-controversial and widely published info. Is it significant enough to be included? I think yes, and based on the editing so far, most people agree with me except only two. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point."
    WP:OR. Do you have a source that says Russians carried out their plan (or attempted to) as laid out in the RUSI report? Saying there are similarities between what's in the report and what one has read somewhere else is WP:SYNTH. We need a WP:RS that connects the two. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the inserted text in the article does not include any OR, and it does not say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished". They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it does say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished""
Who says that? Which plans have been accomplished?
"They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example."
What you said there is WP:OR, we need a WP:RS to say that Russia attempted to carry out the plan laid out in the RUSI report. You can't say yourself "This thing Russia did is exactly the same as what they wrote in the RUSI report", that is by definition WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this discussion has been overcomplicating itself, so I've trimmed the passage to address article length concerns and added attribution. If anyone is unsatisfied with this version, let it be known! Placeholderer (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with it. Thanks for your efforts. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only willing to compromise up to including claims along the lines of Russia planning on winning quickly, which is relevant and not disputed. I wouldn't even be opposed to including said claims without attribution since they are, again, not disputed. The more bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" however should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although Russia’s tangible goals in February 2022 were not explicit, analysis by Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi, Jack Watling, Oleksandr V. Danylyuk and Nick Reynolds, based partly on captured Russian papers, shows that much can be established. Russia aimed to swiftly establish full control over most of Ukraine, with the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv together with “the coerced cooperation of regional governors and local authorities” in the occupied areas. and so on. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Russian plans are confirmed by many academic sources and should be included. Those who would like to "trim" this important and highlighted by many academic sources information should trim "Events" section instead.Aiming for the advantage of surprise, Russia attacked Ukraine from the north, east and south, with wide- ranging objectives, such as capturing the capital and seizing major cities across these directions to occupy as much of the territory as possible within a short time. Within a few days, these objectives were revealed to be too broad for the Russian military to achieve. The inability to destroy expected military targets of C2 and recruit Ukrainian military leadership in the first few days as was done in the Crimean scenario was one of the many Russian miscalculations. Similarly, political leadership did not leave Ukraine but remained to defend and f ight for it. The Russia-Ukraine War - Google BooksRussia’s goal of capturing the city of Kyiv within two to three days was as ambitious as it was fanciful. Russian soldiers were is sued with parade uniforms to hold a victory parade on the Khresh chatyk, Kyiv’s main thoroughfare, resembling that of the Nazi pa rade in conquered Paris in 1940. The plan to quickly capture Kyiv was based on Russian intelligence ignoring three factors and a fourth because of a reliance on biased sources. Fascism and Genocide - Google BooksRather than embark on a more costly direct assault on the city, Russia’s strategy to achieve a regime change in Kyiv hinged on encircling the capital, fomenting chaos through acts of sabotage, and reinforcing ties with pro-Kremlin politicians who could take power in Ukraine. Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about the general fact that Russian planned on winning quickly, which is not disputed, we're specifically talking about the more bombastic RUSI claims. JDiala (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think you can call portion of the source "bombastic" and just remove what you disagree with? While you already have established a clear pro-Russian bias in your edits, you should no longer edit such contentious topics, again may I add. YBSOne (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations have been given repeatedly. WP:DUE requires coverage balanced relative to reporting by reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to win the war quickly is reported by many reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to execute and throw into concentration camp Ukrainians for sport following a quick victory is a rather bombastic claim made by only RUSI, a think tank which as discussed above is biased, and which lacks significant breadth in coverage from other sources. The lack of coverage here is deeply concerning. Further as Turbo has pointed out the anonymous and apparently speculative nature of the sourcing here raises more eyebrows. As for me and my alleged bias, well you're the one soapboxing on this thread as has been pointed out to you, so really a pot calling the kettle black here. JDiala (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's less WP:EXTRAORDINARY to have a historical claim that something was about to happen if that thing did in fact happen Placeholderer (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(with the actual happening being covered substantially enough to, in the case of filtration camps, have its own article) Placeholderer (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed this when Placeholderer linked it above. There are additional sources that demonstrate weight there, such as a UN press release demanding an investigation about reports, an i investigation and coverage in the BBC and Guardian, among others. Jr8825 • Talk 00:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is absolutely key here. If I told you that the US developed a camp to detain Arabs it suspected of terrorism during the War on Terror, that would be true. It's Guantanamo Bay. It I told you that the US planned this out prior to 9/11, that would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. JDiala (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false comparison because 9/11 wasn't planned by the US Placeholderer (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that conduct happening during a war is different from preplanning something before the war, which is the issue at hand here. Making that logical leap is very SYNTH-y. JDiala (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to say they're equivalent, I mean to say it's less extraordinary to suggest something was planned if that thing happened Placeholderer (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise attempt 1

[edit]

There may be more to follow, but perhaps we can start with [27]. Should it be included? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the discussion, I see no reason not to Placeholderer (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'd like to jump ahead and ask if anyone other than JDiala is opposed to this version[28], having addressed the initial issues of length and attribution Placeholderer (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be [29], to which I guess TurboSuperA+ may object? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They said "I'm OK with it"[30] Placeholderer (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK with the proper attribution. I still have WP:DUE concerns, but I don't think it's worth having endless debates about. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sorry, I had overlooked this. JDiala, are you aware of any other user than yourself (if you are) who might be opposed to this addition? And if you oppose it, would you mind summarizing the reasons in one or two sentences? Trying to get an overview. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of claims amounting to that Russia thought they would win the war quickly, and support the exclusion of RUSI claims regarding so-called "filtration camps" and "hit lists" in the event of said victory, this due to WP:DUE concerns. I have discussed this here and here and in the edit diff you linked.
I will concede that my position is a minority position, at least currently, and I am the only one with this view. Everyone else appears supportive of inclusion of all the claims provided attribution is provided, which is a proposed compromise. At the same time, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, it is not just a vote and the arguments do matter. I do not believe anyone has properly engaged with my concerns on the DUE-ness of this rather obscure material in this already very bloated article. JDiala (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, now it's not a vote. I suggest that unless you can give a very good reason for your snarky WP:ONUS violation here, the content (which was restored broken formatting and all) is removed asap as it is an obvious violation of WP:DUE, an actual Wikipedia policy and not a guideline that doesn't even say what you claim it says. It is especially interesting that you have spent the last few days here immediately following your edit complaining about ONUS violations, article length and saying content should be in child articles. If this ″rules for thee but not for me″ behaviour isn't WP:TENDENTIOUS I don't know what is. I can imagine that in whatever media it is that you consume, coverage of these alleged Ukrainian war crimes are more widespread than the actually recorded Russian crimes, but that is not the case in WP:RS, so this content is clearly undue and should be removed or replaced with content that actually belongs here on the main article. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you would mention the voting thing. See, here's the difference. I actually have policy arguments. You do not, either in this thread or the other one. You did not have policy arguments in the other thread, just a nonsensical claim that viewing bloody dead bodies somehow makes the encyclopedia more informative, mixed with a bunch of personal attacks directed towards me and Turbo. It's not the same thing. There is no equivalence between editors who edit responsibly per policy and editors like yourself and YBSone who use talk pages to attack others and promote their political agenda. I mean, just take an honest look at this thread. Half of it is your friend YBSone soapboxing about how evil Russia is. This is not serious editing. There is no equivalence.
On your other claim that my edit of the image is an ONUS violation, that is also false! Because that discussion had run its course. It was ~10 days since it started and the consensus was manifestly clear. You are allowed to add in disputed changes after discussion regarding said changes ends up with a clear consensus. JDiala (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala Since you are either not reading posts properly or do not understand WP:ONUS and WP:DUE, I will make it very simple for you. Explain how this edit is #1 not a violation of WP:ONUS (restoring content after it has been disputed on valid grounds) and #2 WP:DUE (including Ukrainian mistreatment of Russian POW's while excluding the widely more covered Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POW's in a section about war crimes). Since you are apparently such a Wikilawyer now, this should be easy for you. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it's not due to mention a report of plans for well-documented stuff Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "well-documented". It is basically a think tank opinion piece. I'd suggest reading WP:DUE in more detail because it's quite clear you don't understand it. The point is to represent views in proportion to their prevalence in WP:RS. Obscure think tank claims which have not been validated or even reported on by mainstream journalists are quite undue. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect (haha), I'll just copy/paste what I said elsewhere: "As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka[24] and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" Placeholderer (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala, I'd like to focus on discussing the sourcing for 1) filtration camps and 2) arrest lists, as you argue here and above that content summarising these is not adequately supported in reliable sources.
To begin with, RUSI is not obscure. It is linked to the British military establishment, so it may not be impartial, but it is a well established and notable source. You say above that RUSI's report has "escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN". According to Google Scholar, the 2023 report linked and discussed below (which details filtration camps, lists of Ukrainians, arrests and torture) has been cited 42 times since it was published in March 2023. Manyareasexpert quoted a book published by Taylor & Francis in the discussion above that directly referred to the RUSI report, and the AP investigation I mention in the next paragraph also quotes Jack Watling (an author of both the 2022 & 2023 reports) and RUSI. The evidence seems to indicate this report is well cited and influential.
Secondly, you say that "bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" ... should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources". I think we have shown this isn't the case, and that the sourcing extends well beyond the RUSI report: another editor pointed out we have a well sourced article on filtration camps, and I've picked out a number of notable sources from that article in this diff. I also picked out some of the sources the 2023 RUSI report cites below, which includes an AP investigation into arrest lists.
Please could you take a look at the sources I've linked, and let me know what your thoughts are? Do you agree with my analysis, and if not, what is it you disagree with? Jr8825 • Talk 03:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, I appreciate your detailed reply and willingness to respond to the substantive issues. I will address your claims, but before I do so I'd like to briefly highlight precisely what it is that I am opposed to including. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included ... establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity is the edit I most recently reverted.
For context, the Revolution of Dignity involved an estimated 400,000–800,000 protestors. The least charitable (but nevertheless very plausible) interpretation of the quoted sentence would suggest that Russia intended to execute all of these protestors. This would be a genocide. The quoted sentence above therefore would indicate to the reader that Russia literally pre-planned a Nazi-like genocide against the Ukrainian people. This connection would be further entrenched in the reader's mind with the reference to "camps", immediately conjuring images of Hitler's extermination camps.
This is a wildly strong claim. True, even today there are allegations that Russia is attempting a genocide in Ukraine, but such claims remain highly contentious and legalistic and even the most radical such claims do not allege that Russia is or plans to execute close to a million civilians.
The position that I hold is that the inclusion of content even hinting at this requires exceptional evidence. This is supported by our policy e.g., WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I do not believe that the source provided meets this standard of exceptionality. 40-50 citations is not that impressive; these are typical numbers for average academic papers. I can find papers claiming Ivermectin treats COVID with 50 citations, it doesn't mean much for the DUE-ness. The citations in this case are also from no-name journals. Also, a citation is not necessarily an endorsement of everything in the paper per se. I brought up higher-quality sourcess like AP/NYT and the like, because the quality of the source matters. I think it's reasonable to assume that if there was indeed compelling evidence of such a genocidal plan, the highest tier of reliable sources like AP/NYT would report on it.
One compromise I am willing to consider would be as follows. Replace "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" with "executing political opponents." The genocidal connotation here is a bit less strong and bombastic.
That being said, I must say that this comment will be my last here. It's obvious that this issue has caused a great deal of disruption to the article, and I am also in the minority here. I'll let the rest of the community decide on the appropriate outcome at this point. JDiala (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respect your decision to step back from the article if you wish, but I'd add that although this descended into disruptive edit warring, being a minority of one is not always a bad thing if it encourages scrutiny of sources. I disagree with your argument about the content being an extraordinary claim (if you'd like to continue discussing that, I'm happy to explain why), but your objection to "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" led me to examine the RUSI reports more closely to see whether they explicitly say this. The 2022 report does (page 22), but the updated 2023 report doesn't quite; it again mentions the existence of a top category of "those deemed leaders of Ukrainian nationalism who were specified for physical liquidation on a high-priority target list, or for capture to enable show trials" but it doesn't directly mention Euromaidan in that context (as the 2022 report does) -- although it does mention plans to "hunt down" leaders of the Revolution of Dignity on page 18. Either way, the text is clear that not everyone involved in Euromaidan was a target for execution/trial, only those deemed ringleaders. The AP article on arrest lists does not mention the Revolution of Dignity either. So I agree that your suggestion "executing political opponents" would be an improvement over the original text unless more sources are found, or perhaps a clarification about leading figures is added. Jr8825 • Talk 05:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I didn't read through the source before trimming the passage, as I meant to straightforwardly crop what previous editors had said. However, the relevant passage from the 2022 report is "For [people on Russian hit list], the FSB had conducted wargames with detachments of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) to conduct kill-or-capture missions. In many cases, the purpose of capture was to put individuals involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (often referred to as the Maidan Revolution) on trial to be executed". However^2, I do think "trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" as included isn't a faithful paraphrase of that, and so I support rephrasing along the lines of plans including "a hit list of Ukrainians to kill" or some more elegant phrasing. One point is that the report doesn't specify "political opponents" Placeholderer (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the proposed edits make extra-ordinary claims. The RUSI report appears to be based on information provided by the Ukrainian armed forces, while the AP analysis is based on UK/US intelligence. The militaries of UK, US and Ukraine are not exactly WP:INDEPENDENT sources. While I think the information should be included, I also think our wording should reflect the source of this information.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the current state seems to be "clear consensus for the addition of [31] and one-against-multiple-others for [32]". I'm aware this is not a vote. I'll have another look before the protection ends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a follow-up to that RUSI paper where they actually provide confirmation for those plans - Preliminary Lessons from Russia’s Unconventional Operations During the Russo-Ukrainian War, February 2022–February 2023 | Royal United Services Institute ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section is pp 20-27. Page 21 talks about plans for occupation based on categorisation of high priority individuals. Pages 22-24 talk about the actual operation of Russia's occupation in the areas it seized, including arrests, torture and filtration camps. The report includes inline citations, largely to confidential interviews with Russian and Ukrainian officials. However, page 21 citations include an AP investigation about lists of Ukrainians to be arrested, page 22 cites various news reports about torture chambers (we have a separate article on this) and page 24 cites news reports about arrests of mayors and a New Yorker investigation on filtration camps. Jr8825 • Talk 00:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that the sourcing appears adequately extensive that at least some of the added content, e.g. filtration camps and the existence of arrests lists, may not need attribution once we have reviewed the range of sources. Jr8825 • Talk 00:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far this discussion has invoked WP:ARTICLESIZE, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:SS, WP:ASPERSION, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POVPUSH, WP:WEASEL, WP:BIAS, WP:IDLI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:RGW, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLE, WP:VNOT, WP:!VOTE, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Duplicates from different redirects notwithstanding, I propose we add on WP:SNOW and go with this near-unanimous-support version[32] Placeholderer (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following a constructive point, I no longer think this[32] is the best proposed phrasing Placeholderer (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since my earlier comment, I have more closely considered the points of this discussion. In considering VNOT, material should be added in a way that presents a coherent narrative and not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement. The section is telling us about Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine. It would read as follows (noting some discussion that would amend the exact wording).
