Other talk page banners

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Military / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

instead of the more readable (and sensible)

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

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

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

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

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

• Disagree. You need some clear way to distinguish the events of 2014-2022 with those of 2022-. Not sure about the COMMONNAME situation, but COMMONNAME can be disregarded on grounds of ambiguity or naturalness concerns which I think apply here. The invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia is really the defining feature of this war. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 Annexation of Crimea was a covert invasion of Crimea that saw little fighting and had concluded after about one month.

The 2014-15 War in Donbass was a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine, that lasted about a year and ended with Minsk II agreement. There were smaller skirmishes later, but they were not part of the main war. Compare with Armenian-Azeri skirmishes after the first war ⇾ those didn't extend the war. Similarly, the 2014 Gaza war is distinct from the 2023–present Gaza war, even though there were skirmishes in 2018, 2019 and 2021. (Wikipedia is also unique here in insisting that the Donbass war lasted 8 years.)

The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War started in February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

All together are the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THIS. THIS. THIS. (More or less). 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:CC79:793D:B460:23D3 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I entirely support your proposal. When it comes to the period 2022–2025, "war" is definitely the common name, compared to "invasion", which continues to be used less and less over time. Indeed, "invasion" does not seem to be an appropriate term to describe what is going on now, especially with prolonged combat within Russian territory, as you note.

I agree that the end of Russian operations in northern Ukraine in April 2022, which represent the end of their attempts to capture Ukraine's capital, would be an appropriate cutoff point for the "invasion" period, unless a more appropriate date emerges through careful analysis of use of terminology by reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and is ongoing. That is the scope of the article. The Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022 marked a new phase in the ongoing war. That is the scope of this article. It is neither anomalous nor surprising that the events since 2022 are also referred to as a war since they are part of the ongoing war. Retitling Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict would be an artificial distinction contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. These other conflicts are a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which is only valid if they represent best practice and are directly comparable. At this point, I see no good reason for change. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's like saying the Iraq War already started in 1990 because of the Gulf War.

  The 2014 Annexation of Crimea and the 2014-15 War In Donbass, as well as subsequent skirmishes, are distinct from the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

  Only Ukrainians insist that it's the same war (for whatever reason).

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Cinderella157, we've discussed this over on the Russo-Ukrainian War talk page, but I think it's clear that most reliable, independent sources no longer follow the POV that the post-2022 phase was simply an escalation in a war that began in 2014. Instead, the majority of high-quality, reliable, independent news media sources have switched their coverage of the post-2022 conflict to "Russia-Ukraine War" (or similar), reported 24 February 2024 as the "second anniversary of the war" (or similar), and reported 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war" (or similar).

  Additionally, academic analysis of the conflict tends to refer to is as the "Russia-Ukraine war" (or similar) using a formula of pre-24 February 2022 as "pre-war" and post 24 February 2022 as "during the war". This is particularly seen in statistical analysis (e.g., medical, economic, scientific, or environmental) where accurately defining a start-date to the conflict they are covering is important. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is true that there were a thousand days of warring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this make a good headline for NEWSORG sources. But NEWSPORG sources live in the present for the next story. I don't think they are a good basis for renaming an article such as this. I doubt they gave much consideration (if any) to how we name the post 2022 events and the 2014 to 2022 events. For this, we should be making an objective survey of good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming. The sources added here do not represent such a survey. If there is no clear consensus, then there is no clear reason to rename these. What we call these articles is much less important than the quality of the content within the scope as defined by the lead. Do we really need to change these titles? Arguably not unless there is a substantial benefit. It is clear that these articles can be easily found. At the time, I would have preferred that Russo-Ukraine War covered the events pre 2022 and Russian invasion of Ukraine covered the events subsequent in much the way that War in Donbas ceases at the time of the invasion. That way, Russo-Ukraine War would have remained relatively stable and complete. It would still be a much better approach. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the academic source describing post-24 February 2022 as “during the war” and pre-24 February 2022 as “pre-war” are pretty clear here as what those period should be described as. It’s certainly true that the way in which we cover these two topics has been decided in a way that probably made sense in February 2022 but makes much less sense now. The present war is undeniably the WP:PRIMARY topic for “Russia-Ukraine War” or similar, not the earlier Donbas war. FOARP (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be missing the point I was making. We are not going to rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian pre-war. We need to look at good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming [both events]. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not proposing that move. I am saying that these sources do not consider there to have been a war pre-24 February 2022 in the sense that there was after 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep we already have that article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "That article" would be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian conflict", as was said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I disagree, we already have an article on the war, if anything this is all just an argument to change this one to be about the invasion only. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The scope of the two articles are not trying to be changed; this is merely an argument that right now the naming structure does not follow WP:COMMONNAME, which it should. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is not its common name, as the name was in use in 2014 [[8]], the article was correctly named.[[9]] and 2015, shall I go on? NOw I have had the decency to not question your option, kindly give me the same courtesy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source isn't a WP:RS afaik, but a Ukrainian shill site. The second one just calls it Ukraine conflict in the title.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 12:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article as of now covers the broader conflict that started in 2014 and is therefore wrongly titled.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PLease read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed it.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note is will up to the closer to judge the merits of any argument, they do not need us to tell them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• My view on this is, go with what the sources say. Here's what they say:

