Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed edit request on 27 February 2022

Update infobox to include statistics mentioned in this analysis based on open source visual evidence. Perathian (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no indication that this is a reliable, published source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

I am concerned about the map. It shows a bunch of red arrows for Russian attacks, but nothing for Ukrainian resistance. Furthermore, Describing Kyiv as "contested" makes sense in a way, but sources say the city is under Ukrainian control. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The contested icon also shows cities under the threat of capture, Kiev is still seriously threatened sadly.

I can add the Ukrainian counter-attacks in yellow arrows however I'm not sure where they are taking place due to the lack of references on the matter. If you provide me with some info on that I can add it to the map. Viewsridge (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to numerous sources, there was an assault on Kyiv the night of Friday-Saturday, but it was repulsed. That could be a start. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians are intentionally minimizing the amount of publication of their troop movements, so it might be really hard to tell. The Russians probably are too, but since they're on the attack it kind of becomes less easy to hide. Juxlos (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Now also a Ukraine victory in Kharkiv, with a mop-up operation underway as of https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/02/27/ukraine-Ukraine-Russia-invasion-Kharkiv-Kyiv/5961645968790/. I am further concerned that a map with a bunch of red arrows moving into a yellow background is not a WP:NPOV depiction of a situation in which Ukraine is holding in many areas and starting to win in some, such as the above source, and also Kyiv https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-defenders-hold-kyiv-battle-for-kharkiv-after-night-of-russian-attacks-11645957216. For this reason, I will remove the current map. I believe there should be a map with this article, but per the above concerns, the current one does not stand up to scrutiny. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map shouldn't have been removed. Whether the map should be removed should not be based on your personal concerns, but should be based on the opinions of editors through a support/oppose vote. Matthewberns (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: the map should be kept. You should raise your specific concerns either here or, preferably, over at the Commons talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

February 27 Map Needs More Updates

Melitopol fell to Russian forces and currently, the map shows it under Ukrainian forces (Battle of Melitopol) & there needs to be an airstrike marker put in Russia for the Millerovo air base attack which was confirmed to have at least destroyed one plane (more not verified yet, but one was). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Russian control of Melitopol has been independently confirmed yet. Jr8825 • Talk 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Marca Elijahandskip (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would call for restraint and stop trying to account for all troop movements at this point, it is unclear (imo) what the exact troop movements are and who controls what (especially at this point of the invasion). In a few days it will be perfectly possible to make detailed maps (about the 27th), but for now I think restraint is in order, especially when it comes to these maps. I will give you 2 reasons for this: 1. All content on Wiki should be based on facts and not estimates or rumours (sometimes even misinformation) 2. Wrong info could have consequences in real life, maybe people will think some areas are safe when they are not, and so on. Kind regards.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Spanish sport newspaper for the latest updates in Ukraine – really? Jr8825 • Talk 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The GIF Map

... needs citation, as well as timestamps on the individual frames. The frames needs to be properly aligned with one another, so they don't jump around, and slowed down for better viewing.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (4)

Please update the infobox, Ukraine said a Russian platoon surrendered. https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-ambassador-says-russian-platoon-201138508.html BlackShadowG (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Until mentioned in a more definite way (currently the claim is solely attributed to the ukrainian ambassador), and covered in a variety of reliable sources I wouldn't say it's met the threshold for verifiability. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

.@Pabsoluterince: This infomation has been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine: «Російські окупанти, наткнувшись на тотальний спротив українських захисників, здаються в полон», – Валерій Залужний, I think it's reliable enough. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done -- Both of the sources named here are dated 24 Feb and refer to surrender of the 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade only. This information is already included and referenced in the article under the subheading "24 February". Additionally the infobox contains a Ukrainian claim of "200 captured" with a citation dated two days later than these sources. In light of these observations I'm marking this request as already complete. Thank you for the request. Please clarify your concern with more details if you need to re-open. --N8 19:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casus belli

@Laurel Lodged: I restored because it seems you mistook what I wrote in my edit summary as an actual quote by Putin. Anyway, I think the casus belli is not so clear cut and needs to be discussed first. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think "to provide a casus belli" is OR. Mellk (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I took your feedback on board and amended the statement accordingly. Thank you @Mellk:. The opening paragraphs need context - the "why" of the war. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced these edits are an improvement. As far as I can see none of the sources talk about a casus belli, so I think this is still WP:OR. — Czello 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can pipelink it to "ostensible reason" if you're uncomfortable with Latin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Czello, I also don't buy that the cause of war is Putin believing that he's doing a denazification of Ukraine, that's one of his stated reasons but to be fair the Germans listed the Gleiwitz incident as their causus belli for the invasion of Poland though no one takes that seriously. It's to keep Ukraine out of the EU's and NATO's orbits and to try and to reassert Moscow's authority over former Soviet lands. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't buy it either. It's not supposed to be the truth. It's no more than the fig leaf, the pretext for the war. We all know the real reason. Nevertheless, we absolutely need to provide a context, a "why" in the opening paragraphs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Eventually, we will have enough material to write about the equivalent incident in Mityakinskaya. Not today. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from calling out a pretext as a pretext. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "casus belli" should be used here either as it looks like OR. I think we can briefly mention the accusations like "aggression" of Ukrainian armed forces but there was a lot of bullshit that was coming out, we don't need to mention them all or say more than a few words. Troop build up, denies plans of invasion, criticizes NATO, and then such accusations are made. Those accusations should come after, not first. Mellk (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: I think that we are in agreement as to the substance and the need to provide context. Can we agree on the label / pipelinking ?

I am completely fine with such casus belli mention, provided proper sourcing. Maxorazon (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am content with how the current paragraph is at the moment, with maybe a sentence added somewhere in the middle about the baseless claims of genocide, or towards the end the mention of the "appeal" by separatists for military assistance. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment of President Putin

Russian web magazine "The Village" reports that Russian citizens signs the petition demanding impeachment of President Putin on his decision to invade Ukraine. At the moment, more than 130,000 people have signed this petition. Shall we add it to the article? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Would prefer more RS coverage. Petitions can easily be botted, so would like to ensure this is actually a legitimate petition gaining traction. Also seems like the petition is on Change.org and literally even I'm able to sign it (and I'm not in Russia), so if it's just 100,000 people in the West who have signed it then it's definitely not worth including. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Help needed

At Russo-Ukrainian War, which is receiving far less editorial attention than this page. Jr8825 • Talk 13:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and there again hiding NATO's influence, not displaying it in belligerents is dishonest. Maxorazon (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what 'belligerent' means Maxo.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it the same ? if so, merge the articles... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine this week, which is present article, is the result of a crisis/war started several years ago, covered in the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Maxorazon (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, but made me lazy when so much text and made me skip. like more tables and short explanations, thanks. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Page size

Now grown to 335,369 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have had several discussions on this topic already. The byte size does not really matter, it's the prose size which determines if the article should be split. Right now it's at around 64k bytes -- articles don't usually need to be split until they are close to 100k. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Third time you've posted this. Third time I'll say that you're referring to raw size, not prose size, and there are no restrictions on raw size except that which causes technical issues. The prose size is well within guidelines at WP:SIZERULE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added the section size tracker to the top of the page to help keep track of things. I think it does help to show that the sections on 24 February and protests outside Russia are likely to be too detailed. However, I agree that large-scale cutting isn't currently required. Jr8825 • Talk 17:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And once again I will respond to you by pointing out that WP:LENGTH (of which SIZERULE is but a part) lists three criteria for determining whether a page is too long; while one is indeed "Readable prose size", "Wiki markup size" is another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What issues exist with articles that aren't long in readable prose but are long in wiki markup size? I can think only of page load time, potentially, but 335k bytes is literally 0.3MB, so it's very hard to say there's a practical issue here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed : Where says Russia Started the Nuclear Weapons On ?