"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included defeating Ukraine within 10 days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."
The argument for adding the material is to show that there was a plan to invade and that, in saying he had "no plans", he was lying. It is the existence of the plan and not the details of the plan that are pertinent to showing that he was lying. It might be better written as:
"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. However, according to the Royal United Services Institute, there were Russian war plans for the subjugation of Ukraine. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."
This then focusses on the rationale for citing the source without adding detail that disrupts the narrative (as much). The details of the plan are a footnote to the fact that the plan existed. The detals could be added as a footnote. However, the fact that [t]he invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech ipso facto means there was a plan. Afterall, 100,000 Russian troops didn't just spontaneously assemble at the border and commence to invade. The lie is self-evident by virtue of the action. Making it explicit is redundant. Interjecting this into this section disrupts the continuity of the narrative. If this material were to have a place in this section (by this or another name), it would need to be substantially rewritten such that the material became a coherent part of the narrative.
Some comments here are that we should tell the reader what the Russian plan was. An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. This is not uncommon (see Operation Barbarossa#Axis invasion plans as an example). Unfortunately, while such a section could be written, it does not presently exist. Furthermore there is a concern that an opinion as to what the Russian plan was, does not mean that this was the Russian plan. Evidence after the fact does not mean that what happened was a plan made before the fact - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Filtration camps is mentioned in the section Prisoners of war and such a plan would intrinsically constitute war crimes, for which there is also a section. It is possible that the plan might reasonable be incorporated into these sections of the article.
In short, I do not see that it is appropriate to incorporate the disputed text into Putin's invasion announcement but it might be reasonable to incoperate it into the article elsewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement
What if we would not concentrate on this particular section name, for the reason being that academic works really pay little attention to this particular detail.
The possible solution would be to just rename the section to something like
An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue/s I have identified have nothing to do with what the particular section is called but what is written in that section and where it is proposed to add the text. In a section about the Russian invasion plan, Putin's announcement is not about the plan but the start of its execution. It would not be coherent. It is not just a case of delete one name and insert another. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) – Previous discussion has shown there is rough consensus that Russian invasion of Ukraine is no longer the ideal way to describe the subject of this article: the three-year period of hostilities in Ukraine and parts of Russia which began on 24 February 2022. Editors have generally agreed, especially following the events since 2024 in the Kursk province of Russia, that an article covering 2022–2025 ought to be titled war and not invasion. This also corresponds with the trends that one may find in sources (WP:COMMONNAME), which have increasingly abandoned the term invasion in favor of war to refer to the events currently taking place, as well as the events of the past three years as a whole.

If disambiguation with Russo-Ukrainian War becomes necessary as a result of this move, I propose moving that page to Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present). As a result, Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present) and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) will exist simultaneously for a temporary period of time during which separate discussions will be had on how to proceed.

A word to the wise: if you have proposals to change the scope of this or other articles, or to rename other articles, please save your suggestions for later. Previous experience has shown that everyone seems to have their own different convoluted plan on how to rearrange titling and scope across multiple articles. Such tangents will only serve to diverge our positions and derail the conversation. We can sort the rest out in future discussions; let us try in this RM to take the first step by staying focused on what I think many of us agree on, which is that invasion is no longer the appropriate term for an article covering 2022–2025. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Russia–Ukraine war for this article and Russia–Ukraine conflict for the broader article covering events since 2014. Two things there: First, "Russo-Ukrainian" is a Wikipedian invention; combining forms have not been standard in English for decades unless used in historical contexts. Second, Russia and Ukraine have not been at war since 2014, and no sources say that they do. The vast majority of reliable sources (as proven at length in the prior discussion) explicitly consider February 24, 2022, to be the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine. It would be the equivalent of Wikipedia having an article titled "World War" covering the events of a "war" spanning 1914 to 1945. Russia and Ukraine were at war when Russia invaded Crimea and 2014 until the Donbas cease-fire in 2015. They have been at war again since 2022 when Russia invaded again. Those two wars are linked in the same conflict but in no way are they a single continuous war, and I ask any editors suggesting otherwise to provide sources other than Wikipedia that back up the assertion that the current war in Ukraine began not three years ago but eleven. DecafPotato (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather not raise the question of whether or not the events since 2014 should be called a war or a conflict in this RM. Start a discussion on the other article if you would like it to be moved. I have no strong views on the issue myself but there is definitely a faction of editors who will be salivating to dispute your assertions here. I ask that they resist the temptation. My goal is for us to judge the merits of renaming a single article, not two or three of them at once. If we make things more complicated, the outcome of no consensus becomes much more likely, and the status quo, which we agree is problematic, persists.
    That said, Russia–Ukraine instead of "Russo-Ukrainian" has my endorsement. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of reliable sources (as proven at length in the prior discussion) explicitly consider February 24, 2022, to be the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine
    Actually, the opposite is true. Academic sources say the war has started Feb 2014. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See below for the long, long list of academic sources defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and the time before that as "pre-war". Additionally, this is not primarily an academic topic, so I don't see why academic sourcing should automatically be favoured over, e.g., high-quality broadsheets like the Times/NYT/Guardian or broadcasters like the BBC, who overwhelmingly use the term "Russia-Ukraine war" to refer to something that began in 2022. Similarly, other encyclopaedias also tend to refer to this being a war that began in 2022 (e.g., Britannica). FOARP (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a short list of ten poorly curated and indiscriminately chosen sources specifically intended to push a view. Your very first source's topic area is 'airline stock prices'. It is completely irrelevant for this article. Several others have no subject matter relevance either. Hell, one of your sources makes the utterly ridiculous statement that this war is Russia's 'first invasion attempt' of Ukraine. And its topic area is the financial markets of the Asia-Pacific region. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, these are statistical analyses where (unlike in other fields where this can be obfuscated) it is important to define a start-date for the war. They (together with the overwhelming majority of with high-quality news media, which we have to ignore for some reason?) universally identify 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.
    Pooh-poohing analysis *of the war* on airline stock prices, or on Asia markets and other areas, just shows a lack of understanding of the extent of the impact of this war in the economic, medical, environmental, and agricultural fields.
    But OK, let's repeat this analysis today using the first page of Wikipedia Library search engine results for "Russia-Ukraine war" and see which war they are referring to. My search results are as follows:
First page of 30 results for a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" on Wikipedia Library
  • "STEM Students' International Mobility in Kazakhstan in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War Conflict", Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education - refers to 2022 as "...when the war started".
  • "The US-India Interactions to Russia-Ukraine War", Journal of East Asia & International Law - refers to events after 2022 as "... since the Ukraine war"
  • "Impact of Russia-Ukraine War on the Financial Sector of India", Drishtikon: A Management Journal - "The war between Russia and Ukraine began on February 24, 2022..."
  • "ASSESSING THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCES OF THE RUSSIA - UKRAINE WAR ON ECONOMIC GROWTH", Buletin Stiintific - "...in 2021, only one year before the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
  • "Generation climate crisis, COVID-19, and Russia–Ukraine-War: global crises and mental health in adolescents", European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry - Refers to "...the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War (RUW) as something that happened in this decade (i.e., in the 2020's).
  • "The dependency structure of international commodity and stock markets after the Russia-Ukraine war", PLOS ONE, "... the Russia-Ukraine war, which broke out on 24th February 2022...
  • "The Russia-Ukraine War: A Good Case Study for Students to Learn and Apply the Critical Juncture Framework", Journal of Political Science Education - "As of October 2023, more than 1.5years into the Russia-Ukraine war..."
  • "The Annexation of Crimea and Türkiye's Balancing Role in the Russia-Ukraine War", Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, "Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 to further enhance its dominance in the Black Sea and subsequently declared war on Ukraine in 2022". Obviously "declare war" is used in an informal sense and not literally, but it is clear that the author does not consider 2014 as the start of the war.
  • "Correcting misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine War reduces false beliefs but does not change views about the War", PLoS One - the sentence "The Russia-Ukraine War has been marked by misinformation since the start, when false claims about the rise of Nazis and persecution of Russian minorities in Ukraine were offered as justification for Russia’s invasion" is cited to news stories published in 2022, showing that they consider 2022 to be the "start" of the war.
  • "Characteristics of Household Energy Consumption in the Shadow of the Russia-Ukraine War - A Case Study from Hungary", International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning & Management - only refers to events post-2022 as "the war".
  • "A Revolution in Military Affairs and Modern Armaments in the Russia-Ukraine War of 2022-2023", Future Human Image - clear from the title that they consider the war to have begun in 2022.
  • "Impact of social media-based dance therapy in treating depression symptoms among victims of Russia–Ukraine war", Health Promotion International - "The war between Russia and Ukraine broke out on 24 February 2022...".
  • "The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Laboratory: Observations Informing IAMD", Military Review - only discusses post-2022 events.
  • "Planning for economic integration: addressing trade challenges posed by the Ukraine-Russia conflict in Europe", Theoretical & Applied Economics - equivocal, e.g., states that "Ukraine and Russian-backed soldiers fought after Russia invaded and seized Crimea in March 2014. Peace efforts between 2014 and February 2022 were unsuccessful, and on February 24, 2022, Russian forces attacked Ukraine. The war continues to this day....
  • "Exposure to trade disruptions in case of the Russia–Ukraine conflict: A product network approach", World Economy - describes the Russia-Ukraine war as "The recent war" and the 2014 conflict as an "antecedent".
  • "Ukraine's President Zelensky Takes the Russia/Ukraine War Viral", Orbis - clearly only referring to post-2022 as "the war".
  • "Comparative analysis of the quality of life of women who left the territory of Ukraine during the ongoing Russia - Ukraine war and women who stayed at their homes", Wiad Lek - uses the term "the full-scale invasion of Russia on the territory of Ukraine" synonymously with "Russia-Ukraine war"
  • "Instrumental goals shape EU citizens' attitudes to the Russia–Ukraine war over time", International Journal of Psychology - only refers to events after 24 February 2022 as "the Russian–Ukraine war"
  • "Correction to: Gendered silences in Western responses to the Russia–Ukraine war", Place Branding & Public Diplomacy - evidently a correction to an existing article and so excluded.
  • "Diasporas during conflict: A mixed‐method analysis of attitudes of the Russian‐speaking community in Finland towards the Russia‐Ukraine war", Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology - Only refers to events post-2022 as "the Russia-Ukraine war", e.g., "With the Russia-Ukraine war altering Finland's geopolitical position, Finland has joined NATO, given significant aid to Ukraine (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023), and received more than 50,000 Ukrainian refugees (The Ministry of Interior, 2023)."
  • "Russia-Ukraine war perspective of natural resources extraction: A conflict with impact on sustainable development", Resources Policy - "The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war since February 2022..."
  • "Trend and disparities in authorship of healthcare-related publications on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war", International Journal for Equity in Health - Clearly considers that the war began in 2022, for example saying in 2023 that "It has been over a year since the Russia-Ukraine war began..." and that "...from the start of the war in February 2022..."
  • "African Cultures And Values In The Mediation Process Of The Russia-Ukraine War", Journal of African Union Studies - refers to the war as "Since 2022...".
  • "EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN CONFLICT: THE IMPACT OF STARLINK IN THE RUSSIA - UKRAINE WAR", Revista Academiei Fortelor Terestre, "The invasion of the Russian Federation that began on February 24, referred to by Russian propaganda as a “special military operation”, has not achieved its objective of replacing the pro-Western government led by President Zelensky with a Kremlin-obedient government, and the “short” military intervention has transformed into a war of attrition that has now exceeded 2 years in duration.. Clearly considers the war to have begun in 2022.
  • "Regional and periodic asymmetries in the effect of Russia-Ukraine war on global stock markets", Heliyon - statistical analysis of the impact of the war with 24 February 2022 as "the event day"
  • "A Comparison of Ukrainian Hospital Services and Functions Before and During the Russia-Ukraine War", JAMA Health Forum - clearly states that 23 February 2022 is the dividing line between "before" and "during".
  • "EVADING THE PAST: America’s War in Ukraine", The Nation - Refers to the events after 24 February 2022 as "the new war" and talks about "The Russia-Ukraine War of 2022". Arguably this isn't an academic source though, but again it's remarkable that the author does not consider there to have been a continuous war since 2014.
  • "Chinese lithium rally slows while global uptrend persists amid Russia-Ukraine war", Fastmarkets MB Daily - not an academic source but does appear to be referring to the Russia-Ukraine war as something that started recently in 2022.
  • "For whom the bell tolls. A spatial analysis of the renewable energy transition determinants in Europe in light of the Russia-Ukraine war", Journal of Environmental Management - describes the increase in gas prices in late 2021-early 2022 as "The energy crisis [that] started right before the war...".
  • "Exchange rate instabilities during the Russia-Ukraine war: Evidence from V4 countries", Heliyon - Analysis centres on the period 1 February 2022 to 1 February 2023 and before this is treated as pre-war. Early 2022 is described as "during the first three months of the war in Ukraine".