• The Times - "Russia Ukraine War" (paging laboriously through this archive it appears to start in 2022 - for some reason they won't just let you input a page number in the URL)
• The New York Times - "Russia-Ukraine War" (the earliest article under this heading was 20 July 2023, and therefore it has only been used about the present war, not the conflict 2014-2022).
• The Guardian - Now using "Russia-Ukraine War" in headlines, though the section is called "Ukraine war". States that this is the section about the conflict starting in 2022, coverage began in January 2022 and was originally called "Ukraine Crisis".
• BBC - Uses "War in Ukraine", paging back to the earliest page in the archive this section started in 2022. Looking at archived pages from 2015 (e.g., this one) the pre-2022 fighting was typically referred to as "Ukraine crisis".
• The Telegraph - the URL and section-name (you have to scroll to the bottom to see this) is "Russia-Ukraine War". Paging through to the earliest page - page 285 - this section began in early 2022.
• Associated Press - Russia-Ukraine War.
• Britannica - "Russia-Ukraine War" (2022-), though the article is a bit of a mess frankly.

What we can see from the above is that reliable sources are no longer using the name "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the conflict beginning in 2022. Whatever else might be the case, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common name for the present conflict, nor can it really be defended as a descriptive title now either since the conflict has long-since spread outside the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine (e.g., conflict in the Black Sea, fighting in Kursk).

Additionally, the idea that the present conflict was simply an escalation of the conflict beginning in 2014, is not supported by these sources. Instead, whilst the above sources began their coverage in early 2022 with names like "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine escalation", they are now coalescing around the name "Russia-Ukraine War" for the conflict beginning in 2022.

It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict (though "Donbas war" or similar were more common), but we can now see that this has changed and when sources refer to "Russia-Ukraine War", they are talking about the conflict starting in 2022, and they do not include the pre-2022 fighting as part of the same war.

This was also made very clear in the widely-reported 1,000-day length of the war, which only happened recently if you consider the present war to have begun on 24 February 2022:

• Associated Press: "1,000 days of war"
• BBC: "'Push Russia harder' Zelensky urges allies on war's 1,000th day"
• Le Monde: "War in Ukraine: After over 1,000 days of war, morale is being tested"
• Al Jazeera: "Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war with pledge to ‘never submit’ to Russia"
• Sky News: "Nearly three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, Sky News asks experts how the conflict is going from a military standpoint and what the coming days could look like."
• Euronews: "1,000 days of war"
• Reuters: "In pictures: 1,000 days of war in Ukraine"
• Deutsche Welle: "1,000 days of war in Ukraine in graphics"
• France 24: "1000 days of war: Moscow now controls nearly one-fifth of Ukraine's territory"
• ABC News: "Tuesday marks 1,000 days of the war in Ukraine"

For this reason I favour moving this article to either "Russia-Ukraine War" (first choice) or "Russo-Ukrainian War" (second choice), and moving the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian War to a different title such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common, especially in non-Ukrainian sources. [10] [11] [12] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Ukrainian POV should be discounted just because it is Ukrainian, but the governing consideration when deciding a page-title is how it is described by reliable sources *in English*. In English it appears that most sources typically refer to the war that began on 24 February 2024 2022 with Russia's full-scale and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, as a separate war to that which came before. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that FOARP is referring to the date 24 February 2022. If that is the case then I agree with what FOARP is saying. BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thanks for the correction - yes I mean 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I fully agree with your reasoning; the Ukrainian PoV should not be discounted, but all I'm saying is that Ukrainian sources would have been more likely to use the term "war" in 2014 than Western sources may have. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common
We need to analyze the situation as of today, not in 2014–15.