Please, with a so long text could not found this theme. Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP, see the bottom of  27th feb. Maxorazon (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks, found all text too confusing, even this table Per Ukraine, Per Russia, Per UK ( what the hell has UK with war to do ?! ) per etc... anyway, check always with Aviation Security Site, what was gone, let's see if the An225 of Antonov is safe... dreamed that, because of crash, they were doing with rest the fuselage a second memorial airplane in china, above a barge or something... Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Alleged American involvement

I think this well covered allegation+rejection should be covered at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support to Ukraine. Thoughts? Srijanx22 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure it is well covered (it's one source) and even if it was what do we say "The USA denied a claim by the Russians the US might be doing something"? Seems to me to be so widely speculative its not worth adding. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Meanwhile there is no support to simply mention NATO as a supportive belligerent on the above RfC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (disclaimer I made it) Maxorazon (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I changed my view a bit, I think it is important to balance the article with some views from Russia. Maxorazon (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict

@Da Vinci Nanjing: Because of an edit conflict, a lot of additions were undone for... the sake of one sentence? Mellk (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

1 Algerian citizen died today in Kharkiv 105.99.14.177 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added it in, but the only source that I can find is the one below. https://news-tunisia.tunisienumerique.com/ukraine-death-of-an-algerian-student-by-a-missile-attack/amp/ Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 23:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian economic crash

Hello everyone, there are many reports in the press about Russian ATMs being out of cash, long lines at banks, interest rates going up and so forth. I wonder if we need a new article called '2022 Russian economic crash' or 'crisis' or something like it? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 : Suggestion: Peace talks section

In the last 24 hours there have been developments regarding peace talks, from the Russian suggestion in Belarus (which was initially refused) to the acceptance of the peace talk proposal later in the day in the Belarusian border. News I read regarding this (in no particular order). I think this deserves its own section.
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/27/7326404/ (google translate)
- https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-rejects-russian-offer-talks-belarus-2022-02-27/
- https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraines-leader-country-ready-peace-talks-russia-belarus-83139629
- https://www.eunews24.com/world/ukraine-president-welcomes-peace-talks-proposals-in-video-message/
- https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h13f1xtxc (not sure whether this source is reliable)
- https://www.axios.com/ukraine-russian-invasion-talks-bedd8c3a-efc7-4549-92fe-b360e0655b5d.html
- https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/ukraine-and-russia-to-meet-for-peace-talks-without-preconditions-zelensky-says/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/russian-banks-excluded-from-swift-what-we-know-so-far (Mentions peace talk only one paragraph)
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-zelenskyy-russia-crisis-putin-peace-talks-b2024252.html
- https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-27/ukraine-claims-control-of-kharkiv-and-confirms-talks-with-russia-will-go-ahead

Cheers-- FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

can someone please replace "talks" (in 27th february section) with Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) - thanks ! Pierro78 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested changes: Adding a "Peace Talks" section, I have linked many sources regarding the matter. Are they considered not reliable? --FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone could add a Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) that would be great also ;) - Pierro78 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding new data related to India and Indian and African students in Ukraine.

As per the latest news, there are more than 16,000 Indian people who are stuck in Ukraine are majorly students. And an evacuation of Indians has been started under operation Ganga. And Several Indian students fleeing Ukraine have alleged that they were harassed, beaten by the Ukrainian guards at the Poland border, and were not allowed to cross over and many Africans have been also stopped to cross the border. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/stopped-assaulted-at-ukraine-border-say-some-indian-students-2793334 Thecybergulf (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The source mentions only "several students" alleging. This seems a weak claim considering the scale of people trying to leave the country. A stronger and more certain source and some indication of the scale alleged would be necessary IMO to justify inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reaction of Latin American countries

I think there should be a section under "Reactions" for the responses from Latin American countries up to this point. I believe this is relevant and of general interest. The region may be perceived as somewhat removed from the conflict but in my opinion should not be omitted completely. A sentence or two dedicated to known responses per country would likely suffice at this moment (I would do this myself but do not qualify).

As a brief overview, many countries have so far condemned the attack, others have refrained from direct condemnation while calling for diplomacy, while Cuba and Venezuela have blamed NATO and seem to align with Russia to an extent. Brazil has shown signs of internal conflict, with the Vice President condemning the attack then later being scolded for speaking out of turn by president Jair Bolsonaro.

Here is an article that can be used as a source which lists some countries & their responses in a similar way to what I think would be appropriate on this page - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latin-american-countries-call-russian-withdrawal-ukraine-rcna17685 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CulturaVore (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

At least in Chile was in the news that the OEA (Organized Estates of America) make a declaration condemning the invasion but was not signed by Argentina and Brazil (even in the map those countries are marked blue) Argentina has interest on sputnik laboratories an vaccines and I dont know about brazil.. Its always interesting see the latin american context when the influences USA/Russia always has been in encounter.

Proposal Add Arrested Russian Protestors to Casualty Section

I propose adding the Anti-War protestors in Russia who have been arrested to the casualty section. I realize that on the face of it this may seem kind of a strange request but I would point two factors, A: a large number of Russians have been arrested in Russia in protests spanning the country, OVD-info estimates 5,000 over the past four days alone. B: As for arrest being a "casualty" I would point out that we do consider prisoners to be casualties and they are currently listed. They are prisoners of war, however there are reports in the CNN and other sources of riot police savaging protestors and inflicting corporal punishment before they are arrested and become prisoners. I think that this would furthermore highlight that this conflict isn't so black and white as to be Russia vs. Ukraine but a more multi-faceted situation. Anyhow I wanted to see what other editors think, and if this could be something that you all think could improve the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They are not casualties.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine's South: Serious Deficiency in Wiki Coverage

The Russian invasion has thus far made the most progress in taking over the southern part of Ukraine (on and near the Black Sea coast), while Russian forces are typically facing much heavier and more effective Ukrainian resistance in the rest of the Ukraine. Ukraine's economy, which relies heavily on access to the Black Sea, would be crippled indefinitely if Russia takes over Ukraine's entire Black Sea coastline before any potential ceasefire goes into effect. There's plenty of news coverage on the rapidly developing situation in Mariupol, Melitopol, Berdiansk, Kherson, and Mykolaiv, and Russia is currently increasing its focus on taking over Odessa to try to complete it's choke-hold on Ukraine's south. There's sufficient news coverage of the unfolding events in the south as well as their larger implications, but this wiki is still woefully limited in covering that aspect of the invasion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to update the article myself, but thoughts on this are welcome. HKT^Talk 18:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with you, I'd also add beyond that coverage about the situation in Donbas where there is also alot of heavy fighting, I think the issue however is that the vast majority of reporters are in Kyiv and after Kyiv in Kharkiv and there are few if any in places like Melitopol, Mariupol, and Kherson so we're just not getting the same RS coverage there that we are in the north. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article surely can be improved, with details on the respective strategies and their evolution. It is not evident to follow suit, since the tactics often change, and WP:HQRS are not legion yet. I have read this article from the institute for the study of war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese Semiconductor Production

Does Taiwan really produce 92% of the global supply as stated under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Other_countries_and_international_organisations? That seems a bit much. 2A00:FB8:6593:A400:F84A:107E:9E93:95EE (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim in that wiki is overly broad. The cited Reuters article says Taiwan produces 92% of the most advanced semiconductor chips. However, Taiwan's total share of semiconductor production/revenue is more in the 50%-60% range. [2] HKT^Talk 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the figure for now. Jr8825 • Talk 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map differences

Hi, it seems that the map on this page is different from the maps on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.225.28.195 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

the losses of Russian manpower

here is a site with up-to-date information about the losses of Russian manpower: https://200rf.com/
Translate info:
At the moment, 4312 people have been killed. Of these, 1169 people cannot be identified. In captivity 768 people. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear this is a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (4)