That is 30 results, all published after the beginning of the war, in reliable sources, selected randomly and not cherry-picked, 27 of which are articles in academic journals (two are opinion-pieces/news, one is a correction), and not a single one of these journal articles is referring to the Russia-Ukraine war as something that begun in 2014. Instead, overwhelmingly they treat 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.
It is very hard to understand why we are supposed to ignore both the reports in high-quality news-media *AND* the output of academics writing in reputable journals on this.FOARP (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for Russia-Ukraine war and "2014" has hundreds of thousands of results with numerous sources saying that the war started in 2014. – Asarlaí (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to tell you this, but I think you need to learn more about how Google works. The first thing to understand is that the number of hits it reports is rarely very accurate (the reality is it only return 24 pages of results, so roughly 247 hits). The second is that the hits will include sources that aren't reliable (e.g., there's a lot of Youtube videos in there). The third is that the result will include results that merely mention the search terms. In the case of the search you've just made, the first five hits are two Wikipedia articles, a House of Commons article saying the war began in 2022, a Britannica article saying the war started in 2022, and a CFR article that is at best equivocal on when the war starter. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have lots of academic sources in the first line of Russo-Ukrainian War#History, many of which were originally added by myself. The link to the Google search was simply to show there are many more sources of various kinds. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but many of those sources don't actually say what you're using them to say and/or aren't reliable, independent sources. Taking those sources in turn:
Collapse sources discussion
  1. An ECHR case - not a reliable, independent source, and anyway published in 2021.
  2. Serhii Plokhy - We've discussed this elsewhere, Plokhy is clearly arguing his own POV against what he acknowledges as an existing viewpoint (i.e., that the war began on 24 February 2022 but he argues instead that it began on 27 February 2014).
  3. Bacon - "The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine", but this doesn't contradict that the war that began in 2022 was a separate war to the Donbas war that began in 2014.
  4. Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse - They appear to be referring to the Donbas war, not the present war.
  5. Heisbourg, François - appears to be referring to the Donbas war, not the present war.
  6. John Hopkins - published 2020, not relevant to this discussion.
  7. Literally the Ukrainian government website, published in 2021.
  8. D'anieri - "therefore, almost no one predicted the limited war of 2014, or (until it was imminent) the much larger war of 2022. War was certainly not seen as inevitable. Does Russia's massive invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 represent a continuation of the war that began in 2014 or does it represent an overturning of that strategy? .... They're literally calling the present war a separate war and questioning whether it is a continuation of the 2014 war. How does this substantiate the point you are trying to make with it?
Can you see what the issue is with these? FOARP (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't reading sources which say the war has started in 2014, and claim otherwise :) War in Ukraine - Google Books First, what we often call “the Ukraine War” didn’t start in February 2022, even if that is when its most intense, calamitous, and globally resonant phase began. Just as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was the prologue to its all- out invasion of China in 1937, the war between Ukraine and Rus sia began in 2014 with Vladimir Putin’s taking of Crimea and his intervention— first through proxies and then with regular forces—in the Donbas. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you see how the author there is arguing against what they tacitly acknowledge is a consensus? The consensus is that the Sino-Japanese war started in 1937 (incidentally, that’s also what our article on the topic says). A “prologue” is not necessarily the start of something, it is the thing that comes before the start. FOARP (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't reading the source and claim otherwise :)just stick to what it says. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a policy requirement to cite sources directly relevant to the article topic. The example sources aren't analysing the war, they are analysing their respective fields during the period of the war. These are distinct topics. Consequently, citing sources that have no subject matter relevance to build this case is a problem. Many of the cited sources aren't about the conflict, but use it as a backdrop for their relevant subject matter. They aren't RS here; they are RS elsewhere. If it isn't a source that could be used to write this article, it certainly isn't a source that could be used to determine its scope (this discussion is only ostensibly about the title). Moreover, I won't consider a source that has basic factual errors about a subject it discusses in passing. The above "statistical analysis" – employing terminology without grasping it (ctrl+f-ing through the first page of Google or Wikipedia Library is not a statistical analysis and a data set of 10 or 30 for a subject with thousands of available just academic sources is unacceptably tiny to call it one) – has the same problem as the last one. It's a grab bag of sources, many of which are not germane. The approach is fundamentally flawed and unserious. You're arguing elsewhere against SME sources that don't align with your stance, whilst defending sources containing basic errors about this subject that do. You are asking to have treated Antonio Miguel Martins, an assistant professor of Economics at Madeira University with a PhD in management with the same weight as Gwendolyn Sasse, a political scientist, Director of Eastern Europe and International studies, and professor for the Comparative Study of Democracy and Authoritarianism focussing specifically on the history of the Soviet Union at Humboldt University in Berlin. One is an SME for this subject area and one has no relevant background. That is the stark qualitative difference in sourcing presented in an indiscriminate list and carefully selected SME sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, from my perspective what's happened is this:
  1. I produce high-quality WP:RSNP news-media sources overwhelmingly reporting 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.
  2. Response: "news media doesn't count, only academic sources count".
  3. I produce academic sources in reputable journals, all of which are clearly - as is shown by the article-titles - writing about various aspects of the present war, that overwhelmingly report 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war. I then also review the first ten hits in the journal Survival which is clearly germane to the field of international politics and warfare even if you think that academics in other fields writing about the impact of the war in their field isn't relevant.
  4. Response: "those are the wrong academics, only academics saying the exact thing I want to say count".
Can you see why this seems like possibly not an entirely fair process? FOARP (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
# Response: "those are the wrong academics, only academics saying the exact thing I want to say count".
No, the response is - It is a policy requirement to cite sources directly relevant to the article topic. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and I went through the first ten hits of a journal (Survival) that is presumably germane - because it’s the one you selected - and they all reflect the viewpoint that this war started in 2022. FOARP (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we ignore the argument - it stays. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of reliable, independent sources describe the present conflict as a war that began on 24 February 2022. To see that this is true you need only look at all of the articles being published today discussing "three years of war" in high-quality news media. This includes the BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Newsweek, Al Jazeera, CNN, Sky News (etc. etc.). Indeed, if you go down the sources listed as highly reliable at WP:RSNP, if they cover Ukraine, they will have an article out today talking about this war having last three years. This isn't a recent change either, last year there were many, many articles in high-quality sources about the "1000th day of the war" and similar:
Long list of high-quality media sources referring to 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war"
That this is the primary topic for Russia-Ukraine war can be seen by comparing the number of articles covering 24 February as the anniversary of the war with those covering 27 February (the anniversary of the start of the 2014-15 war). 24 February massively predominates regardless of the source consulted.
It is completely artificial to insist that only academic sources should be considered when considering what the common-name is here, since this is not primarily an academic topic yet but instead a military/diplomatic one, however academia also largely considers this a war that began in 2022. This can be seen in academic articles published since 2022 which define 24 February 2022 as the "start of the war" and the period before that as "pre-war" including the following:
Long list of academic sources defining the start of the war as 24 February 2022
In terms of accuracy this clearly is a war, and not just an invasion of Ukraine, since the conflict has long since spread outside the borders of Ukraine in to the Black Sea and within Russia. In terms of conciseness, "Russia-Ukraine War" is shorter than the present title. "Russia-Ukraine" should be favoured over "Russo-Ukrainian" as reliable sources tend to use the former (see above for many examples of this, and also Ngrams though this only extends to 2022).
In terms of what to do with the existing Russo-Ukrainian war article, I favour the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russo-Ukrainian conflict or the Russo-Ukrainian war (2014-2022) solutions (in declining order). If there is not a consensus for Russia-Ukraine war (either with or without disambiguation by year) then I support Russo-Ukrainian war (either with or without disambiguation) as an improvement over the existing title. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the list of academic sources that define the start of the war as Feb 2014, please refer to Russo-Ukrainian War#History. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're going to have to do better than simply making a generic hand-wave in the direction of data that mostly pre-dates 2022. This is particularly the case when that page presently has a link to a Britannica page entitled "Russia-Ukraine War [2022–present]". FOARP (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a generic hand-wave in the direction of data that mostly pre-dates 2022
Russo-Ukrainian War#History
Sasse, Gwendolyn (2023). Russia's War Against Ukraine. Wiley & Sons. p. 2004. Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea on 27 February 2014. On that day, Russian special forces without any uniform insignia appeared in Crimea, quickly taking control of strategic, military and political institutions.Käihkö, Ilmari (2023). Slava Ukraini!: Strategy and the Spirit of Ukrainian Resistance 2014–2023. Helsinki University Press. p. 72. If asked when the war began, many Ukrainians believe it was when the unmarked Russian 'little green men' occupied Crimea on February 27, 2014, or February 20, the date given on the official Russian campaign medal 'For the Return of Crimea'.Bacon, Edwin (2024). Contemporary Russia. Springer Nature. p. 12. - The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine; fought by separatists with Russian military support in the east of Ukraine from 2014, until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched by the Russian armed forces in 2022.Plokhy, Serhii (9 May 2023). The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xxi. - I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Many Ukrainians" - so, not necessarily the view of the source, or from a reliable source, or representative of the common name in English. Additionally no-one is saying that the 2014-15 conflict wasn't a war, only that when people say "Russia-Ukraine War", the conflict that began in 2022 is the one being referred to.
"I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning..." - This is hardly a round rejection of it being so. It practically acknowledges that this is/can be identified as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally no-one is saying that the 2014-15 conflict wasn't a war, only that when people say "Russia-Ukraine War", the conflict that began in 2022 is the one being referred to.
There are sources which say the war started in 2022, and there are sources which say it started in 2014. And there is no contradiction in this. Note that sources which discuss the broader event horizon, including 2014 events, do acknowledge the war started in 2014. The thing is, sources do consider events which started in 2022 as the "war" - a full-scale war. This 2022 war is part of the broader event which started in 2014, and which sources also characterize as "war". That's what we should represent in our articles. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is an editor-constructed analysis, not something the sources have said. This is the entire problem with the way this issue has been approached - the reality is they haven't necessarily thought things through in the way you describe. Instead, they report on what is happening and what has happened, and that is undeniably that today is being marked as the third anniversary of this war, whilst 27 February will go by largely unremarked, and not as the "11th anniversary of the war".
But let's see what we should do if you are right: then we should follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and see which is the most prominent "war" - and we will find that it is undeniable that the war that began on 24 February 2022 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, they report on what is happening and what has happened, and that is undeniably that today is being marked as the third anniversary of this war
Those are media sources discussing the 2022 full-scale invasion, which brought much more press and academic attention than 2014 events.Nevertheless, discussing the naming of Russo-Ukrainian War, we should pay attention to the sources that discuss wide perspective of events that started in 2014 and call those "war".Sorry, this is an editor-constructed analysis, not something the sources have said.
What do you mean? Ukraine and Russia - Google Books ... Therefore, almost no one predicted the limited war of 2014, or (until it was imminent) the much larger war of 2022. War was certainly not seen as inevitable. Does Russia's massive invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 represent a continuation of the war that began in 2014 or does it represent an overturning of that strategy? ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use a source questioning whether something is true as confirmation that it is true, particularly when the source clearly describes two wars, one of which is much larger and thus more prominent ("the limited war of 2014, or ... the much larger war of 2022"). The present war is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Russia-Ukraine war and thus should predominate over other topics. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use a source questioning whether something is true as confirmation that it is true)
The source is referring to the war of 2014 as the limited war of 2014, and the war of 2022 as the much larger war of 2022 no questions.
particularly when the source clearly describes two wars, one of which is much larger and thus more prominent ("the limited war of 2014, or ... the much larger war of 2022")
The present war is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Even if true, it's not a justification to call Russo-Ukrainian War a "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert: We (and reliable sources) call the Israeli–Palestinian conflict a conflict even though it consists of significant armed violence, and, indeed, multiple full-on wars within it. Renaming the article currently titled "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Russia–Ukraine conflict" isn't somehow denying that the War in Donbas and "Russia–Ukraine war"/"Russian invasion of Ukraine" are wars in and of themselves. Sources calling the War in Donbas a "war" don't support your position at all, and indeed only further the point that the 2014–present thing is a "conflict", because long-running interstate conflicts almost always contain multiple wars (whether it be the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, say, First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War ...... or the Gaza–Israel conflict, Gaza War (2008–2009), and 2014 Gaza War .... and I can go on). DecafPotato (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources calling the War in Donbas a "war"
We aren't talking about this. The subject of discussion is the war which started in Feb 2014 with Crimea invasion. See Russo-Ukrainian War#History for sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Flemmish Nietzsche, just to be clear are you supporting Russia-Ukraine war or a different title (e.g., Russo-Ukrainian war as in the OP)? Do you have a view about what to do with the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian war? FOARP (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on the Russia-Ukraine/Russo-Ukrainian issue; in my view Russo-Ukrainian War should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian conflict to eliminate any confusion as to "wars inside of wars" and adhere to sources saying that the war as a whole began in 2022. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Russia-Ukraine war" (with or without "2022-present") as that is more in line with the naming used by reliable sources. Compare a Google search of "Russo-Ukrainian war" with "Russia-Ukraine war" and you'll see that Russo-Ukrainian war is a name primarily used by Wikipedia itself (and the corresponding article is the first result). Meanwhile, a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" results in the "Top Stories" section being generated by Google, and the first actual result is an ABC News article that came out 2 hours ago (with the result after that being Wikipedia's Russo-Ukrainian War article). In addition to ABC News, we also have sources such as the New York Times, AP, The Telegraph, NBC News, Newsweek, and Al Jazeera. International organizations such as Human Rights Watch also refer to a Russia-Ukraine war. Reuters uses the name "Ukraine Russia war" in their URL, and their subheading states "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine started the deadliest war on European soil..." which implies that their view is that the invasion and the war are separate. While the BBC refers to the "Ukraine War" in the section on their website, the short description for the website's Google search result is "Follow the latest news about the Russia Ukraine war." Something similar is the case for The Guardian and The Economist. Separately, I agree with OP that we should not broaden the scope of this discussion too much. Let's focus on this article's name for now. We can worry about how to change other things in a separate discussion. Let's change this article's name to Russia-Ukraine war for now, and then other issues regarding scope or other articles can be addressed afterward. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have already main page on this subject, Russo-Ukrainian War (yes, it better to be renamed to "Russia-Ukraine war"). However, it was a very different low-intensity war (or a military conflict) before 2022. The actual large-scale war started only in 2022. Making this just a period of the same war seems a little misleading. In addition, the suggested title places Russia and Ukraine on "an equal footing", just as two sides in a conflict as the new title implies. This is not true. This is actually a Russian invasion, as the current title says. It was an invasion in 2022, and it is still an invasion right now, although both "war" and "invasion" wordings were widely used in sources (sure, this is a war and an invasion at the same time). I think the clarity in the title is especially important given the recent attempts by the Trump administration to label Ukraine as the perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: You seem to be opposing the original proposal. What's your opinion on the alternative (this to Russia-Ukraine War and Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict)? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to distinguish between invasion, war, and occupation. There is no invasion that is currently happening. Instead, Russia is occupying large parts of Ukraine, while Ukraine is occupying a small part of Russia (in Kursk). Separate from this, there is a state of war with a clearly defined front. As I pointed out in my comment in a different section of the talk page, consider the German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940) article. The article states that the German invasion of Denmark lasted "six hours" and was subsequently followed by a German occupation. This idea that an invasion is an ongoing event spanning over three years where both sides of a conflict are fighting over a front that moves slowly is silly. That's not an invasion. That's a war. Of course, an invasion happened, but the subsequent events are not an invasion anymore and this article's title should reflect that. JasonMacker (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JasonMacker - correct. The OED defines "invasion" as "The action of invading a country or territory as an enemy; an entrance or incursion with armed force; a hostile inroad". Similarly Merriam-Webster defines invasion as "an act of invading, especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder". An army is no longer clearly "invading" when it ceases to advance and is in long term occupation and/or is retreating. Referring to events happening now in 2025 in Ukraine as "invasion of Ukraine" just isn't correct English. None of this is to take away from the moral responsibility that Russia and its leadership has for this war of aggression: it is simply to correct the language used.