A quick look at Scholar gives "2014 war" "2014 war" Ukraine - Google Scholar about 2 times advantage against "conflict" "2014 conflict" Ukraine - Google Scholar. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert - Unfortunately, due to (completely unwanted) changes in the Google algorithm you can no longer rely on Google to provide accurate counts for the number of results that use a particular phrase. Have a look at the results you're getting in your search - they include hits that do not include the phrase "2014 war" at all (e.g., the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war). Additionally many of these hits are mentioning the 2014 war in Gaza (e.g., this, this, and this). FOARP (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war
There are deficiencies in this quick approach. But we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict", given there are solid sources naming it "war".

Also, your source still refers to it as "2014 Russo-Ukrainian war". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict" - 1) Why not? As we've discussed a Ghits search is no longer reliable enough to show what the common name is, 2) We have a separate article about the 2014 war - War in Donbas, 3) as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war". FOARP (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war".
This is not how you show "overwhelmingly".

• The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
• Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
• Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War - Google Books
• Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
• Hiding in Plain Sight - Google Books
• The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine - ScienceDirect
• Journalism in the Crossfire: Media coverage of the war in Ukraine in 2014: Journalism Studies: Vol 19, No 7
• Project MUSE - Self-Determination and the War in Ukraine
• Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine: The Challenge of Change - Google Books
• Energy Resources and Markets – Perspectives on the Russia–Ukraine War | European Review | Cambridge Core
• Full article: Values, rights, and changing interests: The EU’s response to the war against Ukraine and the responsibility to protect Europeans
  We are not contesting whose list they collected is larger. You actually need to show a preference in some stats. Like, search results which show preference for "war" in Google Scholar results, even if imperfect. And sources need to be of good quality.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing books and articles published in 2015 (Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine), January 2022 (Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War), 2019 (Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine), 2015 (Hiding in Plain Sight), 2016 (The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine), 2016 again (Journalism in the Crossfire), 2017 (Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine), and 2020 (Energy Resources and Markets).

I think we all can agree that none of these sources seriously impacts the present discussion, which is about what the common-name is for this topic which did not exist until February 2022 is in 2025. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
Well, we still need to show a preference in some stats, not just collect a list of preference of ours. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no? Were there other broadsheet newspapers/magazines or high-quality broadcasters I should have included? Maybe Newsweek, the Economist, the LA Times, the Globe and Mail, NBC, CBC? Who else? Because I don't think there's many I missed in this review.

Saying "the sources have to be academic" is not supported by WP:NEWSORG because an ongoing war is not primarily an academic topic, but even with this standard the best that can be said is that academia is equivocal on the topic (honestly I think they're pretty clear on 24 February 2022 as the start of the war actually) so the overwhelming preference of high-quality reliable news media for this being a war that began on 24 February 2022 should be decisive. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no?
It's just the list of your preference, not the preferred wording of a whole set of sources.

And again, we should give preference to academic sources - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources WP:SOURCETYPES. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s just a list of my preference, then which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include? Tell me and the odds are I will find an article where they refer to 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include?
You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources, or in a significant and representable set of all the reliable sources.

Or, to show how the reliable sources say the subject should be called. And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war" - Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Manyareasexpert-20250122112800-FOARP-20250122112500 ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources" - I analysed in all of the high-quality broadsheets and broadcasters that I am aware of - and they *OVERWHELMINGLY* cite 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. Which did I miss?