The reference after Portugal in the 'Foreign military support to Ukraine' section is inconsistent and should be moved to after the comma. EloquentMosquito (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Popoki35 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Spain sends shipment of defense military equipment to Ukraine

Source: https://elpais.com/espana/2022-02-27/espana-envia-20-toneladas-de-equipos-militares-de-proteccion-a-ucrania.html

I added the reference in this page P1221 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (5)

On February 28th South Korea announced it will participate in the SWIFT ban againt Russia, as well as announcing an export ban on stragetic materials covered by the "Big 4" treaties to which Korea belongs— the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. In addition, 57 non-strategic materials including semiconductors, IT equipment, sensors, lasers, maritime equipment, aerospace equipment are planned to be included in the export ban "soon" ("조속히 확정할 예정"). 222.99.95.163 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 DoneP1221 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)

Please remove the statement at the beginning: "It is the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.[37]" This is obviously false seeing as this conflict is at this stage nowhere near the scale of the War in Yugoslavia. 41.17.205.65 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a source saying it is, do you have a source denying it?. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a poor statement from abcnews. It might dwell with frailty on some sort of metrics, such as kilometer.tank, or an integral of border kilometers crossed by enemy forces, but this is clumsy at best, an offense at worst, notably regarding victim numbers. Maxorazon (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure the Wars in Yugoslavia would be considered "conventional warfare", nor would I call them an "operation", same with things like The Troubles in Ireland. Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is conventional warfare and is a [targeted] operation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Warm can not be compared with green, and red can not be compared with dry. We can compare only things under the same category. Yugoslav Wars can be compared with ethnic conflicts in post-Soviet area. Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) can be compared with German invasion of Poland (1939). K8M8S8 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead especially we might argue this leans toward an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that deserves a higher level of scrutiny. The two sources currently cited don't specifically attribute this claim or provide an analytical basis. It's treated more like WP:Common knowledge or a claim the authors themselves make without further context (reference WP:RSCONTEXT). In contrast, CNN writers of this article attribute a very similar statement to an apparently unnamed "senior US defense official" made while "outlining US observations". Those writers also note how the official elaborated: "We haven't seen a conventional move like this, nation-state to nation-state, since World War II, certainly nothing on this size and scope and scale". Given the dates of publication, it seems at least plausible that our two current references drew from the same event where this official spoke. It might be appropriate to contextualize that claim further, if not in changes to the prose, at least by updating the references to include one quoting a probable primary source. --N8 23:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither source used actually makes the claim - one says "the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" the other says "amounts to the largest ground war in Europe since World War II". Neither of these descriptions matches "largest conventional warfare operation". One source is describing an assault from outside a state, one refers to a ground war, our text says "conventional warfare operation", which would be a poor description of an attempt to attack and occupy cities, hindered in part by civilian militias. I agree with N8, this seems like an EXCEPTIONAL claim and fairly meaningless unless it is given more specific context. This reads more like a dramatic headline than actual useful imformation. Apart from the various Yugoslav wars, which would have been much bigger in terms of casualties - if not armoury - what troop and ordnance numbers were involved in the crushing of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '67? Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I expect this may change but for now I've added context to reflect that this claim was made generally and in early reports.
Might be best to leave this section closed, and continue discussion at the earlier talk section where this was originally raised. (Generally if a talk section already exists: use it. Though in this case, it's understandable that a requested edit would auto-generate a new section.) --N8 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Near Duplicate: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Largest European ground war since WWII?
Just noticing this and cross-linking for interested parties. --N8 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units ...)

No one should forget who was involved. Sanctions might be appropriate...

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units under Chechnya and Russia flag ...)

PLEASE ADD (I do not have the right to edit the articel)

I added it in the german articles... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russischer_%C3%9Cberfall_auf_die_Ukraine_2022 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krieg_in_der_Ukraine_seit_2014 --TwentyEighteen (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But Chechnya is part of Russia, so already included? Dajasj (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the account request to adding Chechnya? 10th? 20th? We discussed it many times, even on current talk page. Chechnya is a part of Russia, and Kadyrov's troops are National Guard of Russia units. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok but it is an atonomous republik of russia. But one thing is sure: Kadyrow is a leader and commander of a part of the invaders ! So he needs to be added imo! .--TwentyEighteen (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted Ramzan Kadyrov as a "Russian Commander" in the belligerents section. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that refer to him as such. As far as I can tell he is just the leader of a Republic within the Russian Federation but there are 22 of these so it doesn't make sense listing all their leaders in the Belligerents section. As a side note I really don't understand why there's such a desire to add Chechen stuff to the belligerents section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason is he is seen more as a warlord than just a regional leader, a state within a state, a dictatorship within a dictatorship. His force the "Kadyrovtsy" is seen more as his personal militia than part of the Russian government. Think of Azov's relationship with the Ukrainian military except much larger and even more brutal.--Garmin21 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

More grammar and spelling issues

Under section "Media depictions" and subsection "Censorship and propaganda", two errors need attention.

"Many Chinese users of the social-media platform Weibo pushed pro-Russian sentiments and statements with a translation of Putins 24 February speech going viral and the connected hastag receiving 1.1 billion views in 24-hours. Other users have pointed the conflicts blame at the United States, comments that were echoed by the state broadcaster China Central Television."

An apostrophe is needed in "Putins", and "hastag" should be "hashtag".

Thank you!

--Blank2nowhere (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe added and typo corrected. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Largest European ground war since WWII?

This article's second sentence says the invasion "is the largest conventional military attack on European soil since World War II" and properly cites a reliable source (ABC News). But is that correct? Roughly 180,000 Russian troops have been mustered at the Ukrainian border, not all of whom have yet entered the country. Compare this to the roughly 500,000 Warsaw Pact troops that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. I suggest we find a more definitive exploration of this alleged fact before we give it such prominence. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Was that a war proper though? Considering the cited casualties is just 12 military dead from the USSR, which is what the Russians probably suffered between your message and mine. Juxlos (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Reuters: "the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" [3]. Reuters tends to be the gold-standard for factual reporting. Jr8825 • Talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems, a bit sensational though especially when it is in the lead para and the invasion is ongoing. We should move it down from the lead para at least (even though such analysis are better served sometime after the fact I can see its relevance). Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" is not the same as "the largest conventional military attack on European soil since WWII". What does a conventional attack mean anyway? Presumably not the Yugoslav Wars, which were long, nasty and murderous and involved many people, but were not "conventional" nor "assaults on a European state" (ie from an external power). I certainly agree that the claim lacks context and probably doesn't deserve this level of prominence. Pincrete (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Near Duplicate: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)
Just noticing this and cross-linking for interested parties. --N8 00:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Since this has been called into question in two talk sections, I contextualized the claim in the lead. Some of the comments I read here get into specific semantic differences between sources and I don't think I'm qualified to sort through those. In the short term, the updated phrasing reads "Early reports declared...." Hopefully this suffices until more detailed claims are available and elaborated. It will be interesting to see what reliable sources can quantify with respect to this topic and previous historic actions across Europe. --N8 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

UPS and FEDEx will no longer work in Russia

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ups-fedex-halting-shipments-russia-ukraine-2022-02-27/ Victor Grigas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the nature and scope of those business concerns, adding that information sounds like a good idea.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 03:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Ukrinform RS?

Ukrinform is state media of the Ukrainian government. I don't see it on WP:RSPS as either reliable or not. Is there any consensus on it? Personally think it's quite important to be sure as there are articles by them being used as sources in war articles. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• How is media from either side of this war a reliable source - other than what Ukraine claims, etc. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's my intended point. If we can't use RT how can we use the state media of any side of this conflict? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrinform is reliable for statements as long as they are clearly attributed to Ukrainian authorities, for example about control of specific places. The BBC is using it in this way. (Unlike Russian state-controlled media, which is mostly pumping out propaganda.) TASS, as a news wire, is somewhat reasonable for statements attributed to Russian authorities, but should be used cautiously. Jr8825 • Talk 04:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Desinformation regarding Kazakhstan's reaction

The following information:

Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Kazakhstan refused, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists.