    @My very best wishes - I don't get how you write "We have already main page on this subject, Russo-Ukrainian War (yes, it better to be renamed to "Russia-Ukraine war"). However, it was a very different low-intensity war (or a military conflict) before 2022. The actual large-scale war started only in 2022. Making this just a period of the same war seems a little misleading." and then oppose the proposed move which corrects this problem. At present the article has the POV that the post-2022 conflict is just a phase in a war that has been going on since 2014, and the proposed move is designed to fix this. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JasonMacker. Yes, German forces quickly took over the entire of Denmark, following by the occupation. But this war is different: Russian forces failed to occupy the entire Ukraine, and they are still trying to invade as much as possible of the Ukrainian territory. And no, the war is not "static": Russian forces made significant territorial advances during last year. Therefore, the invasion is still ongoing. If not, when exactly did it stop? Other pages, such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, says: The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion began on 20 March 2003 and lasted just over one month.... Yes, but this is because USA forces have occupied the Iraq. What would be the time frame here? One month as for the Iraq? A year? There is no specific time frame because the invasion is still progressing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The operative example here is Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets did not take the entirety of Afghanistan, nor did the Russians take the entirety of Ukraine. The article redirects to the initial section following the 1979 coup d'état and going until the invasion stalled during the winter of 1979–80. The analogous stage of the war in Ukraine is, from a popular standpoint, from 24 February until 7 April, when the Russians withdrew from the Kyiv offensive, and from a military standpoint, until 13 May, when the Russians failed to cross the Donets and capture Sloviansk. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. But the Soviet forces and their Afghan allies did control most of the Afghanistan. Not so with Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s the Iran-Iraq war and World War I examples as well: both began with an invasion (Germany invading Belgium and France, Iraq invading Iran) but the invasion was just the initial phase of the war. FOARP (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your measure of "significant" is, but let's directly compare the map of today (this) with a map from a year ago (this). The main differences between the two maps are the Russian advance northwest of Donetsk, and Ukraine's advance on Kursk... these two almost cancel each other out in terms of territory gained, so the net shift is only slightly in favor of Russia. But otherwise, the maps are mostly the same. In contrast, during the actual Russian invasion, around February and March in 2022, the map in late February was wildly different from the map in late March, because the rapidly advancing (and retreating) Russian forces weren't staying on established front lines like they do today. In other words, the territorial gains of Russia between February 28 and March 30 in 2022 were larger than the territorial gains of Russia from February 2024 to February 2025 (1 year). That's why, at this point, I don't see how Russia's territorial gains in the past year can be seen as "significant". Russia's strategy by 2023 was to build trenches to defend their lines (in 2023!)... that's not what invading forces do. At some point, an invasion that does not successfully capture everything transitions to a "standard" war with established front lines. Again, if you look at the history of the battleground maps, you'll find what is basically today's lines in August 2023. The time frame should be when Russia began to build trenches and no longer was focused on invading new territory, because that's when the invasion ended. JasonMacker (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are exceptional circumstances where COMMONNAME can be disregarded. These are often when issues of ambiguity or naturalness arise. I think that applies here. It strikes me as odd to have one article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)" and another titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present)", as it begs the question what exactly happened in 2022 that would necessitate such a split. The answer to that is quite clear: an invasion. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 which is precisely the reason for the current escalation. This should be made clear in the article title. JDiala (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: You seem to be opposing the original proposal. What's your opinion on the alternative (this to Russia-Ukraine War and Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict)? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 00:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's meant to be a temporary thing so that that page can have a move discussion after.
Long term I think that page should be Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(I'm on team Russo-Ukrainian) and the War in Donbas should specifically cover the low intensity war in 2014-2015 seperately from the frozen conflict period. I cite Nagorno Karabakh and Manchuria as good historically examples TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:RUSUKR non-EC strikethrough - ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the scope of this article for a while has been the 2022–present phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. I must caveat this: 2022 was an escalation and continuation of the war since 2014, so this article potentially changing names should not implicate the name of the broader umbrella article. Thus, I do not support renaming Russo-Ukrainian war as the proposal suggests. Furthermore, while this should come down the line as the proposal suggests, I would split out of this article an 'invasion' specific new article covering the invasion of 2022. Yeoutie (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Russo-Ukrainian War and move the parent article to Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Moreover, I think we should create an entire new article under the name Russian invasion of Ukraine that covers the first phase of the war from 24 February to 8 April 2022 (when the last Russian forces withdrew from northern Ukraine). Apart from the terrific source compilation above, I would like to argue the urgent necessity of this change on the ground of consistency with other historical events. Firstly, I have searched for all the Wikipedia articles that contain "invasion" on their title, and only this and the French invasion of Egypt and Syria have lasted for more than a year. Invasion appears to be reserved for short periods of quick advance of an army on a foreign country and not for a stalled trench war. The current title would be the equivalent of calling the Western Front (World War I) article "German invasion of France (1914–1918)". I think the best recent event we can take as a model is the Iran–Iraq War. An initial invasion, the front stalls in trench warfare, and cross border attacks ensuing for years. The cross border component is really important here. For instance, we currently have the Kursk front as a subset of the attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would mean that the scope of the Russian invasion of Ukraine article covers Ukraine and Russia; this is a nonsense, and by the logic we are currently using, the Kursk article should be named Ukrainian invasion of Russia. In conclusion, the historical precedent suggests deprecating the word invasion in favor of War, and implementing the change would allow to better organize the spillover articles.
Basque mapping (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Russia-Ukraine war acceptable to you? Sources appear to prefer this name (see, e.g., the Ngrams data above). FOARP (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP My personal preference stands in Russo-Ukrainian, but if the majority of sources use Russia–Ukraine (as it seems at this moment), then we must go with it. In any case, per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, the title must use a dash and not a hyphen. Basque mapping (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donbas War" would omit the occupation of Crimea, wouldn't it? OsFish (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article should be split into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 Feb–7 Apr 2022) and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present). After a successful moving, the article now called Russo-Ukrainian War could be renamed Russo-Ukrainian conflict and this article (optionally) could be renamed to just Russo-Ukrainian War. Thus, the overall conflict starting in 2014 can be divided into following stages:
CapLiber (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose a renaming would probably require some splitting and I haven't seen any consistent, well-defined cut-off point for when the invasion became a war (also, a rhetorical question but how and when does an invasion become a war?). I'm not planning on taking much part in the above discussions or arguing/debating but thought it might help to post/rephrase these ideas/questions for consideration. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more of a question of when does it become clear that the goals set out by an invading side are not met. In this instance, a clearly defined goal was taking the capital city of Kyiv (the invading forces were in the northern outskirts of the city) and the second largest city Kharkiv (which was encircled). After a month of fighting, the Russians pulled of the northern Ukraine, and by 7 April they have focused all their forces in the Donbas and southern Ukraine, eventually forming what is todays frontline. It's not that the war starts after this realisation, but rather that the unsucessful invasion becomes a part of a larger war. For example, the German invasion of the Soviet Union started on 22 June 1941, but by December the failure to reach the goals set out by the Nazis became obvious, yet we still consider that the German-Soviet War (also known as the Eastern Front of WWII or as Great Patriotic War in the form. USSR) started in June. CapLiber (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's more of a question of when does it become clear that the goals set out by an invading side are not met."
    That has nothing to do with when the invasion/war started and it has nothing to do with what the name of the article should be.
    "For example, the German invasion of the Soviet Union started on 22 June 1941, ..., yet we still consider that the German-Soviet War (also known as the Eastern Front of WWII or as Great Patriotic War in the form. USSR) started in June."
    As we should, because Nazi Germany's goals or the attainment of those goals does not affect when the war/invasion started. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So your point is we can call all of WWII Eastern Front "Operation Barbarossa"? I don't think so. Is there an invasion going on? A consequence of one, surely, with Ukraine deterring the forces that wanted to invade all of the country and in turn invading some (minor) part of Russia. So "Russian invasion" is no longer relevant for describing all of the current war. My point was not that the failure of the German invasion meant that the German-Soviet War started after they failed with a quick offensive and taking Moscow, quite the opposite, they all started simultaniously on 22 June 1941 (which is how it is presented in the respective articles), but the "German invasion" lasted until December, when the Red Army defended Moscow and started counter-offensives against Wehrmacht. After that the war lasted for more than 3 years with the Russians then occupying whole Eastern European nations and finally parts of the invader country of Germany, although obviously the scale, however big it now is, is incomparible. Another example would be the Iran-Iraq War – the war started with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980, after 2 months of a successful offensive, the invasion halted, but the war continued for the whole 7 years, with Iran then invading Iraq in response and Iraqis counter-attacking the Iranians. Again, nobody calls the whole 8 year-spanning war the "Iraqi invasion of Iran". I don't think I saw anybody else making that argument there, but that for me just seems as an undermining of Ukraine's sovereignty and effort at defending themselves to still call the war where they have shown that they are a considerable force in the region and can repel Russian attacks and themselves attack a "Russian invasion", as if the Russian army still marches through Ukraine which can barely defend itself, which is not the case. CapLiber (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that my proposal did not advocate for splitting any part of this article or defining the end point of the invasion. That currently seems to be a minority view. I count three editors who have suggested it. I share your view that there is no well-defined date in sources representing an "end" to the invasion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article isn't about the Russo-Ukrainian war in general, which began in 2014. It's about the ongoing Russian invasion since 2022. Russia is still invading Ukraine. I agree with My very best wishes - calling Russia's massive ongoing attack on Ukraine the "Russia-Ukraine war" wrongly implies that both sides are equally to blame and wrongly implies both sides have attacked eachother with the same intensity. That is not true.
It's especially important that we call this invasion what it is, and not use euphemisms, given the recent attempts to shift blame away from Russia. Yesterday (24 Feb 2025), the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating: "the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has persisted for three years and continues to have devastating and long-lasting consequences". It passed with 93 votes for and only 18 against. It was Russia and the Russia-friendly Trump administration who backed another version calling it the "Russia-Ukraine conflict".
Above, Manyareasexpert showed that academic sources agree the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014. It's common for news agencies to use short-hand names for things, because they need to be concise when writing headlines etc. But this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Asarlaí (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the proclamations of the UN a reliable, independent source? Additionally, Wikipedia is not about WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. I also sympathise strongly with Ukraine (EDIT: and I note Zelensky also has described this repeatedly as a war that began on 24 February 2022 - see the following speeches 1 2 3 ), but anyone can see that covering drone strikes in Novgorod, fighting in Kursk, and combat in the Black Sea, under the heading "invasion of Ukraine", makes no sense at all because those events aren't happening in Ukraine. Wikipedia is also not an academic journal - we use the common name in English, which at this point is clearly "Russia-Ukraine war", but even looking only at academic sources they overwhelmingly treat 24 February 2022 as the start-date of this war - see above for my analysis of the first 30 Wikipedia Library search hits, 27 of which are articles in academic journals. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sources they overwhelmingly treat 24 February 2022 as the start-date of this war
The sources you presented mostly cover the 2022 war. The sources which cover 2014 war do name it a war. The supposed prevalence you observe is because 2022 war is getting much more press and academic coverage. So you have an abundance of sources covering 2022 war and naming it a war, and you have much less amount of sources, but covering 2014 war, and naming it a war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Russia–Ukraine war? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting in Kursk and drone strikes in Russia are a direct result of, and response to, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were no such attacks in Russia before it invaded Ukraine in 2022. – Asarlaí (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are warned to be careful to not to prefer frequency towards correctness: Ambiguous[f] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you oppose a move to war (2022–present), which uses the parenthetical element to avoid ambiguity? I do not see any arguments in favor of continuing to use the term invasion in your responses. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this particular issue.But when discussing the naming of the 2014 war, we should be operating corresponding sources which discuss 2014 war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your position on invasion vs. war. I was trying to avoid discussion of the 2014 article in this RM but I suppose they are inseparable. I do not see a particularly strong policy-based case to use conflict for 2014–present myself but it has received a fair amount of support here. Perhaps another RM or discussion should be started on that talk page, or a separate section created here, for ease of navigation and so that we can better understand where editors stand each individual question. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it has received a fair amount of support here
Editors express their preferences, but only opinions supported with references to reliable sources should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I've got to point out that the sourcing overwhelmingly says that the Russia-Ukraine war started on 24 February 2022. That includes all of the first 30 results on the Wikipedia Library academic journal search, and all of the WP:RSNP high-quality news media outlets with Ukraine coverage reviewed. Saying that it started on 27 February 2014 is a WP:FRINGE view typically stated whilst simultaneously acknowledging that 24 February 2022 is commonly considered the actual start-date. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it started on 27 February 2014 is a WP:FRINGE
Let's see...