"And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war"" - all of them predating 2022 or doing so in a way that made it clear they were arguing against a perceived consensus. And even with that, we have an article about the War in Donbas that will remain where it is. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This invasion is a very significant part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian War which started earlier. Hence, a legitimate sub-page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If this war is part of a war that began in 2014, then why were there many article last year about "1,000 days of war"? Why will 24 February 2025 be heralded as the "third anniversary" of the start of the war? I understand that it might be part of an over-arching conflict, but 2022 marked a massive escalation of that conflict in to full-blown war, similar to how China was attacked by Japan in 1931-2, and then again in 1933, but that doesn't meant the 1937 full-scale invasion of China by Japan in 1937 is not recognised as the start of the Sino-Japanese War. FOARP (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm having trouble sending messages(I think my relevant score authority isn't high enough or something), but yes this is the main argument case i use, plus Artsakh and Sudan and Libya. And common sense. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  why were there many article last year about "1,000 days of war"?
  Sources may view events separately, or together, or both. But we can't rename 2014 war as "conflict":

  The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
  Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
  Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War - Google Books
  Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
  Hiding in Plain Sight - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "But we can't rename 2014 war as "conflict"" - Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine". You need only look at the below sources to see that the way we cover this topic no longer conforms to the way reliable sources do. FOARP (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard no. Renaming it as per your suggestion would severely compromise the neutrality of this article by suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are both equally responsible for this war taking place. This war is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, hence the title of this article. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any reasonable reader thinks the name Sino-Japanese War means that China and Japan were both equally responsible, or that the name Iraq War means that Iraq just happened to start a war with itself. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME of conflicts. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the Sino-Japanese War means that China is also responsible? Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, rational readers will analyze which side launched the aggression and for what purpose, and will not think that it is black and white. At present, the attitude of the United States has also changed drastically, and the war in the Gaza Strip at the same time is indeed a neutral name. The name of the Russian-Ukrainian war should also be changed. Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree on that. As I've already explained before, a distinction should be made between direct military engagment between the regular armies of Russia and Ukraine and other types of military campaigns/proxy wars/covert incursions etc. Rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict (ongoing since 2014 even in the event of a coming ceasefire), split Russian invasion of Ukraine into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February-April 2022, ended with Russian strategical failure to take Kyiv and them focusing on a positional war in southeast Ukraine) and Russo-Ukrainian War (24 February 2022-present; since August 2024 Kursk incursion by the Ukrainian Army technically it makes less sense to call it a Russian invasion anymore) CapLiber (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
  We need to find an adequate naming for both then.

  The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
  ... I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. Two sets of agreements, called Minsk I and Minsk II, ended that stage of the war in diplomatic terms a year later, in February 2015. Nevertheless, an undeclared war involving shelling and shooting across the demarca- tion line in Ukraine’s Donbas region continued for the next seven years, killing more than 14,000 Ukrainians but attracting little international attention. That phase ended with Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Minsk agreements and the start of its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is only one source; WP:COMMONNAME or even simply the "correct" name is not determined by one source, even if the author states his opinion very strongly. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like Serhii Plokhy and bought that book when it came out. However, this is Wikipedia, not Plokhypedia. As even Plokhy admits, this is is strictly his own interpretation. This is also a source that was originally published in May 2023 and would have been written in 2022, so we can ask if Plokhy's view is prevailing in 2025 - based on my review of high quality sourcing I don't think so. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You know there are more sources for that. See Google Scholar search above, which, while not perfect, do not favor "conflict" term.

  Russia's Overlooked Invasion - Google Books
  The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As is hinted at even by the title ("overlooked"), Jakob Hauter's book explicitly states that it is against what they believe the consensus to be:

There is of course nothing wrong with arguing against a perceived academic consensus, and Hauter's work (a review of open-source documents available on the internet) is surely a valuable contribution, but it is not evidence of what the consensus is right now.

You see something similar in Fedorchak's book - he openly acknowledges that he is arguing against a consensus when he identifies 2014 as the start of the conflict ("In the perception of the global audience... the common perception..."). FOARP (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not substituting "popular belief" and "common perception" with "academic consensus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely are not taking pieces where it is clear that the author is arguing their opinion against what they perceive as a consensus, as evidence of what the academic consensus is though.

And this is all setting aside the easy-to-demonstrate tendency of media *AND* academia to define 24 February 2022 as the start of the war.

I'm happy to set aside this discussion until the 24th of next months when the media, think-tanks, politicians, and academics will again overwhelmingly herald an anniversary of this war. If they don't that will be evidence that you are correct - but do you really think that is likely? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

an anniversary of this war
This is not an argument to rename the 2014 war as "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone proposing renaming War in Donbas? FOARP (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russo-Ukrainian War started with the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russo-Ukrainian war article covers both the 2014–2022 war in Donbass and the 2022–2025 war in Ukraine, in addition to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2018 Kerch Strait incident.