Is false. Please remove this completely. Ministry of Defence of Kazakhstan commented to Stopfake.kz, among other things:

'The request to send Kazakh military personnel to Ukraine or any other country has not been received and is therefore not being considered'

Credibility note: Stopfake.kz is a counter disinformation agency backed by the Ministry of Information and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is used mainly to combat the spread of fakes, such as the one written in this article and published on NBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no official denial published on anything but fact-checkers? Surely this would have been sent to press agencies if it was an official statement? 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: You want us to take the word of "Stopfake.kz", a source that appears to be written in Kazakh so few if any En Wiki editors can understand it, over the word of NBC News, a perennially reliable source, without anything else to corroborate your position? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You will have to translate. It is written in Russian which can be easily translated to English on deepl or google. Wikipedia does not prohibit referencing links written in other languages. The source article in NBC does not have ANY references at all. What kind of reliable source is that? See official comment https://t.me/modgovkz/2938 --Fl7wless (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing works. NBC News is a reliable source and we will run with their coverage until/unless they correct it. We will not be using Google Translate on whatever potentially unreliable Russian language sourcing is presented. Do not change this to "unanswered" again, it's been answered by me and your previous attempt to add this which has been archived. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You have an official statement from the Kazakh Ministry of Defence directly contradicting what NBC says and you're saying it is unreliable only because it is written in Russian language. Your actions spread disinformation among wikipedia users reading this article. I have no other comments--Fl7wless (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: No; there is no prohibition whatsoever on "Russian language sourcing", nor on sourcing in any other language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, did I say there was? No, I said using Google Translate to translate foreign language text is not how to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Kazakh Ministry of Defence have an English-language press center here: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mod/press?lang=en but so far they do not seem to have published a translation of the statement they issued on Telegram (nor have they published it there in Russian or Kazakh judging by the dates). -Paul1337 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes

The background mostly covers political issues, totally dismissing economic/resource disputes such as the major Ukrainian War#Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes. This conflicts with WP:NPOV.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that this article should not aim to cover the entire elements of the conflict, there is the Russo-Ukrainian War article for that as you mentioned , and sub articles like a possible encompassing Elements of dispute for the Russian-Ukrainian war, or Russia–Ukraine_relations, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes could be factorized better between the invasion and the war ones. I agree that there is overlap, inequality of attention and many Russo-Ukrainian articles. Maxorazon (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon:Covering the major dispute on natural gas is covering a fundamental element of the conflict, it is not a minor detail that you can leave for the other articles (currently that section is an obvious violation of NPOV by not covering it). It needs to be on this article because most people are accessing this one. At least add one paragraph on the dispute. I can't because of the current restrictions on this article.--CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support - there is clearly not enough context about petroleum in the article - it is only mentioned in the context of ramifications/sanctions. Clearly it is an important factor and there at least needs to be a brief summary of it and links to other articles which can provide deeper context. 李艾连 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Car crushed by "tank"

Neither a tank nor it was Russian, likely Ukranian 9k35 Strela-10 with inexperienced driver that lost control on road curve, probably due to low tractioin of steel tracks on asphalt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A highly speculative, and deeply misleading statement in a locked article should be removed from this page at once: "A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, veering across the road to crush it." where "veering across the road to crush it" implies deliberate intent not supported by the facts stated below. The tank was out of control.

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q Makes absolutely no sense for Russia to spearhead with a close air defence vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was a spearhead unit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was Russian, that video clearly looks like an accident and not like a deliberate war crime to me.

Maybe it does, to me that looks like wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, especially after it backed up off the car and began firing at civilian vehicles in the street! I think the driver had a 'happy accident' - however, what I think, or you think, is OR and not allowed in the article, but only how the RS's relate the incident. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Russian and that that was an accident?P1221 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Ukranian and that that was a deliberate war crime?

Either base on real evidence or not publish it at all, at least wether is was Ukranian/Russian and keep the war crime allegation out of it, unless proven.

The sources linked in the article tell the tank is Russian. If you can provide a source saying that the tank was Ukrainian,we can revise the article as you are asking to do. (and please, sign your comments adding four tildes at the end!!!) P1221 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources also say it's a tank, when it's clearly not, but a mobile air defense system. Also no painted "Z" of the Russian invasion force.

So some claims, copied by a couple of newspapers is more evidence than a video where you can see, what likely really happened???2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:RS, newspaper are considered more reliable than Youtube comments. I can agree only on the fact that the tank is in fact a Strela-10 P1221 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Verfiability, Not Truth - and many Russian vehicles in this invasion have been confirmed to be unmarked. You'll need a Reliable Source backing your view.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you that the vehicle in question isn't a tank; I don't see any turret and what you've identified it as seems correct. Unfortunately, our own analyses of the videos isn't worth that much and we can't cite that in the article, as what matters is what reliable sources say. You'll likely need to provide better sources that accurately identify what the vehicle is for this information to be included. Consider directly emailing the news sources in question about their misidentification and ask them to print a correction, because this isn't something we can go out and fix on our own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

More weird Strela stuff going on here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_WM7G_8BMA

Seems more like guy on joyride/rampage than actual war to me....2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefight preceding the car accident: https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There should be an acts of heroism section where this is placed. Editdone (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can confirm that this is an Unmarked Strela-10 Armored Vehicle, but multiple sources conflict the vehicle’s nationality. Regarding the 2 videos we have here:

- https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q

I believe we should consider this as disputed until we receive confirmation from either party. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure why this shouldn't unequivocally be listed as an "armored vehicle" - that's what some of the articles are calling it and there's no denying that's what it is. 李艾连 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Can you add the territorial changes to the infobox? Russia has controlled several towns besides portions of Donetsk/Luhansk and Crimea. 184.146.39.97 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 03:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia does not "control" anything; if you're referring to the Russian Army having captured several towns in Ukraine, a/p belligerence in WP no changes are usually made until either party relinquishes losses. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Spanish aid

It is being reported that Spain is sending tons of supplies to the Ukraine. I'm not entirely sure where this might go in the article, but it may be worth noting. Source here. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Most possibly it could go under "reactions", as that's the most suitable subtitle so far. However I would propose a small change that could make the dissemination of information easier. -- DefoNotMe (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this could fit under "reactions", I'll add it in on your behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefoNotMe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of AfD: Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I have nominated Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Maxorazon (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Units, involved in war, in infobox

How's about to display the structure of troops, involved in the war, in infobox? For example:

Ukraine

• Armed Forces of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Ground Forces
  • Ukrainian Navy
  • Ukrainian Air Force
  • Ukrainian Air Assault Forces
  • Ukrainian Special Operations Forces
  • Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces
  • Ukrainian Militia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• State Border Guard Service of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Sea Guard
• National Guard of Ukraine
• Security Service of Ukraine

Russia

• Russian Armed Forces
  • Russian Ground Forces
  • Russian Aerospace Forces
  • Russian Navy
  • Russian Airborne Forces
    • Russian Air Force
  • Russian Special Operations Forces
• National Guard of Russia
• Federal Security Service