  • Sasse, Gwendolyn (2023). Russia's War Against Ukraine. Wiley & Sons. p. 2004. Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea on 27 February 2014. On that day, Russian special forces without any uniform insignia appeared in Crimea, quickly taking control of strategic, military and political institutions.
  • Plokhy, Serhii (2023-05-09). The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xxi. ISBN 978-1-324-05120-6. I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament.
  • Bacon, Edwin (2024). Contemporary Russia. Springer Nature. p. 12. ISBN 978-3-031-52423-3. The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine; fought by separatists with Russian military support in the east of Ukraine from 2014, until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched by the Russian armed forces in 2022.
  • Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse (2023-01-05). Ukraine's Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-316-51149-7. The war had already claimed around 13,000 lives when Vladimir Putin made his historic decision, sometime in late 2021 or early 2022, to launch a full-scale military invasion to try to break Ukraine.
As said above, discussing the naming of 2014 war, corresponding sources should be used. Shouldn't this argument be repeated. Ambiguous[f] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea on 27 February 2014" - no-one is saying that the War in Donbas is not a correctly-named article.
"I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning... - This is exactly the kind of "saying it isn't whilst acknowledging that it is" that I referred to. If it were clear that the start date was 27 February 2014, they wouldn't need to say any of this.
Similarly Bacon is ambiguous about whether they consider the Donbas War to be the same war as the present war.
Arel and Driscoll does not support the point you are trying to make.
"Russia-Ukraine war" isn't inaccurate, nor is it ambiguous: it's very clear. Just like Polish-Soviet war.
Finally I have to note that, unlike the Wikipedia Library search results and WP:RSNP results cited above, your results are not randomly selected nor a representative sample. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea on 27 February 2014" - no-one is saying that the War in Donbas is not a correctly-named article
So you're reading "Crimea" and refer do Donbas."I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning... - This is exactly the kind of "saying it isn't whilst acknowledging that it is" that I referred to. If it were clear that the start date was 27 February 2014, they wouldn't need to say any of this
Here it is: the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament.Similarly Bacon is ambiguous about whether they consider the Donbas War to be the same war as the present war.
Here it is, plain and clear: The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for Russia-Ukraine war and "2014" has hundred of thousands of results with numerous sources saying that the war started in 2014. – Asarlaí (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finding Google Hits that mention Russia-Ukraine war and "2014" demonstrates nothing. Plenty of articles will mention 2014 without considering it to be the start of the present war. FOARP (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if you look at the results, most of those articles *do* consider 2014 to be the start of the war. – Asarlaí (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's like every academic work dedicated to the issue is saying so.
Full article: How to End a War: Some Historical Lessons for Ukraine The war began with a minimal-force invasion of Crimea, a Ukrainian region that Russia annexed in March 2014, followed by lethal proxy operations in parts of the Donbas, another Ukrainian region. It became a geographically confined war, with more than 14,000 fatalities, including hundreds of Russian soldiers.Footnote2 On 24 February 2022, Russia undertook a full-scale attempt to seize the capital of Ukraine and to invade and occupy the country as a whole. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to note that you don't have any response to the point about representative samples. Again, the overwhelming majority of academic journal articles randomly sampled, and the overwhelming majority of WP:RSNP sources with Ukraine coverage, state that the war started on 22 February 2022. Your response seems to be to ignore even academic sources, focusing on the relatively small number of authors who follow your preferred POV.
But OK, let's take the first five hits from the Journal Survival (i.e., the one from which your quote comes) for "Russia-Ukraine war". I get:
First 5 results for a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" on the Journal Survival
  • "The Cyber Dimension of the Russia–Ukraine War", Marcus Willett - "The 2022 Russia–Ukraine war"
  • "Endings and Surprises of the Russia–Ukraine War", Chester A Crocker - describes the pre-war flare-ups as "the Donbas situation, which it describes as not being a continuous period of conflict, and uses the term "war" exclusively to refer to the present post-2022 conflict.
  • "Europe’s Fragile Unity", Arlo Poletti, - describes the war as happening "over the course of a year" (i.e., starting in 2022), and describes the pre-24 February 2022 situation as "peace".
  • "Making Attrition Work: A Viable Theory of Victory for Ukraine", Franz-Stefan Gady & Michael Kofman - clearly states that the war began in 2022 ("As the Russia–Ukraine war enters its third year...").
  • "The Black Sea in the Shadow of War", Nick Childs - refers to 2022 as "the early days of the conflict
That is, even just looking at a sample of articles published in the very journal you've just cited, shows the authors there overwhelmingly treating this as a war that began in 2022, not a continuous war since 2014. We shouldn't be representing an WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE POV as if it were the academic consensus like this. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe view, it's the mainstream view. Myself and other editors have linked to numerous sources saying the war began in 2014. I think you've misinterpreted some of your sources. – Asarlaí (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you personally haven't actually linked to any specific sources in this discussion. You've only linked to a Google search. But OK, let's look at the first five hits for that search:
First 5 Google search results analysis
  1. The Wikipedia article Russo-Ukrainian War. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  2. A House of Commons Report that begins: "The current conflict in Ukraine began on 24 February 2022 when Russian military forces entered the country from Belarus, Russia and Crimea."
  3. The Wikipedia article War in Donbas. Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  4. An Encyclopaedia Britannica article entitled: "Russia-Ukraine War (2022–present)"
  5. A CFR article that describes the per-2022 fighting as an "eight-year-old conflict" and states that in 2023 "A year after the fighting began, many defense and foreign policy analysts cast the war as a major strategic blunder by Russian President Vladimir Putin.". At the very most this is equivocal.
Even using the result from this Google search the majority of usable sources state that the present Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherrypicking results (only the first five out of thousands, two of which are Wikipedia as one would expect) and also cherrypicking wording from within those sources (for example the Britannica article begins "Russia-Ukraine War, war between Russia and Ukraine that began in February 2014", and the Commons report continues "Prior to the invasion, there had already been eight years of conflict"). – Asarlaí (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't thousands of hits from this Google search (there's about ~250 - you have to page through to the last page of results to know how many hits a Google search has, since the number it shows on the first page is just an estimate which could be wildly wrong), and using the first five hits is the exact opposite of "cherry picking". And let me point out again that these are your results, so if they state that the war began in 2022 (which is what that Britannica and House of Commons articles do) that's the exact opposite of what you're using them to say. FOARP (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have lots of academic sources in the first line of Russo-Ukrainian War#History, many of which were originally added by myself. The link to the Google search was simply to show there are many more sources of various kinds stating that the war began in 2014. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the overwhelming majority of academic journal articles randomly sampled, and the overwhelming majority of WP:RSNP sources with Ukraine coverage, state that the war started on 22 February 2022.
Let's check these.
"The Cyber Dimension of the Russia–Ukraine War", Marcus Willett - "The 2022 Russia–Ukraine war"
The second wartime use occurred in early 2014, when Russia employed cyber operations against Ukraine prior to and during its occupation of Crimea. Full article: The Cyber Dimension of the Russia–Ukraine War
""Endings and Surprises of the Russia–Ukraine War", Chester A Crocker - describes the pre-war flare-ups as "the Donbas situation"
No, it does not describes "the Donbas situation", nor 2014 war. Just a passing mention.
"Europe’s Fragile Unity", Arlo Poletti
Again, it is dedicated to 2022 war. You cannot use it to claim anything about 2014 war. Please be more selective with your sources. Sources which are dedicated to 2014 war should be preferred when discussing 2014 war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your "checking" has failed to identify where I'm wrong on this.
Willett stating that 2014 was "wartime" does not contradict the clear statement from Willett that the present war started in 2022 - it literally says "The 2022 Russia–Ukraine war" as a section title! Crocker literally states that: "A second possible future involves a series of interim, loosely organised ceasefires where the fighting winds down along the lines of contact but flares up again periodically according to the familiar rhythm of the Donbas situation between 2014 and February 2022." - Crocker clearly doesn't consider the situation in Donbas to have been continuous war between 2014 and 2022 but your entire argument is that academics think this.
Poletti's article being dedicated entirely to the present conflict only reinforces my point - when people say "Russia-Ukraine war" they mean the war that's going on now and began in 2022 and they don't even need to qualify it.
And if you look at the next 5 hits on the same journal, it's exactly the same story:
Hits 6-10 for a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" on the journal Survival
  • "How Evil? Deconstructing the New Russia–China–Iran–North Korea Axis", Christopher S. Chivvis & Jack Keating - only discusses things that happened post-2022, no mention of 2014.
  • "Ukraine in NATO: Beyond the ‘Irreversible Path’", John R. Deni & Elisabeth Nielsen - states that "current war’s opening moves involved Russian troops attacking Ukraine from Belarusian territory" and describes pre-2022 as "Prior to the outbreak of war".
  • "Ukraine: The Balance of Resources and the Balance of Resolve", Nigel Gould-Davies - "The third year of Russia’s war in Ukraine has begun. What are the results of the first two years, and what lessons follow for the future?" - clearly considers the present war to have begun in 2022.
  • "Belarus, Russia, Ukraine: Three Lessons for a Post-war Order", Nigel Gould-Davies - "Even before the war, anxiety was etched on elites’ faces during the surreal improv theatre of the absurd that seemed to take hold at the Kremlin’s Security Council meeting of 21 February, three days before the invasion of Ukraine." - clearly considers pre-2022 to have been "before the war".
  • "Europe’s Leadership Void", Matthias Matthijs - only describes events after 2022 as "war".
You're trying to present something as an academic consensus when the reality is completely the opposite. FOARP (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to present something as an academic consensus when the reality is completely the opposite.
As it has been shown, the sources you provided in a message preceding this are either contradict your thesis, or are not dedicated to the 2014 war. You are back again with sources which do not discuss the events which started in 2014, or barely mention these. Before this, you made a fringe claim about established political scientists and historians and academic monographies being "fringe". There is little point in continuing with this. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to tell you this, but you haven't shown anything of the kind. And I have to point out that none of the people arguing that there is a consensus for the view that the war began in 2014 have been able to present anything more than the same half-dozen or so sources, whilst on the other hand there is the entire weight of the world's news media who reported yesterday as the 3rd anniversary of the war, and the overwhelming weight of academic opinion as well, as shown by the Wikipedia Library journal search. FOARP (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the news media I've seen report it as the 3rd anniversary of the "invasion", "full-scale invasion" or "full-scale war":
Example news articles
Many of them use simply "war" in the headline, because headlines need to be concise, but go on to call it the anniversary of the invasion in the main part of their articles.
– Asarlaí (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of them use simply "war" in the headline, because headlines need to be concise" - you get that Wikipedia has the exact same requirement, right? See WP:CONCISE.
And even in those links, the Guardian article is in a section headed "Russia-Ukraine war" (one that goes back to 2022), the CNN article calls it "the third anniversary of Moscow’s full-blown war.", WaPo literally say "third anniversary of the war" right there in the headline, NYT calls yesterday a "war anniversary" right there in the headline, ABC News says "3rd anniversary of Russia's war" right there in the headline - do I need to go on? FOARP (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be WP:PRECISE. As I said, they go on to call it the anniversary of the invasion. – Asarlaí (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not necessarily a contradiction. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources you have provided explicitly endorse the concept that 24 February 2022 was the beginning of a war. There is absolutely nothing to be found in any of them about 2014.
This proves that:
1. The events of 2022–2025 are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Russia–Ukraine war.
2. The WP:COMMONNAME of the events of 2022-2025 is Russia–Ukraine war.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was the beginning of a new phase of a war that began in 2014. Breaking news articles about events happening right now are unlikely to talk about events from 11 years ago. – Asarlaí (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes it was the beginning of a new phase of a war that began in 2014" - this "new phase" language is not something used by any expert anywhere: it's something people here on WP invented.