One interpretation holds that this series of events constitutes ten (soon eleven) years of war. Another interpretation holds that the 2014–2022 events in Donbass and the 2022–2025 events throughout Ukraine constitute two separate wars. I would argue that these two framings are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not necessarily need to embrace one and reject the other, acknowledging that both interpretations have their merits, as well as their passionate adherents.

The main issue at hand in this talk page discussion is that a growing consensus of editors regard Russian invasion of Ukraine to be an unacceptable title for an article covering the events from 2022 to 2025. The debate over the future title of Russo-Ukrainian war is secondary, and can be resolved in a number of ways that do not entirely reject the "ten years of war" interpretation. One potential compromise, though it would be confusing, is:

Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–present)

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

There is also the option of shortening the scope of the former article:

Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–2022)

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome any of these as an improvement. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through all the previous comments, I should also note that I share your preference of "Russia–Ukraine" over "Russo–Ukrainian" per WP:COMMONNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also raise WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here: the conflict that began on 24 February 2022 is inarguably the primary topic for "Russia-Ukraine war"/"Russo-Ukrainian war", not the invasion of Crimea, nor the Donbass war, nor an over-arching conflict beginning on 26-27 February 2014 (or earlier). To see, this, the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Crimea last year was barely noted in IRS news media, but the second anniversary of 24 February 2022 and 1000th day since then were widely marked. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in to this discussion to say that I'd support renaming this article to "Russia–Ukraine war" (I don't think "Russo-Ukrainian" is adequately supported in COMMONNAME; those combining forms of country names have largely faded out of modern English). For the overarching conflict beginning in 2014, I think "Russia–Ukraine conflict" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" works best, I have no preference for "Russia" or "Russo" in that case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to repost a statement I made a month ago on this

☁ TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it got deleted, but TLDR "Look at how we sort Japan's invasions in the 1930s, look at Nagorno Karabakh, look at Sudan, thank you" TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have supported this proposal for years, but it has consistently been shot down by editors who support the status quo. For that reason I recommend that, as this move will affect two highly visible pages, an RFCBEFORE should be followed (like this), to gather sources that support this move. It should be an easy job, since few sources support the current title. Once an RM is opened, I will enthusiastically support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is basically a WP:BEFORERFC anyway, since it is not a properly-formatted RM discussion. I've found it useful because when you dig in to the sources they're very clear: the topic of this article is a war that began on 24 February 2022. at this point, here in 2025, it is neither strictly accurate, nor does it represent the common name of this conflict, to call it simply Russian invasion of Ukraine. EDIT: if, as seems likely, this discussion is archived without action, I will - if everyone is OK with this - open a proper WP:BEFORERFC on this after 24 February 2025, which I expect to be widely reported as "the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said, we should have 3 articles.

  One for the overarching conflict from start to present, including the long frozen conflict period.

  One for the initial 'limited war', far less involved in scope than the 2022-present conflict, but still notably hotter and more intensive than the frozen period(Feb 2014-Feb 2015, the Ukraine equivalent of Japan invading Manchuria)