Belarus

• State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus

In the future, we can specify a troops composition and strength. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this as I think it's extraneous information that will make the infobox overly long and harder to edit, without contributing much helpful information for the reader. I think I recall a similar discussion, but about adding more specific military units, and it was pointed out that there's a high risk of WP:OR in determining which forces are involved while events are still taking place. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose too, I personally do not want the infobox of this article to get as crowded as the one of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion could be to create a collapsible template under the Russo-Ukrainian war one? Maxorazon (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• • The point of an infobox is to summarize an article. Infoboxes in recent years have become bloated with attempts to basically include all of the "who" and "what" of the situation without the how. Russia is invading its land neighbour Ukraine; of course just about every official armed organization you could think of would be involved, directly or tangentially. How is this of great benefit to the reader to list this all in the infobox, aside from trivia? Just wait, at some moment footage will be linked online showing officers from random municipal divisions of the National Police of Ukraine firing their weapons on Russians, or a security guard from a government building helping to construct a barricade, and the list will continue to get bloated to the point of confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Denazification refers to Ru§ophobia

Please see talk page guidance at WP:NOTFORUM. Jr8825 • Talk 10:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey! I cannot edit this myself, as I'm not an extended rights user. Someone should add this for the sake of objectivity and bilateral understanding of the arguments and allegations. Denazification isn't only a matter of anti-Semitism. In Ukraine in WW2 there were in fact Ukrainians aligning with Germans to oppose Russians, whom (in addition to Jews) the Germans wanted to genocide. Putin's claim of “denazification” doesn't have much support. However, I believe the aforementioned is what he meant and that's how it should be understood. It's a stretch, sure. But still. A lot of readers don't realize that Nazism included persecution towards more than Jewish people. Namely towards e.g. Russians. To converse, understand all sides first. Peace. ToniTurunen (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You are probably right, as he is not crazy yet, and I find your point refreshing. The Wikipedia rules however - unfortunately maybe at times, this is another topic :< - clearly state the requirement for reliable sources WP:RS - I'd be happy to add such explanation if you find such sources. Peace. Maxorazon (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I find this discussion unacceptable. It does not quote any souces. 'This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.' Mr President Zelensky has Jewish roots. Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC) References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (2)

Casualties As Reported By Ukraine* Russia /Pro Russian Forces: ~ 5300 As Of 2/28/2022 Ukraine: ~ 500 As Of 2/28/2022

https://u24.ua/ IndulgeIn (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add French foreign legion volunteers

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31D:A145:B000:4C8A:CD93:82BF:78A1 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 

Source? Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Racism faced by Non-Ukrainians from the Ukrainian Military

Add another section in 'Ramifications' or create another point altogether discussing 'Racism faced by Non-Ukrainians from the Ukrainian Military'.

EDIT: Non-Ukrainian students trying to escape war-hit Ukraine have alleged that there is racial discrimination among evacuees trying to leave the country via neighboring countries. Journalist Stephanie Hegarty of BBC published a series of tweets explaining the ordeal of the students. She said that a Nigerian medical student told her that while she was waiting to cross the border, the Ukrainian soldiers did not allow black people to cross and sent them back. She said, “They have to let ‘Ukrainians’ through first”. MindOfOm (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Students from other countries would not be affected by a Russian takeover - they would be 'neutral foreign nationals' with immunity and processed back to their homes - the authorities giving preference to Ukraine refugees is hardly racism - it's protecting those that might be severely punished/killed. I would softpedal this as it's inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

You are absolutely right, however Non-Ukrainians are reporting instances of severe beating and humiliation from Ukrainian Forces and are being told things like "Play game with us if you win you can go or else we will torture you" Is it not racism? Or is it normal? I have listed several sources of these instances I humbly ask you to thoroughly go through it to get detail ordeal and decide for yourself whether its racism or not. You can change the text slightly to your acceptance and add it to the page I have no issues but I think this aspect of the war must be on the page.

PS. You can give preference to Ukrainians leaving without asking Non-Ukrainians to "go back", also you said its not racism as the authorities are merely "Giving preference to Ukrainians" I would like to see proper sources of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindOfOm (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is the only good piece of RS on there IMO. Will read and add text accordingly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (3)

Hundreds of volunteers from the Romanian Siret customs made a support corridor for refugees from Ukraine, including food and drink. Romanian officials have also set up dozens of refugee tents.

Alexmmmm (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 11:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: SNOW close; clear consensus against move. (non-admin closure). BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine – clear Primary topic. Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose What if in the future Russia invade Ukraine again? Will the article be renamed back? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Disambiguation is unnecessary with the proposed title currently redirecting here; if there is another war, we can move the article then, as we are proposing to do at Kiev Offensive. BilledMammal (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the only Russian invasion of the Ukraine in the last 10 years. It is clearly the most recent topic (WP:RECENTISM). Let's just sit this one out for now and let some of the dust settle. It doesn't affect searching from the WP search bar. It doesn't affect a Google search. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:RECENTISM. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ambiguous, there are 1918, 1919, 1939, 1941 and 2014, invasions of Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You have a point about the 2014 War in Donbas that I will have to consider, but the rest are not ambiguous; 1918 and 1919 are consistently described as Soviet, not Russian, 1939 was Hungarian, and 1941 was German. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    There could also be confusion with the Crimean annexation, which was a Russian invasion of Ukraine, albeit only part of Ukraine rather than the complete invasion we see here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Dropping "2022" would be ambiguous. Boud (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Yes, it's the primary topic, so what? The main goal here is clarity; there isn't a contest to come up with the shortest possible unambiguous title. The current title is already very concise. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The clarity of the name is "2022" - event considered by the time in history. Thingofme (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thingofme, Deeday-UK WP:RECENTISM HurricaneEdgar 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 2022 is a nice-looking number Maxorazon (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Although this is the only full-scale invasion launched by modern day russia, the name “russian invasion of ukraine” could still apply to the 2014 annexation of crimea Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spain sends ships to the Black Sea and offers fighters to NATO

Source: https://www.infolibre.es/politica/espana-envia-buques-mar-negro-ofrece-cazas-otan-plena-escalada-tension-ucrania_1_1217469.html

I added the reference in this page P1221 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Add this Wikisource page

This Wikisource page should be added to the page, either in External Links or in the part about Putin's announcement on the "special military operation".

97.107.179.62 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --N8 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (8)

At the bottom of the overview, under "Casualties and losses", on civilian causalties it says "Per UN: 406+ civilians killed[29]". This is incorrect according to the cited source. The cited source says 406+ civilian causalties, meaning injuries + deaths, of which 102 are deaths. This is clearly stated in the cited article: "There have been at least 406 civilian casualties in Ukraine since Thursday, according to the U.N.’s Human Rights Office....Michelle Bachelet, U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, said the U.N. had recorded 102 civilian deaths..." 178.255.168.175 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Jr8825 • Talk 23:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (7)

In foreign military support, where it is talked about supplying aircraft to Ukraine, Bulgaria is supposed to have Su-25s not Slovakia KeplerBruv (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Quoting the cited source directly: "Slovakia also has Su-25 supply planes". If you're aware of a different WP:RS that claims Bulgaria also has Su-25 to supply feel free to provide the reference. --N8 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling

Section 7.1 header "Censorship and propeganda" should be changed to "Censorship and propaganda". Propaganda is misspelled. 128.239.237.162 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Propepeganda Maj Swag (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO and EU participating

Since the EU and NATO are officially sending weapons to Ukraine, shouldn't they be listed as supporting Ukraine?-Karma1998 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

We were discussing this issue above, the conversation was recently closed as no consensus. I have to now agree they should be added. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

March 1st Russian Tank Column

There should be a correction to where it reads "A 60-km-long convoy of Russian tanks was reported to be heading down on Kyiv."

The source states that the road they are on is 60km long, not that the column itself is that long.