"Breaking news articles about events happening right now are unlikely to talk about events from 11 years ago" - I can find dozens of articles covering the 11th anniversary of 9/11 (e.g., 1, 2, 3), the Iraq war (1, 2, 3). News media is covering the 2022 anniversary because it is significant, but the 2014 anniversary isn't considered so significant, because it isn't generally considered the start of the present war. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a couple days, we will have the opportunity to compare directly. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find the word "phase" anywhere in those articles – what they say is that 24 February 2022 was the beginning of a war. The fact that this interpretation is dominant in media should not be ignored or misrepresented. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, what we often call “the Ukraine War” didn’t start in February 2022, even if
that is when its most intense, calamitous, and globally resonant phase began. Just
as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was the prologue to its all- out invasion
of China in 1937, the war between Ukraine and Rus sia began in 2014 with Vladi
mir Putin’s taking of Crimea and his intervention— first through proxies and then
with regular forces—in the Donbas. War in Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You get that this is as source that is explicitly arguing against a consensus, right? The second Sino-Japanese war began in 1937. A "prologue" is something that comes before the start. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't claiming a "consensus" contrary to what the presented sources' consensus is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what this source is doing. The consensus (as reflected on our Second Sino-Japanese War page) is that the Sino-Japanese war began in 1937, not 1931. By making this comparison, the source is essentially arguing against the academic consensus on the issue and adopting the WP:FRINGE view. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an utter supermajority of news sources that use "Russia-Ukraine war" (or variants like "war in Ukraine", "Ukraine war", etc.) – [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] in just the first page of Google News results. That same page has only one source using "invasion" – [42]. If that isn't a result to indicate a preference for "Russia Ukraine war" as the title for Russian invasion of Ukraine, I don't know what is. We are talking 8:1 here – there is no doubt of "war" rather than "invasion" for this. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources say the war stated in 2014? Yes. Was there an invasion 2022? Yes. Do we have to pick one title over another according to the number of WP:NEWSORG sources? No, because WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere do any of those reliable sources mention anything about 2014. It is clear to almost anyone that Wikipedia's coverage of a continuous war since 2014 is an artificial construct. Sources are virtually unanimous that there was a war from 2014–15 in the Donbas, which then turned into a frozen conflict after Minsk. Thus, not a full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War, but a Russo-Ukrainian conflict (or a Russia-Ukraine conflict). Sources ([43] [44] [45]). Whenever a source from 2022 onward mentions something ongoing from 2014, it universally uses "conflict", not "war". Sources are clear: the conflict started in 2014. There may have been a war 2014–15. The war started in 2022. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and with all due respect, the argument that we shouldn't call it an invasion due to any amount of News style coverage ignores WP:NOTNEWS. Sources that refer to the war after 2022 and the preexisting circumstances from 2014 do not contradict sources that refer to it as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article describes the invasion, not the conflict or the war, the invasion. I have said my piece here so I shall exit this discussion before I start bludgeoning others like a broken record. Cheers, and best of luck. DN (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's OK for the source is not OK for wiki editors. We just stick to what it says without claiming established academics "fringe", or "fringe" we would be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources say a war started in 2014? Yes. Do sources say a war started in 2022? Yes. Placeholderer (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Russo-Ukrainian War to Russia-Ukraine conflict, and moving Russian Invasion of Ukraine to Russia-Ukraine War (2022–present) EarthDude (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is the most straightforward and common way of referring to the event. When I hear "Russo-Ukrainian War", I associate that more with the entire war beginning in 2014. It would definitely be technically accurate to say "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)", but it seems to very arbitrary to have that cut off point when you are reading that title. The reason why it is not arbitrary, is because that is when Russia began its full scale invasion, so you might as well just call it that instead, and have it be "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)". Not having the year is the only downside of the current title, so I would be in favor of adding "(2022–present)" to the title we have right now. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to demonstrate that invasion is a more common way of referring to the events of 2022–25 than war? I believe you are the first person making this argument. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that "invasion" is a more common way of referring to the events than "war". What I usually see is either "Russian invasion of Ukraine" or "the War in Ukraine", so calling it a "war" is definitely equally as accurate as calling it an "invasion". However, it wouldn't be right to call it the "Russo-Ukrainian War" in my opinion, because that's a much broader term that applies to the entire war starting in 2014. Think about why you are referring specifically to the events of 2022-2025 and not 2014-2025. The war did not begin in 2022; it began in 2014. What did begin in 2022 is the full scale Russian invasion, so it is that, and not the Russo-Ukrainian War, that defines the scope of the article. And because it is the invasion that defines the scope of the article, it makes logical sense to make that the title. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user Asarlaí has demonstrated above that many news outlets consider 24 February 2025 to be the "third anniversary of the war". This points to a common understanding that when we refer to the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, we mean the events of 2022–2025.
    I am aware that there is a much broader definition of Russia–Ukraine war, but we are not required to automatically accept it just because it is more inclusive, especially when that view is now being rejected by sources. In fact, the concept of a 3-year war is so much more common in sources than the concept of an 11-year war, that the latter has even been referred to in this discussion as a "fringe" viewpoint. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-anniversary-84e4c62519fc15b34e17f661cf3dd20e
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-xi-affirms-no-limits-partnership-putin-call-ukraine-rcna193574
    I'll use these two articles as an example. Yes, they do both consider 24 February 2025 to be the "third anniversary of the war", but the third anniversary of what war?
    AP News begins its article with the sentence, "Ukraine on Monday marked the bleakest anniversary yet of its war against the Russia invasion", which implies that they are naming the war as the "war against the Russian invasion". NBC news, on the other hand, simply refers to it as the "the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine". It is an anniversary of the war, but more specifically, it is an anniversary of the full scale invasion.
    The terms "war" and "invasion" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. My argument is that it makes more logical sense to say "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to refer to the events of 2022-2025 rather than "Russo-Ukrainian War", because it is the invasion that logically demarcates the time period. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To re-cap, you've found two sources that explicitly describe the present conflict as a war that began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They may be advocating for including the year. It's best to ask what they mean or put it in the form of a question in order to avoid accidental misrepresentation of someone else's argument. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed/out of process/oppose The nom has proposed a move of Russian invasion of Ukraine while acknowledging and foreshadowing a move of Russo-Ukraine War. The two articles (and their titles) are intricately related. This is evident from the nomination statement and from the discussion that has ensued, with many editors commenting on both titles. The nomination statement even acknowledges that this proposed move may well be temporary because of the foreshadowed move. Addressing the moves piecemeal is inherently disruptive process. Even the nom now acknowledges: I was trying to avoid discussion of the 2014 article in this RM but I suppose they are inseparable. The RM is therefore contrary to WP:EXPLICIT. The evidence is overwhelming that the ultimate of article titles for these two articles cannot be discussed in isolation from each other. There are also comments that are referring to the scope of these two articles as part of the overall question. An RM is not the venue for a discussion of article scope. Arguably, it is more important to address the scope of an article before determining the title, since the scope may/will impact on what is an appropriate title. As scope issues affect both articles, there would need to be a centralised discussion, and probably an RfC, given the contentious nature of the subject. Consequently, this RM is Malformed and out of process.
Per my comments in the previous discussion, the [only] objective way to resolve the titling of the two articles is to look at good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming [both events] when treated together. WP:RSCONTEXT does matter, in respect to whether both events are being considered together and (as Mr rnddude points out) whether the these events are the primary context - writing about these two events or something else affected by these two events. I also observed: NEWSORG sources live in the present for the next story. I don't think they are a good basis for renaming an article such as this. I doubt they gave much consideration (if any) to how we name the post 2022 events and the 2014 to 2022 events. WP:RS qualifies the use of NEWSORG sources. How these two subject are being referred to now in high quality sources is more likely to reflect how they will be referred to in ten years (WP:TENYEARTEST), since future writers will increasingly draw on high quality sources as time progresses.
Of the "evidence" presented herein, much of its collection has not been done in an objective manner. It seeks to show the prevalence of war as a closed question rather than the open and more objective question of what is it called? Of the terms under discussion, an invasion is war and both an invasion and a war are an [armed] conflict. We need to consider whether a term is being used as a title rather than being used more generally (eg since the war started).
I have conducted searches of google scholar for: "Russia Ukraine war" since 2014 (15,500 hits), from 2014-2021 (1,030 hits), from 2015-2021 (970 hits), since 2022 (15,600 hits) and since 2024 (13,200 hits); "Russia Ukraine conflict" since 2014 (15,000 hits), from 2014-2021 (1,580 hits]), from 2015-2021 (1,480 hits), since 2022 (14,400 hits), since 2024 (871 hits); and, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" since 2014 (16,700 hits), from 2014-2021 (1,140 hits), since 2022 (16,600 hits), from 2015-2021 (1,070 hits) and since 2024 (13,700 hits). I appreciate that this is a crude analysis. Latter sources may refer to earlier events; however, earlier sources cannot be referring to later events. There is no filtering for RSCONTEXT. I am aware that there may be issues with the actual number of hits and that it would be better to count the number of pages of results. However, the results are indicative. I am not seeing a result to indicate a preference for "Russia Ukraine war" as the title for Russian invasion of Ukraine - particularly in the absence of other objective evidence.
While their dictionary definitions of invasion, war and conflict may not be identical, it is not surprising to see that they are/would be used synonymously. The semantics of their meanings and interpretation of how those meanings apply to these events is WP:OR and has no significant place in determining the question of article titles. The determination of an article title is based on the WP:CRITERIA and, while WP:COMMONNAME undoubtedly has significant weight, the best title is determined by considering and balancing (weighing) all five criteria, such as WP:NATURAL, which the proposal is not. Even if we could reasonably consider the title of this article in isolation, I am not seeing objective evidence and good P&G based reasons to move from the present title and oppose the move. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the other page needs to be notified if a move is being proposed that affects it, however, it has been notified as of yesterday. WP:EXPLICIT is not contravened since the proposed move includes a proposed move for Russo-Ukrainian war.
I also agree that in reality we are discussing the scope of this page, and indeed the accuracy of portraying all of the events of 2022-2025 as a "Russian invasion of Ukraine" that is a continuation of a war beginning in 2014. However, an RM discussion is an appropriate forum for such a discussion.
Regarding sourcing, demanding that the sources discuss both conflicts in detail sets up an artificial limitation. What matters is what this conflict is called, and if another, lesser conflict is called the same thing then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear about how to handle it.
Regarding the Google searches, we cannot rely on the number given by the algorithm on the first page since this is often wrong by 1-2 orders of magnitude (see WP:HITS on this). Since Google now limits the ability to read beyond the 99th page of results, we can no longer go to the last page to see what the actual count was. We also have to look at what the articles say to see if they do actually support what they are being used for: they do not appear to do so. For example the first 5 hits for documents published since 2024 mentioning the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is as follows:
First five hits
  • "Global Economic Consequences of Russian Invasion of Ukraine", Peter K. Ozili - "This chapter investigates the global economic consequence of the Russia-Ukraine war over a four-month period from December 2021 to March 2022". Clearly Ozili considers the war to be something that started during that time-period, not before.
  • "Impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the global wheat market" by S Devadoss, W Ridley states: "In this study, we assess the impacts of the Russia–Ukraine war on international wheat markets. Since the study only covers the period beginning in 2022, they clearly consider the "war" to have begun then.
  • "The EU's Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Invoking Norms and Values in Times of Fundamental Rupture" by G Bosse refers to both a "2014 war against Ukraine" and a "2022 war against Ukraine". Clearly they don't consider this to be a single war, but instead two wars, one of which began in 2022.
  • "European attitudes to refugees after the Russian invasion of Ukraine" by Alexandru D. Moise, James Dennison & Hanspeter Kriesi - refers to the 2022 invasion as the "outbreak of war"
  • "Implications of the Russia–Ukraine war for global food security", by Mohamed Behnassi & Mahjoub El Haiba - the full text is not available as far as I can see, but from the title and the post-2022 scope of the study, it appears that they consider the "Russia-Ukraine war" to have begun in 2022.
FOARP (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
  • The pages to affected by an RM must be listed per the instructions at WP:RMPM. The bot then makes appropriate notifications at the affected pages in the prescribed form and at various alert pages. This was not done for Russo-Ukraine War. A belated notice to that talk page is insufficient remedy. WP:EXPLICIT does apply and exclude Russo-Ukraine War as being part of this RM.
  • RMs are used for page moves. Your assertion that it is an appropriate venue for discussing significant structural changes to the chronological scope of articles does not appear consistent with the purpose and the spirit and intent of WP:RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asserting that both articles will potentially occupy the same name space and that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comes into play only affirms that the two article must be discussed WP:EXPLICITLY. It does matter what both articles are called. The best titles for each (per WP:CRITERIA when considered together) may not lead to a conflict of names such the PRIMARYTOPIC becomes a consideration. Sources that have discussed both events have needed to distinguish the two events. They will be an inherently good guide as to how we should do the same. There is nothing artificial about adopting such a course.
  • In presenting the Google scholar results, I have acknowledged some limitations but conclude that it is nonetheless sufficiently indicative. In respect to your first five hits, I have already stated: We need to consider whether a term is being used as a title rather than being used more generally (eg since the war started). We are seeing Russian invasion of Ukraine being used as a title in four of those five sources.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cinderella157, sticking to the procedural issues (the others have been talked to death):
  1. WP:EXPLICIT only requires that moves be concretely proposed. That was done. Usage of specific templates/bots is always optional, what matters in their content. However, if you think something still needs to be done then it can be done now - what exactly do you think still needs to be done?
  2. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Particularly, you are proposing a Catch22 where it would be impossible to ever effect a change simultaneously in both the title and scope of an article, since scope cannot be changed in title discussions, and titles cannot be changed in scope discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is what this conflict is called ... No, what we call both articles clearly matters. A properly formed proposal should WP:EXPLICITLY identify which articles are affected, propose names for each article and present a case for moving to the proposed name. Foreshadowing what might be done in a certain scenario does not make this correctly proposed. It only proposes a remedy to a potential problem. There is no case presented for why this is the best option in consideration of WP:CRITERIA for both articles. The nomination is well intended but ill-considered. Given the evident controversial nature of the issues, there should have been a centralised discussion to consider and workshop a proposal involving both articles.
No catch-22 here. The scope of article can be considered independent of their names. A change of scope may well not need a change of name. A matter of content is far more important than the name. Once there is consensus regarding scope, then a change of name can be addressed - if necessary. As I said before, trying to do it the other way around is putting the horse before the cart.
WP:NOTBURO tells us: [the principles of] written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously. The articles affected by an RM need to be EXPLICITLY stated so that the move of each affected article can be explicitly discussed and not piecemeal. That is the principle of EXPLICIT. I do not see anything to be done that would be an adequate remedy. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't follow your point about Russo-Ukrainian war. The page was notified of this discussion, a page-move for that page was proposed by the OP, reasoned !votes have been made for and against that page move. There's no reason to insist that that page can't be moved by a discussion here. You seem to be insisting on an entirely formalistic approach where a specific template must be used.
I also have to note that previous RMs for this page - RMs you !voted in - did imply changes to the scope of the article. However, this wasn't a problem for you at that point. For example the discussion that moved the article from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which extended the time period covered by the article. Assuming good faith, I can only assume that these implicit scope-changes simply weren't noticed at the time.
Anyway, we're not actually proposing a change in the existing scope of this article, since the scope is already determined by the content of the article, which has long since extended far beyond the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A properly formed proposal should WP:EXPLICITLY identify which articles are affected, propose names for each article and present a case for moving to the proposed name. The articles affected by an RM need to be EXPLICITLY stated so that the move of each affected article can be explicitly discussed and not piecemeal. Identifying a fallback position in the nomination statement does no fulfil this. I do not believe that the principle of EXPLICIT have been met, even with the subsequent notifications. Ultimately, this becomes a matter for the closer.
Where I refer to scope, I refer to significant structural changes to the chronological scope [content] of articles. Such proposals have been made here for this article and at least one suggestion for Russo-Ukraine War. You would appear to be using scope in a different context to how I have been using scope. The previous RM you refer to of March 2023 did not propose a change of article scope (ie content) in the way I use this term. Consequently, your observations are misplaced. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) quite literally changed the "chronological scope" of the article by extending it out of 2022, so I simply don't follow you here. RM discussion very often deal with the scope of the article at the same time since this is a key part of determining the title - a simple glance at the discussions current open at WP:RM#C shows a number of them openly proposing to change the scope of the article. Moreover, there have been a number of discussions on the scope of this article covering the Kursk incursion and other aspects of the conflict that are not strictly within the scope of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - the most recent of these being the inclusion of North Korea in the infobox as a belligerent. The discussion you are asking for has already happened.
As for explicit, the fact that the moves proposed here are WP:EXPLICITly proposed is easily demonstrated by the multiple !votes on them. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) did not change the scope of the article as it was written at the time. The RM simply acknowledged that chronologically the article as written no longer matched the chronological description of the title. On the other hand, there are proposals herein that would substantially affect the chronological coverage of the two articles and therefore excluding (or adding) content - this is how I have been referring to scope. While an article title is indicative of the scope of the article, it is the lead that actually defines this. Herein lies the significant difference between how I have referred to scope and what I perceive to be how you are referring to scope. To the other points you raise in respect to semantic arguments of definition, I addressed those in my initial comment: The semantics of their meanings and interpretation of how those meanings apply to these events is WP:OR and has no significant place in determining the question of article titles. The decision is largely determined by source based evidence. I identified the nature of appropriate evidence and why.
As for explicit, the fact that the moves proposed here are WP:EXPLICITly proposed is easily demonstrated by the multiple !votes on them. It is easily refuted by removal of the notification you placed at Russo-Ukraine War here with the edit summary: this is about another article (the one specifically about the 2022 invasion), not this one. An EXPLCITly made RM should state which articles are to be move to what names and make a P&G based argument as to why these are the best titles to move those articles to. The nomination statement only addresses Russo-Ukraine War as a contingency. It makes not argument as to why this is the best choice per CRITERIA, only that it would resolve a potential title conflict for a name of this article that was not actually proposed in the nomination. Where editors have commented on a move of Russo-Ukraine War, the comments have largely been offered as "opinions" rather than a substantive P&G framed argument based on CRITERIA and offering evidence. As I said before, whether EXPLICIT has been met: Ultimately, this becomes a matter for the closer. However, I don't think it has been. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The RM simply acknowledged that chronologically the article as written no longer matched the chronological description of the title" - and here it has already been decided that this article covers topics that are not, strictly speaking, Russia invading Ukraine.
"While an article title is indicative of the scope of the article, it is the lead that actually defines this" - and the lead section of the present article discusses topics that are not, strictly speaking, Russia invading Ukraine, including the Kursk incursion.
A mistaken, already-reverted removal of a notice that literally says not to remove it until this discussion closes is not demonstrative of anything. FOARP (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, moving the article didn't change its scope. The established 'chronological scope' of this article from day dot has been from onset (24 February 2022) to on-going. Actions in the conflict from incoming days, months, and years fall within that scope by default until the event terminates. The move followed the established scope. There was discussion in the RM on whether the event (an invasion) had already terminated. The consensus view was that it had not. If the reverse was true, there would need to be a discussion each day to determine whether the scope should be extended to include the events of that day, thereby necessitating an obscene waste of editors' time. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sourcing, demanding that the sources discuss both conflicts in detail sets up an artificial limitation
If the source does not discuss the subject in question, we cannot make anything on the subject out of the source, including the naming of the subject.What matters is what this conflict is called
We cannot decide on the naming of 2014 war with such an approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why you keep passing over the fact that the issue of the 2014-15 war is dealt with by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, meaning we absolutely don't have to look at sources discussing them together. Instead, we simply need to determine which is the primary topic for "Russia-Ukraine war" - and beyond a shadow of a doubt it is the much larger, much more written about, and much more significant 2022 war, not the 2014 war. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, We cannot decide on the naming of 2014 war with such an approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing a result to indicate a preference for "Russia Ukraine war" as the title for Russian invasion of Ukraine – just look at the utter supermajority of news sources that use "Russia-Ukraine war" (or variants like "war in Ukraine", "Ukraine war", etc.) – [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] in just the first page of Google News results. That same page has only one source using "invasion" – [54]. If that isn't a result to indicate a preference for "Russia Ukraine war" as the title for Russian invasion of Ukraine, I don't know what is. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the naming of the Russo-Ukrainian War and this page need to resolved simultaneously as we can (and should) not have 2 articles with the same name. In my view there is much to say for the opinion that the war started in 2014 (as the other article uses) which would warrant leaving that article name unchanged. However I do agree that the stage of the original invasion of Ukraine (2022) has ended by now and there is now active war / open war on Ukrainian soil (or something similar). So I am open for a change but that needs to be done together with the other change. Arnoutf (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) Oppose Russo-Ukrainian War. Also a reminder of wp:bludgeon, No one should have to wade through pages of posts just to reach the bottom. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An unambiguous clear title of what actually happens: a hot phase of the Russia-Ukraine war. --Altenmann >talk 21:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments given by Cinderella157, including WP:RSCONTEXT + WP:TENYEARTEST. Boud (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments advanced by Cinderella157 Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Russia-Ukraine War (2022-present) and Russia-Ukraine Conflict (2014-present). I prefer dates in both because users need to know what page they have landed on, and because the encyclopedia would remain neutral about when the conflict/war started. I think issues of blame (ie Russia) can be dealt with in the lead first sentences. I think COMMONNAME arguments in favour of briefer titles can often favour aesthetics over useability, and useability should come first. Redirects can handle briefer names.OsFish (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for flagging this up discussion, FOARP: otherwise I am sure I would have missed it. I would be supportive of a change of name for the article to Russia-Ukraine War (2022–present). I could live with Russo-Ukrainian in place of Russia-Ukraine. Rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict from 2014 and open the article on Russia-Ukraine War (2022–present) with its current text, On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, which had started in 2014, and hope that future editors leave this or reasonably comparable wording in place. BobKilcoyne (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE - The United Nations refers to the war as "Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine". The current name is the accepted standard by the international community. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456 Stidmatt (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The international community isn't necessarily consistent with academic consensus Placeholderer (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This source varies between referring to the invasion as an ongoing three-year event and an one-time event that took place on 24 February 2022. More importantly, this page alone is hardly sufficient to support your assertion regarding the existence of some sort of standard used by international community. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we don't automatically use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs on WP, we typically prefer the common-name. Even the UN webpage that's linked to here is entitled "Ukraine war", indicating that this is more than just an invasion: it's a war. EDIT: interestingly, in speeches Zelensky repeatedly refers to the conflict as a "war" that began in 2022: see this speech on the first anniversary of the war ("A year ago, on this day [...] Russia started a full-scale war against us."). It simply isn't true that calling this a war that started in 2022 is against the Ukrainian POV. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – There are two issues here. First of all, I strongly oppose any move to "Russia–Ukraine War". The combining form usage is the standard in reliable academic sources and has been since about 2015. I do not understand why editors are insisting on moving any of these articles to the headlinese "Russia-Ukraine War", which is non-standard English, purely based on news sources. Reliable academic sources should be the focus, and these consistently use "Russo-Ukrainian War" as demonstrated by ManyAreasExpert above and in previous RMs. This is also WP:CONSISTENT with our similar articles, such as "Russo-Georgian War". Second of all, I strongly oppose the proposed reorganisation of these articles per very cogent arguments made by Cinderella157, Manyareasexpert and Asarlaí. This is a conflict that began in 2014, and academic sources have been dealing with it as such since that time. The full-scale invasion, which this article deals with, is just the latest, and perhaps most well-known phase. Attempts to situate this phase as the entire war, and negate the full breadth of the conflict as found in the literature are laden with WP:RECENTISM. In the battle between the popular understanding found in mass media articles and the academic historiography of this conflict that has existed since 2014, Wikipedia must choose the academic. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Can't really add anything to user:FOARP's excellent analysis. Alaexis¿question? 23:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

[edit]

NOW (News on the Web) is a corpus of news reports that can be used for research on the frequency with which a term is used in English. Unlike NGrams it gives immediate results up to the present day. Unlike Google search estimates for numbers of hits, the numbers of hits it gives are accurate and not typically off by an order of magnitude (see WP:HITS and WP:GOOGLELIMITS), and has not been impacted by Google's recent algorithm changes that make it much less useful. It has been used decisively on Wikipedia in naming discussions, for example in the recent re-naming of the Timor-Leste article. It is free-to-use, though you have to register to use it. The frequency-results for "Russian invasion of Ukraine", "Russia-Ukraine war", "War in Ukraine", and "Russo-Ukrainian war" by year 2014-2025 are as follows:

NOW Corpus frequency results
Search term 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (YTD 25 Feb)
Russia-Ukraine war 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11173 4993 2990 921
Russian invasion of Ukraine 9 12 14 15 4 6 10 160 17286 3716 1423 342
Russo-Ukrainian war 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 18 335 140 109 46
War in Ukraine 94 127 75 88 60 72 73 101 69235 27031 12327 4191

Obviously this is to an extent crude analysis, but it is clear that in 2025 "Russia-Ukraine war" predominates as a descriptor over "Russian invasion of Ukraine" and has done since 2023, with "Russia-Ukraine war" being used twice as often in 2024 as "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and three times more than in 2025 so far. "Russo-Ukrainian war" is rarely used in the corpus. The results from before 2022 do not support the idea that anyone was referring to the previous conflict as "Russia-Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" - instead neither of those terms was widely used then. They do not support the idea that the present conflict is merely an extension of a conflict beginning in 2014, since these terms weren't used much before 2022. "War in Ukraine" is by far the most widely-used descriptor overall, but I think it should be excluded on vagueness/POVName issues, particularly since it is typically being used as short-hand, however it does show that "war" is by far the most common descriptor of what is going on, not "invasion", and so names with "war" should be favoured.
NOW also allows you to output numbers of co-locates (i.e., words being used closely together in the corpus). For "UKRAINE" and "WAR" these are co-located 210,295 times, for "UKRAINE" and "INVASION" these are co-located 168,152 times. Again, "war" is a more common descriptor in the NOW corpus for the situation in Ukraine than "invasion". FOARP (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse non-EC editor !vote
SUPPORT
No one else has brought it up yet, but it delightfully counters the most common argument.
The Second Sino Japanese War started in 1937 when full scale war broke out, not in 1931 when fighting first happened. We don't count the Nagoro Karabakh War as a single war from 1988 to 2023 because the occupation of the disputed territory never ended and low scale fighting continued.
The way I see it we have a broad Russo-Ukrainian Conflict (and yes I VASTLY prefer that over Russia-Ukraine) that started back in 2014. In it, we have the annexation of Crimea, then a low scale war in 2014-2015. That war(which should be the focus of the War in Donbas article) WAS a war, just like the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria in 1931, but it was no full-scale war. It was largely militias and volunteers and national guard for most of it, Ukraine only sent proper military in the back half and same with Russia(and Russia publically denied it). Neither went to war economy or mobilized, one side denied being there, it fizzled out, and most of the actual men involved were irregulars.
Then you have a frozen conflict period with occasional flareups. Ton's of wars have these, inbetween the First and Second Libyan Civil War, in-between the invasion of Manchuria and China, in-between the Nagorno Karabakhs wars. The broadstrokes can be covered in the main 'conflict' article while the more notable flareups get their own articles(Like Battle of Avdiivka 2018 or Kerch Strait Crisis), like how the especially bloody 2016 flare up in Karabakh has a page.
Then you have full scale war breaking out in 2022, this is our Marco-Polo Bridge incident and full scale war, and that's how WP:Common describes it.
Russo-Ukrainian War should refer to the 2022-present full scale war
Russo-Ukrainian Conflict should cover everything from 2014-present
War in Donbas(another bloated article with a lot of scope drift) should be reduced to specifically cover the actual 1 year long small scale hot war period from February 2014-February/March 2015.
That I think is best. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:RUSUKR non-EC strikethrough - ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also wouldn't it be simpler to change the other one to conflict first? This way of doing things forces us to have that dumb temporary placeholder which is turning a lot of people off.
Let's go over there, present the argument, change that one, and now without the double jeopardy naming issue this case over here is a lot smoother TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:RUSUKR non-EC strikethrough - ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Russo-Ukrainian War has gotten plenty of usage, it's consistent with every other Russian interstate war name, and I don't think pointing to it's lack of recent use elsewhere is relevant because Russia hasn't been in an interstate war while being called Russia since WW1...there haven't been a ton period). TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:RUSUKR non-EC strikethrough - ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The results from before 2022 ... They do not support the idea that the present conflict is merely an extension of a conflict beginning in 2014
That's a conclusion better left for reliable sources to decide on. Of which are plenty collected at Russo-Ukrainian War#History. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News sources, laden with WP:RECENTISM and headlinese, cannot trump academic sources on a decade-old conflict. Enough with the primary sources; the focus must be on reliable, secondary sources, and the conclusion in these is very clear, as per ManyAreasExpert, and the sources collected in these articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You get that " the sources collected in these articles", specifically the ones cited at that start of Russo-Ukrainian War#History, includes the Ukrainian government's ECHR submissions and the Ukrainian government website, right? It also includes documents published before 2022 which can in no way be decisive of how this topic should be treated? They're also in no way a representative sample since they were selected specifically because they follow the line that this is an 11-year-war - albeit, practically no-one is commemorating today as the 11th anniversary of this war, unlike on the 24th of February which was commemorated internationally as such.