Additionally the source says that it is an armored column, an armored column doesn't necessarily mean just tanks it can also include APCs and other mechanized armored units. 184.155.9.83 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ Maxorazon (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Change "Prime Minister Johnson" to "UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson" and include internal link to Wikipedia article on Boris Johnson

The first sentence in the second paragraph under Sanctions under Ramifications refers to a 'Prime Minister Johnson'; Can we change this to 'UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson' like when referring to 'US President Joe Biden' in the previous paragraph and provide an internal link to the Wikipedia article for Prime Minister Boris Johnson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos100 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done although in the future please use the Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to ask for page changes. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Add Australia to list of arms suppliers for Ukraine in infobox https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/scott-morrison-russia-ukraine-war-weapons-lethal-aid/100871304 MrAustin390 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now we're not adding arms suppliers to the infobox until the RfC on this page is completed. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (3)

Change the See also link under the section "Foreign military support to Ukraine" from "List of foreign aid during the Russo-Ukrainian War" to "List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War". This would avoid a redirect. Curiocity1 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is Belarus situated?

Belarus is neither 'outside Russia' nor 'in Russia'.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

what do you mean? By a geographical point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1221 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I also can't seem to understand the question being asked, or how it relates to the content in the article. Belarus is an independent country, separate from Russia, bordering both it (to the west) and Ukraine (to the north). At present, it is a Russian ally, but not "in Russia". Goodposts (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is a part of the Union State. Russia attacks Ukraine form Belarus, a specific form of 'indepedence'. Belarus is economically, politically and militarly controlled by Russia. so listing it among 'outside Russia' misinforms. I have introduced 'In Belarus' section, now removed. I still believe it to be the best solution. Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hundreds-of-belarusians-protest-russian-attack-on-ukraine/ Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'Union State' isn't really a state. It's an international union that isn't really doing all that much for the time being. Furthermore, although Russia has heavy influence in Belarus, it is neither economically, nor militarily 'controlled' by Russia. This is exemplified through Russo-Belarussian conflicts such as the Milk War. Lukashenko also had several dozen Russian military contractors arrested a couple of years back, and accused Russia of trying to undermine him in order to secure a more favorable result in the 2020 election. A 'politically, economically and militarily controlled state' could not have done any of this. With that said, ever since the huge scandals around that election, and subsequent Western sanctions against Belarus, it is nevertheless true that Russian influence over Belarus has increased, and Belarus is growing more dependent on Russian markets in order to avoid an economic crisis. It is likely this factor that contributed to Belarus allowing Russia to use its territory for an invasion, despite previously positioning itself as the "middle ground" between Ukraine and Russia - something which will only increase Russia's influence. Belarus' international situation is very complicated at this moment, and certainly can't be boiled down to "Belarus is Russia". Goodposts (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus reports

It's now Tuesday so predicting what will happen on Monday is unnecessary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While there are intelligence sources in the West stating they've picked up intel about Belarus possibly entering the fray by Monday, I suggest we wait on reporting this. Wiki's not a newspaper, and while I suspect this will happen, restraint before adding these reports to the article would be prudent.50.111.36.47 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Some wikis may be newspapers, but that's not our problem. Here we're on Wikipedia, not Wiki. Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them. Boud (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You do understand editors refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki," I hope? Your comment had nothing to do with the point I was making. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Editors say "the wiki" (lower case, with "the") when it is obvious from the context which wiki is being discussed, but not "Wiki". Writing "Wiki" instead of "Wikipedia" is a distraction. Ambiguity is generally discouraged in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) This is both untrue and irrelevant. There are instances of 'wiki' (without the definite article) elsewhere on this very page. To address the substance of your comment IP, it's already been added. Current events articles tend to rush to include. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Protests in Mexico

I wanted to add Mexico to the list of countries where pro-Ukraine protests have occurred (with this citation https://politica.expansion.mx/mexico/2022/02/26/fuera-putin-de-ucrania-piden-ucranianos-en-la-embajada-de-rusia-en-la-cdmx). But I am not able to edit the page. I do have more than 500 edits and have been an editor for a very long time, so I expected I should be able to edit. Does someone know why this is? Thank you very much.--Homo logos (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homo logos: It looks like you have way more than 500 edits on both Spanish and Lojban wikipedias but fall a little short on English. You probably have the necessary group rights on those wikis but not (yet) on en.wikipedia.org. Since this article is getting quite long and already has a maintenance tag to that effect I recommend you contribute this source at the "Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article which has a lower level of protection. I think the protest section here might eventually get trimmed to a higher level summary in the long run anyway. Alternatively, you can use an edit request including the verbatim text changes you recommend and another editor may be able to assist with making changes here. --N8 19:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian plans according to RIA

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 'There will be no Ukraine as anti-Russia.'Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turns out currently that there will maybe be no Putin as anti-Ukraine instead. Please refrain from such basic antagonizing statements, let's strive for a clear and wise view of the picture. Maxorazon (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

RIA informs about Russian politics. The text has been probably erroneusly published and removed. 'antagonising'? Is there anything more antagonizing than inviding a nation? Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been stupid, my bad. I will look into it. Maxorazon (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking ahead: Live sources and referencing

For compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability we should probably try to reduce our reliance on live sources and fix refs that no longer support text because the items on the live feed have changed. Easier after the events cool down, yes, but interest in the article will diminish too and with 580 refs (and counting), the effort would be too great for a few people to handle. It would also be nice if we could replace many disparate refs with a single ref that discusses multiple things, to generally get our # of refs lower. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed: isn't there special wikimedia/wikipedia tooling for this? Maxorazon (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately none that I'm aware of; it requires hard thankless labour from volunteer editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not just mark as unfit and let the source fall back to the archive? Archive.org automatically archives all external links added to Wikipedia within 24 hours. Melmann 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: this tool can quickly show some duplicates but as ProcrastinatingReader indicates, there's still some manual work involved in finding where and fixing. A quick look at source shows https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447 is cited with maybe half a dozen different titles or more. Thanks for mentioning and yes - thankfully Archive.org is helping mitigate as well. --N8 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turns out BBC has a pinning ID you can use to link directly to the specific live update. See this edit for example. You can grab that identifier - or the link to the specific update - by clicking on the "Share" button under the post when you find it. Remember to remove any other tracking parts of the URL as recommended in Template:Citation#URL --N8 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Destruction of Antonov An-225 Mriya

Go to Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya or Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport. Closing to declutter talk. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Congratulations! Please add a page about the Ukrainian Dream to this article.--Максим Огородник (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I suggest to ask that question in that article's discussion page. This discussion page shall be used for changes asked for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article only. P1221 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Future of "invasion" section

As the conflict continues, it is obviously unsustainable to have sections for each day of the conflict. I was thinking that it could be condensed into months, but at what point should this occur? Alextheconservative (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably at the point when things start dying down to like only 1 or 2 things per day probably. Seems like the sections for each day so far have been getting shorter and shorter. Maybe even have a separate article for each month if need be. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends on if it goes on for months. We lack the WP:CRYSTALBALL to know. I'd say if it goes on for longer than a week, and the pattern of each day getting shorter and shorter continues, we start condensing by week and so-on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign citizens killed

The Greeks who killed were not foreign citizens, they were Ukrainian citizens belonging to the Greek minority.Gre regiment (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian financial crisis

Someone started 2022 Russian financial crisis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

flag icons in info box

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it necessary to repeat the same flag icon over and over in the info box? Seems a bit of an eyesore. Govvy (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) MOS:FLAG and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG say that flags are added where person or military unit discussed represents a country, and avoidance of flags in infoboxes is exempted in military conflict infoboxes, so I suppose they should stay. You can hide flags on your own side if you find them an eyesore, by adding .flagicon {display:none;} CSS rule to your user-specific stylesheet. Melmann 15:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC) @Melmann: They generally don't bother me, but I don't know why, maybe my colour-blindness, they tend to make my eyes funny just looking at them. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sections collapsible?

Off-topic

 – Questions about how to use Wikipedia are welcome at the Wikipedia:Help desk.