Additionally I went through the first 30 academic articles on this conflict for a search on the Wikipedia Library journal search above, and every single one of them followed the line that this is a war that began in 2022. The same goes for the search results that Cinderella posted above - a review of the first five hits for their GScholar search for articles mentioning "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" published in 2024 shows all of them describing this as a war that began in 2022. For example the article by G. Bosse which talks about a "2014 war against Ukraine" and a "2022 war against Ukraine".
Pick any journal published in English, and chances are that most of their most recent articles will reflect this viewpoint. That at least was what we saw when we reviewed the ten most recent articles from IISS's journal Survival. Here's the results for a JSTOR search for articles mentioning "Ukraine" in the title - the very first hit talks about "...the commencement of the Russia-Ukraine war on 24 February 2022" FOARP (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following projects/noticeboards have been notified of this discussion: WP:Military History, WP:Russia, WP:Ukraine, WP:Belarus, WP:North Korea, WP:Europe, WP:Eastern Europe (i.e., the relevant subject-area, the pages for the continent and the area of that continent where the conflict is taking place, and the pages of all the countries presently listed as participating in the conflict in the infobox).

Also pinging the extended-confirmed editors from the previous discussion who have not yet chimed in here yet. By my reading this is @BobKilcoyne, CapLiber, Yeoutie, and Qa003qa003: (EDIT: oops! just saw you already !voted Yeoutie, sorry! EDIT2: and CapLiber, which shows the danger of eye-balling these things) but it was a long discussion so apologies if I've missed anyone. Folks - apologies for the ping, the discussion is in the section above. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main discussion is getting to long to reasonably navigate while editing. Adding arbitrary breaks is commonly done to address this. While I did add such a break, it was reverted as unnecessary. Thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think breaks are totally fine but if it encounters resistance again I'd say just don't bother; this discussion is chaotic enough and we don't need to be getting into fights about section headers DecafPotato (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is a mess, where people discuss the naming of this article, and then use it to leverage the naming of another article, substituting and messing sources, proofs, and false conclusions. A more organized discussion would serve us better. The approach used at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, where every participant is given their own section to express arguments and respond to others, would serve us better. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since Russia has invaded and annexed Ukrainian territories since the "the Little Green Men in Crimea" in Februaray 2014 and since Ukraine invaded Russian territories since August 2024, maybe it would be a more proper title.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly been stated many times before that the US (at least up until 2025), NATO, and the EU have been supporting Ukraine’s military in the same way Belarus has been supporting Russia. Sources and all are all over the net. Let’s be impartial and add that important detail in the infobox. Humble regards 2603:9001:7500:F42:58D5:99C5:B3C7:EED9 (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general reason they aren't included as supporters is that having countries as "Supporters" in infoboxes was deprecated, so "Supporters" aren't supposed to be listed in an infobox unless editors decide on an exception. A while ago, some editors on this page discussed and, not unanimously, decided that Belarus should be included as an exception, because of something to do with being an "aggressor" while not being "belligerent" (due to use of Belarusian territory to launch the initial invasion), so that's why Belarus is there. There currently is a discussion on whether or not to make an exception for Ukraine's main supporters, since it had been a long time since the last discussion on the subject and the war had changed a lot. I'll mention though that some people have said that they're unhappy with the way Belarus in which is included in the infobox—there's also a discussion about whether or not Belarus's inclusion should be changed (where my own opinion is that the way Belarus is currently included is unhelpful/counterproductive) Placeholderer (talk) Placeholderer (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
READ the previous comments and the rules at the top of the TP before you post and waste valuable bit-space. 2603:6080:21F0:6870:B84F:E37D:EA9E:31E5 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the answer A4 in the FAQ at the top is pretty unhelpful, but it's probably best to wait for the Ukraine support and Belarus RfCs to close before changing it Placeholderer (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. It is the current rule, and we follow it. 2603:6080:21F0:6870:2977:21C7:77B1:6133 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ is not a set of rules. It is exactly what it says on the tin: answers to frequently asked questions. If there is a consensus to do so, then they can change.
I find these continual suggestions to add the US/NATO/whoever to the infobox unhelpful. However, they’re an inevitable result of us having Belarus as a “supporter” in the infobox, and will likely continue as long as Belarus is mentioned as a supporter there. FOARP (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to include an allusion to Ukrainian war crimes against Russian POWs. Despite this being only a sentence, I was told by the reverter TylerBurden that this is a violation of WP:DUE.

These crimes are mentioned in the corresponding child article on war crimes, both in the lead and in a detailed subsection consisting of a multi-paragraph discussion making use of multiple sources. Per WP:SS, a main article should summarize significant aspects of a child article. Not only that, but such crimes are also discussed at length in the separate article focused specifically on prisoners of war. Dismissing them altogether seems like a clear violation of WP:NPOV, as the article is attempting to portray Russians as being the exclusive war criminals and the Ukrainians being perfectly good, which is not exactly consistent with either reality or WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference link broken. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, and is the case because I copied-and-pasted the sentence from the lead of the child article. But it is a trivial fix. The main issue is the DUE-ness of the claim. JDiala (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to relay the correct weight we need to pay attention to this - Ukraine: Alarming Rise in Executions of Captured Ukrainian Military Personnel | UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article amply deals with Russian war crimes. JDiala (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose cutting down the Prisoners of war section to focus on violations of POW-related laws of war, moving that trimmed section to be under War crimes and attacks on civilians, and mentioning relevant violations by Ukraine in that section along with the already-mentioned violations by Russia while giving due weight to each Placeholderer (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how the BBC talks about the OHCR report.
"Last November, a UN human rights report documented abuses by both sides, based on interviews with prisoners who spoke of cases of torture and ill-treatment."[1]
The fact that the Prisoners of War section only mentions abuses of Ukrainian POWs breaks WP:NPOV and can be considered WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was 2 years ago. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That means it was a deliberate oversight to push a certain viewpoint, and not something that ie omitted because it is newly-released information.
I have added it to the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are "it" and so on? You disregarded objections raised here, disregarded fresh report and went forward with 2023 interview mentioning 2022 report. No consensus for such an addition. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it" = not including the information in the article.
Does the "fresh" report negate the existence of the 2022 report? Did the "fresh" report say the 2022 report was not true?
There doesn't need to be "consensus for the addition". It is a UN report that was mentioned in a WP:RS (BBC) article.
What exactly are your objections to the inclusion of the statement? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. You need to use up-to-date sources to correctly represent today's weight. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid objection. You cannot just make up policies. The same section includes reports from even earlier than November 2022, yet their inclusion is not disputed.h TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WEIGHT. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in there that says one needs to "use up-to-date sources to correctly represent today's weight". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell us you are arguing for the article to represent not today's but 2-year-old weight. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection that an article from March 2023 mentioning a November 2022 report is "too old" for this page is not valid and not grounded in Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the section mentions something that happened in March 2022, and several events after, so my addition is appropriate. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Again. The objections you haven't addressed are You need to use up-to-date sources to correctly represent today's weight and that you disregarded fresh report and went forward with 2023 interview mentioning 2022 report. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "up-to-date" sources do you expect there to be about a report that was published in November 2022? If we use that standard of inclusion, we'd remove many things that are in the article. Again, there is nothing in WP:WEIGHT that says "recent" or "up-to-date" WP:RS is needed.
A report in 2023 does not negate what was written in a 2022 report unless explicitly stated. The report in November 2022 was published, this is a historical fact that will not change.
Events happening in 2023 or 2024 do not mean that 2022 never happened. I mean, what are you arguing here? Do you have a problem with linear progression of history? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you adding 2022 report, not the fresh one? This is contested. And it's on you to prove that your edit represents the weight correctly. And if you repeat an argument about 2022 weight proven false, it's not going to pass. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So why are you adding 2022 report, not the fresh one?"
Feel free to add it. Saying that my edit is bad because I didn't add all possible information is not a good argument. No editor is expected to add everything.
"This is contested."
Only by you. Other editors have no problem with the addition. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Prisoners of war section has some timeliness/weight issues, like describing prisoner exchanges but only in the first few months and saying stuff like "Official and estimated numbers of prisoners of war (POW) have varied" with source retrieved in September 2022. Since things like prisoner swaps aren't special to this war, I propose focusing the section on war crimes, moving it to the war crimes section, and appropriately mentioning POW violations by Ukraine Placeholderer (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if we mention side's war crimes against POW's we should eton similar allegations in reverse. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven we discussed this a month or so ago and I remember saying the same thing then. Ukrainian mistreatment of Russian prisoners should be mentioned, it's an NPOV issue to exclude it completely. However, we need to be careful not to give it equal space to mistreatment of Ukrainian prisoners just for balance, which is probably a false balance. Manyareasexpert is right to point out recent coverage of executions is Ukrainian POWs, which is extensive [55], [56], [57], [58] [59]. However, we don't necessarily need to disregard or minimise older sources, it depends on context - are they likely to have become outdated or is it timeless coverage? Our sub article likely includes more sources we can look at over abuses by both sides, to help determine weight. Jr8825 • Talk 14:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to give it equal coverage, to mention the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what can be said based on that BBC report other than what it states: a November 2022 UN human rights report based on interviews documented abuses against POWs by both sides. I don't think we need to go any further than saying that. Russian offences against Ukrainian POws are far more prominent and documented, and so a WP:DUE account will highlight them more. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from 22/23 can be included. This was a point of contention in some older discussions as well and it is frankly an absurd concern. There is no policy basis for excluding reliable material older than a year old. It is worth noting though that there are some excellent more recent sources on this as well. On the issue of relative weight, I don't disagree that the coverage Russian war crimes against Ukrainian POWs far exceeds that of vice-versa. But the latter is still considerable enough to warrant a brief discussion in the article. JDiala (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, there seems to be consensus here to include, with the understanding that the WEIGHT is considerably lower than allegations against the Russian military. I intend to implement the changes within 24-48 hours. I am giving a warning here to avoid an edit war like last time. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share what's your proposal to include? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a mention of an opinion to the US response to the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, but this removal was reverted. Given the already very long article length (far exceeding standards set in WP:ARTICLESIZE), and the non-relevance of this particular material (as I mentioned in my initial edit summary "why is the reaction by a third, uninvolved country in a separate war over a decade prior to the current one so relevant to mention in this article?"), and general WP:DUE concerns, I think this is an obvious edit.

From my perspective, it's obvious that this is being maintained for pro-Ukraine bias reasons. America is the 21st-century Chamberlain, apparently, and we need to make that clear. Note that some editors are WP:STONEWALLING to maintain a pro-Ukraine bias. It's getting increasingly clear at this point where even routine edits which go against the pro-Ukraine status quo are reflexively reverted with pretty dubious policy rationale. Nevertheless, I will keep it professional and follow WP:BRD. JDiala (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Georgia war is mentioned, at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you have to engage with the points others are raising, with reference to WP policy, rather than comment with these strange rhetorical questions. You have a history of doing this. JDiala (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That pattern of behavior is called Sealioning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed your opinion that this addition is not relevant. No proof was provided to support this opinion, and there is a reliable source discussing the subject and, contrary to your opinion, mentioning the issue. Answering the question above, we may have another proof. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no engagement with the argument provided. I don't know if this is an English-as-a-second-language issue, but regardless this is not an excuse for stonewalling. JDiala (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I may suggest instead that sources do mention Georgia and Ukraine's April 2008 supposed NATO plans, damaged with the August war, which this article could more elaborate on. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also ask what relevance does this have, do RS make a direct link or is this in fact wp:or ? Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[60]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, who is "The West"? And why does "The West" need to have a response to every conflict on this planet? It is not necessary to add this information, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
Furthermore, the sentence is written as a fact when it is a claim made by someone and it is added in without proper attribution. Why is that person's opinion relevant? WP:DUE
And as JDiala mentioned, WP:ARTICLESIZE. The article is already massive, adding things with dubious relevance only makes the article longer without adding to its usefulness. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is the answer to the question of why it's relevant. I've added another source and wiki-linked the West [61] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious WP:POVPUSH. Taras Kuzio works at the University of Kyiv, and Stefan Jajecznyk-Kelman was a participant in the 2014 revolution[62]. The cited book also didn't get any significant WP:RS coverage, it is only listed in libraries and book stores. Again, you're writing their claims as facts, WP:WIKIVOICE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we have 3 sources now reporting the same viewpoint? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly edited the passage and tagged the unattributed quote. I don't mean that edit to be an endorsement of keeping nor removing the passage Placeholderer (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what answer the article should give to the question on by whom the US "was accused of appeasement and naivete". D'Anieri is not elaborating on those. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know for sure if the quote was directly from D'Anieri. Added attribution required "for all quotations, anywhere in article space" Placeholderer (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this addition as an improvement, as is. At best, I think it requires an attribution and a more explicit explanation as to what this has to do with the invasion, but I'm leaning towards UNDUE. Cheers DN (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which addition you mean? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one that was only added in the last few weeks. I'm unaware if there was a consensus to add the paragraph on the Russo-Georgian War to the Background section, which notably goes past 2014 all the way to 2008. Where is the explicit connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Is there anything specific other than Putin likely having a Napoleon complex?[citation needed] Cheers. DN (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the explicit connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
The West's weak response in 2008—and later in 2014—contributed to Russia's assessment of Western warnings against 2022 invasion as not serious,[37][38] and, according to political scientist Samuel Ramani, encouraged further Russian aggression.[39]This one that was only added in the last few weeks
I see it was in the article in January at least. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this part you mention is more appropriate, but do you know if there was consensus to add? Thanks for the correction on the timeline. Feel free to share the diff if you have it handy. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the quoted text (The West's weak response in 2008 ...) makes the significance/relevance much clearer whereas the present paragraph does not. If we are to retain a reference to the Russia-Georgia war the paragraph needs to be rewritten, though the response to 2014 Ukraine is probably sufficient. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]