Is it difficult to make sections collapsible? I would love to not need to scroll through the background section every time I refresh the page to see the updated daily summaries. 64.85.244.29 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mobile site has a feature for collapsible sections. On some screen sizes it's collapsed by default. On some it's not. You can switch to mobile site by clicking "mobile view" at the very bottom of any page. And return to "desktop view" from the same place. In desktop view, currently it's not possible to collapse section for logged out users. However, logged in users can use one of the many scripts developed by other editors to collapse it. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

customization available at WP:Skin AFAIK. Maxorazon (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Show links to Kherson, Kyiv Offensive etc wiki pages at the top please!

Having seen the excellent coverage here, and separately - by chance - the Kherson offensive Wikipedia page, which actually seems to cover the whole South Eastern region: Maybe you already have such specific invasion links buried someplace on the page, but surely they should be clearer, near the top. For example, where you now have old historic links, which while of interest are surely of less immediate relevance. So the sub- invasion page links could surely go above them, or the historic ones could be shifted to a less prominent location. Also worth remembering the different Wikipedia phone and desktop views, in this and other respects. Thank you again for the good coverage, especially as I assume it's mostly by volunteers without pay. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added - About links to Kherson Offensive etc

I am unable to edit previous suggestion: There is a Related Articles section at the bottom here but it does not list the Kherson Offensive (and maybe others, perhaps Kharkiv if not listed...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson_offensive Also as said would be better if those links were near the top someplace. Many using phones possibly do not see them, (as I didn't before). Well done again in this page effort. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on Kherson offensive. Although the layout might not be ideal for all readers, it's guided by Wikipedia's Manual of Style so we try to follow that whenever possible. Notice however that the Kherson offensive is already linked much earlier in the article text under all five of the subheadings for each day of the invasion (i.e. "24 February", "25 February", etc.). You can also find it linked in the "Russo-Ukrainian War" information box right near the top after expanding that box by clicking "show". Hopefully that makes it accessible to most readers. Generally, the section "See also" is used for items that have not already been linked from within the article text. That's probably why the link isn't replicated there. Thanks again for checking on it. --N8 17:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

video: Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 28 February

This video is very shocking, should it be edited, can it be on this page, should it be on this page, what does everyone think, what are the wiki policies.. Kind regardsDubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum: The relevant policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, so even if it is very shocking, it should be kept if it adds value to the page. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 18:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added Also link to Battle of Kharkiv 2022 wikipedia page

About showing Kherson Offensive link upfront (at top) as mentioned, also the Kharkiv battle.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kharkiv_(2022), along with more clearly showing the already listed ones in Related Articles at the bottom... 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think my previous response in your earlier post for Kherson also applies here. If I've misunderstood, please clarify with additional details. --N8 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Map Updates?

We have a link to the battle at Zaporizhzhia, reports of encirclement at Mariupol, Sumy and Kherson. I believe the Southern front of the map needs to be updated to reflect that current movements of the Russian military to reflect the reports that we have on the pages concerning them and in the Timeline section and perhaps in the Eastern Ukrainian front. NativePride73 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

More protests

Russia's embassies in Bogota, Santiago and Buenos Aires have also seen protests and manifestations, hence a request of their addition to the list of protests under reactions.

Sources (in Spanish)

[CO] [AR/CL] Maj Swag (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

'verbatim text': "...Argentina, ... Chile, Colombia, ..." with the aforementioned references in the reference box (more like book)

 Note: This request is missing verbatim text that you would like to have added to the article. Leaving this request open for now.

@Maj Swag: The article "Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is only semi-protected (lower level of protection) and as an autoconfirmed user I think you should be able to add this information there without requesting a proxy edit. Thanks for posting this update and links. I'll watch for english language sources and any updates to this edit request you add later. --N8 18:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: The page is actually protected, not semi, so no, I cannot. Maj Swag (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maj Swag: Oops! I don't know why you can't edit that page but the page permissions and yours definitely still look like you should be fine. Not sure what I'm missing but my apologies for suggesting you edit something you can't!

Thanks for the 'verbatim' even though it's just a list. I didn't realize that's what you were asking until taking a closer look at the current text.

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Even though it's short, give me some time on this one. Want to see about English sources if available as they're preferred if possible. (And I imagine it's getting English coverage too.) --N8 19:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: Here are some sources, with the most obvious being YouTube videos and the text (news) sources only glancing over the protests without really elaborating

CL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVrqaURFzfg&ab_channel=AFPNewsAgency

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/protests-in-mexico-chile-against-russian-invasion-articleshow.html

AR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdq9CXDlnQ&ab_channel=GlobalDailyMirror

https://mb.com.ph/2022/02/27/russia-out-worldwide-protests-in-solidarity-with-ukraine/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russia-out-worldwide-protests-in-solidarity-with-ukraine-101645925924326.html'

Colombia somehow got picked up by a Spanish (Spain) news agency but not an English-speaking one, so that's all for now. Also take your time, this isn't anything important.

 Done Thanks @Maj Swag! I was just updating this as complete (got an edit conflict) as you posted these. I found Reuters reported on a couple locations so I cited them where possible and currently, there's an Op-Ed by the New York Post cited for Columbia. As you mentioned - odd this hasn't been published widely in other English sources yet. It's not the best English reference but might be ok here as the only portion used is a captioned photo of protestors.

If you're active on es.wikipedia.org be sure to post those original refs there too. ...and again - thanks! --N8 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: I see you can speak Spanish (es-3) so I'm even more confused as to how you still managed to misspell Colombia lmao, but in any case, no, I'm not as active there since my Spanish is not great (anymore), and thanks for the quick response time!

Twitter post by a journalist being used to press the entire stance of "Europe"

• 28 Februari 2022 17:54, user Black Future added a Twitter post by a journalist (Lazar Berman) from the Times of Israel which is supposedly meant to represent the entire stance of "Europe" (whatever that might mean).[4]
• 28 Februari 2022 20:13, I removed this edit as I believe its a violation of WP:RS to use such a low quality source in such a high-profile article. Strong claims require strong sources, and a random Twitter post by a journalist certainly shouldn't receive a free pass.
• 28 February 2022 20:16 user Alcaios reverted me and simply reinstated said Twitter post (edit summary: "per sources")[5]

I cba arguing over this as I got more pressing things to do IRL, but I'm just wondering; how can a Twitter post by a journalist (in this case, from the Times of Israel) possibly be used as WP:RS to confirm the entire stance of "Europe"? IMHO, such a claim requires much stronger sources (also per WP:NOTNEWS). - LouisAragon (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, said Twitter post has now been swapped by user Alcaios with an actual Times of Israel post written by the same journalist (Lazar Berman) who owns aforementioned Twitter page.[6] Said journalist in turn references "a European diplomatic source".[7]- LouisAragon (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I didn't revert your edit intentionally; there are a lot of concomitant updates to this article at the moment. The Twitter link has indeed been replaced with the Times of Israel's article. Alcaios (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Post-Soviet context and Orange Revolution

Proposal to add the rest of the paragraph under: Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve".

Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. . --Murkunas (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also proposal to add this excerpt from the FOUNDING ACT ON MUTUAL RELATIONS, COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN NATO AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION I. Principles Consistent with the OSCE's work on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-First Century, and taking into account the decisions of the Lisbon Summit concerning a Charter on European security, NATO and Russia will seek the widest possible cooperation among participating States of the OSCE with the aim of creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any state. Murkunas (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Russia bans flights that originate or terminate on EU territories on 28 February 2022 (8)

Russia in response to the EU airspace ban, have banned any flights which originate or terminate in EU territories. https://twitter.com/LatestAnonPress/status/1498019541065953281?s=20&t=TC2rr2wIXskr_ITbDGUiBw https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/russia-bans-all-of-eu-from-its-airspace-in-response-to-sanctions IFlyPlanes (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy on Economic impact section

"The Russian stock market crashed, falling 39%, as measured by the RTS Index, on the first day of the invasion, with similar falls in the following days."

The last part of this sentence does not appear substantiated - Feb 24 indeed had about a 39% drop from 1226 to 746, but Feb 25 had the index rebound back to 936. (I could not find any data for the 28th.) --2600:1700:4579:B80:B494:BE18:560A:94C7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Strength of Ukrainian forces

Is there any good estimates on the size of the Ukrainian volunteer force? Feel like it should be added to the infobox. Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 21:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be too hard to guess, being that the numbers are changing every minute, you'd have to imagine. Maybe a source might have an estimate, maybe you try to extrapolate a number from the current units plus a rough guess of males between 18 and 60, since that's confirmed, but it does seem a little unlikely to confirm. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested template change

I would change the wording of the template at the top of page, where it states "This current military offensive documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this current military offensive may not reflect the most current information. (February 2022)" and possibly replace it with a {{current}} template, as this isn't nessearily a "issue" (atleast an issue that can be fixed). —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 22:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Talk: page is the correct place to suggest that the two issues/concerns be displayed independently but in this case we should establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template to directly request the change. The {{current}} template is actually what's included in the page right now. It's just wrapped with a {{multiple issues}} template which presents it as one of the "issues". If I recall correctly, it was previously displayed as separate. Since it has been changed once, it would be good to invite discussion before changing it back. --N8 23:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for correcting me about using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. However, would you think it be unecassary to undo the change? —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking in that last comment however, it looks like BilledMammal handled this change already in this edit. Raising this concern on Talk: was the right place to mention it. Thanks! --N8 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's ok, but thank you for notifying me!—Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID in the invasion

Thie article COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine has not been updated in months, and I think it is likely important that we establish what is going on with COVID during this invasion. Has it been made worse by it? this article seems to think so https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-covid-polio-mounting-health-threats-rcna17780 MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You may want to add that information in the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine, as that relates more with the pandemic in the Ukraine, not with the Russian invasion . Remember, you can always be bold and update the article yourself (you can always add another section!), just make sure you add more than just one source. If you need some help with it, you can ask other users at the Help Desk, the Teahouse, the article's talk page, or you can ask me! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Two typos under section "Foreign military support to Ukraine"

Hey y'all, make sure to spell-check your edits. I found two typos in this section, and its likely that there are plenty more in the rest of the article.

"On the evening of 28 February, the government of Norway decided to donate up to 2,000 M72 LAW anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in adittion to previous announced helmets and other protective gear."

"This assisted the Ukrainian military to improve its quality, with the Ukrainian army achieving noticeable succusses against Russian proxy forces in Donbas."

Can't edit this page, so I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could correct this. Appreciate y'all!

--Blank2nowhere (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Done the two you've noted. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Snake Island"

The article consistently refers to "Snake Island". But the name of the island is Зміїний (Zmiinyi in the Latin alphabet). I expect Wikipedia has a policy on translation of names. To me, it seems respectful to use native names as much as possible.

Nevertheless, I recognize that in the interest of communication to English-speaking readers, some concessions are necessary and appropriate. Notably the common name of the country is used in the article's title. Its capital, well-known as Kiev, is spelled more accurately as Kyiv. These make sense because few readers of English Wikipedia will have any experience with the Cyrillic alphabet.

This is just a comment for now. However, if Russia decides to annex "Snake Island" under a different name, it might become more important. It is also possible that Ukraine might rename it, say, Thirteen Heroes Island. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME the current name seems to be Snake Island. Regardless, this edit seems more like an opinion, and not to the right page. If you believe that the common name is no longer Snake Island but Zmiinyi Island in English reliable sources, I suggest starting a move request on the Snake Island page. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here to help with article as I can - Qs for you:

Incredible to see what you all have put together in past few days. Happy to join team. Can't catch up right now with all the previous posts, just wanted to pop a couple Qs in here to everyone:

1) is anyone here skilled at recrafting Lead sections? Readability according to Hemingwayapp.com is Post-graduate level for first 3 paragraphs and we have a Lot of kids trying to understand this too. I'd be happy to help with whomever is focused on updates to the Lead.

2) re: collaborations with coverage of same topics in other languages, how are the people working on source material coordinating between the many many language sources?

2) re: Related wikipedia articles - When I googled "Ukraine war" I got tie ins to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War ? instead of this article. With so much happening at once - which older-article pageviews are most lighting up, and who here is working on updating those too?

3) what help from others around the world is needed most to get and keep this article as high quality as possible? Who should I coordinate with here when I can bring more volunteers to help?

4) Is there a Telegram channel, discord or other chat platform where active editors are discussing things in live chat?

I'm sure many answers are written above and I will dig in to the mass up there soon - thanks for quick Q&A here. Grateful for all you do! DrMel (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how that app works, but I'd think the current lead is comprehendible at high school level, if not sooner. simplewiki may be more suited for more other approaches, though that's not to say the sentence structure of the lead can't be improved. Generally I think 'better' (think FA-class) English Wikipedia articles tend to be less comprehensible for kids.

Regarding live chat, a WP:DISCORD and WP:IRC exist, though I don't know if improvements to this article are being discussed there, and generally if a dispute arose then discussion would have to take place on the talk page here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Some topics are best left to adults. In any case there's the Simple English wikipedia

2)Norm is to add a hatnote at the beggining of the article, like Coronavirus the public tends to shift towards more specific vocabulary on their own as they learn the nuances.

3)Good sources, and good summaries from those sources. Try not to get your information from the internet itself, if you have offline sources of information, you can add them to Wikipedia.

4) Communication often happens in Wikipedia edit summaries, talk pages and user talk pages. Off site communication is allowed, but not looked upon favourably.

--TZubiri (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here to help with article as I can - Qs for you:

Incredible to see what you all have put together in past few days. Happy to join team. Can't catch up right now with all the previous posts, just wanted to pop a couple Qs in here to everyone:

1) is anyone here skilled at recrafting Lead sections? Readability according to Hemingwayapp.com is Post-graduate level for first 3 paragraphs and we have a Lot of kids trying to understand this too. I'd be happy to help with whomever is focused on updates to the Lead.

2) re: collaborations with coverage of same topics in other languages, how are the people working on source material coordinating between the many many language sources?

2) re: Related wikipedia articles - When I googled "Ukraine war" I got tie ins to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War ? instead of this article. With so much happening at once - which older-article pageviews are most lighting up, and who here is working on updating those too?

3) what help from others around the world is needed most to get and keep this article as high quality as possible? Who should I coordinate with here when I can bring more volunteers to help?

4) Is there a Telegram channel, discord or other chat platform where active editors are discussing things in live chat?

I'm sure many answers are written above and I will dig in to the mass up there soon - thanks for quick Q&A here. Grateful for all you do! DrMel (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how that app works, but I'd think the current lead is comprehendible at high school level, if not sooner. simplewiki may be more suited for more other approaches, though that's not to say the sentence structure of the lead can't be improved. Generally I think 'better' (think FA-class) English Wikipedia articles tend to be less comprehensible for kids.

Regarding live chat, a WP:DISCORD and WP:IRC exist, though I don't know if improvements to this article are being discussed there, and generally if a dispute arose then discussion would have to take place on the talk page here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Some topics are best left to adults. In any case there's the Simple English wikipedia

2)Norm is to add a hatnote at the beggining of the article, like Coronavirus the public tends to shift towards more specific vocabulary on their own as they learn the nuances.

3)Good sources, and good summaries from those sources. Try not to get your information from the internet itself, if you have offline sources of information, you can add them to Wikipedia.

4) Communication often happens in Wikipedia edit summaries, talk pages and user talk pages. Off site communication is allowed, but not looked upon favourably.

--TZubiri (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)