  One for the full blown, full scale, war, which started 3 years ago. This one. This one should be Russo-Ukrainian War. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You (the OP) are correct, of course. Russo-Ukrainian War was invented purely by accident, by Wikipedians. It used to be a conflict article, with annual RMs to extend the date. Some years before this invasion, it was renamed in participation of like 3 editors. The title and the idea that there has been a standing state of war since 2014 to 2024 was complete fiction. It's incredible that article has survived with that title so long. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's my understanding of the timeline of events (feel free to correct if I'm wrong): Prior to Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, there was a Russo-Ukrainian war article that focused on conflicts such as how Russia took over Crimea, and "civil war" that took place in Luhansk and Donetsk. Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, which led to the formation of this article. After Russia failed to capture Kiev, Ukraine began counter-offensives that pushed Russian forces east of the Dnieper River. After that, Ukrainian began counter-offensives in Fall 2022 such as in Kherson and Kharkiv, taking back parts of those oblasts. After reaching success in this, Ukraine executed the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive to take back the remainder of Russian-occupied areas. However, that ended in "operational failure" (to quote the article), and Russian forces continued pushing to capture the rest of the territory that had been annexed back in September 2022. This continued throughout 2024, when Ukraine launched an invasion of Kursk in August 2024. Since that time, Russia has continued to advance in those four oblasts while also fighting in Kursk, which leads to the present day. Now, in 2025, reliable sources no longer refer to a "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but instead a "Russia Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" or other words to that effect. So then the question becomes, what should be the scope of this article? Should this article's scope continue indefinitely into the future, with perhaps an end of Russia captures all of Ukraine, or if Ukraine recaptures all currently occupied Ukrainian land? For comparison, look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article's scope, where the scope of the article is limited by the date when President Bush declared that major combat operations are over. Is that what we are waiting for? Either Zelenskyy or Putin announce something similar? If not, what are the alternatives? I think one straightforward alternative is to limit this article's scope to the year 2022, covering the February invasion, and Ukraine's immediate counter-attacks defeating Russian forces. However, when Ukraine begins launching counter-offensives, it seems like it would be appropriate to not cover them as part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but perhaps a new article such as Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) that can cover the war beginning from Ukraine's 2022 counter-offensives onward. The current Russo-Ukrainian war article should be renamed to Russo-Ukrainian war (2014-2022), and its scope should be restored to what it was prior to Russia's invasion. For editors opposed to this, my question above (where would you cut this article off?) remains.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I should add that my proposal would solve the current issue with the infobox listing North Korea as a belligerent in the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" when it clearly was not. Russian invasion of Ukraine would list Russia and Belarus on one side, with Ukraine on the other. Then, the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) article can list North Korea as a belligerent.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support the following article construction if it were to change: keep the current umbrella Russo-Ukranian war article, a new "Russo-Ukranian war (2014-2022)" covering the first 8 years of the war, rename this article "Russo-Ukranian war (2022-present)" covering the latter 3+ years of the war, then a new article of "Russian invasion of Ukraine" detailing the actual invasion itself. Pretty clear to me that the following is true: this war has lasted over 10 years now but has two distinct segments; the invasion ended years ago and we are now in a war phase. Shocked that some editors above think the invasion wasn't apart of the already commenced Russo-Ukranian war though? Russia and Ukraine have been at war since Russia's first invasion of Crimea and it escalated with its further invasion of the rest of the country in 2022. Yeoutie (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, would your proposed Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) include the invasion period which you want to create a separate article for? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per my own proposal, there would be a short section in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) that describes how Russia invaded Ukraine, which would also have its own article providing more detail about how exactly the invasion occurred. But, the invasion would be treated as just one part of the Russo-Ukrainian war, similar to how the German invasion of Denmark was just one part of World War 2 (and is described in the World War 2 article here). JasonMacker (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've updated my position on this in the section below. My view is now that Russia-Ukraine war is the correct name that covers 2022-present. JasonMacker (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  STRONG OPPOSE, Current title refers to a full-scale invasion, which tells the reader more than just 'hey, maybe russia is right in this conflict?' Russia started this ************ war. Russo-ukrainian war is a broader term referring to the years 2014-present, and the invasion is a part of it. Are we sure we want to falsify history like that??? Oeleau (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 RFC on this topic can be found here.

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

Options:

• Yes
• No
• Other (please define)

• Yes - For a number of reasons:

1) Whilst Belarus is clearly an important enabler in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, there is no secondary sourcing analysing all of Russia's supporters and singling out Belarus as a special class of country that Iran and other backers of Russia do not belong to. Listing them as such is therefore WP:OR based on editor interpretation of primary sources.

2) The designation of Belarus as a "special supporter" is something that requires detailed explanation that is not suitable for the infobox. Per the 2023 RFC that deprecated the "supported by" section in infoboxes for wars in general, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE only the most simple information should be included in the infobox.

3) No sourcing is provided for Belarus being a supporter of North Korea, yet, with the addition of North Korea to the list of belligerents on Russia's side, the infobox now states that they are a supporter of both Russia and North Korea in this conflict.

4) Consistency with high-quality articles such as World War II, where there is no list of supporters, special or otherwise. This despite, for example, the role of Sweden in allowing Axis troops to cross their territory, and the USSR's pre-Barbarossa support for Nazi Germany, having some parallels with Belarus's role in this war.

For all of the above reasons Belarus should be removed from the Infobox, with no other changes to article content. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it should remain in the infobox. The Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus even as a "co-belligerent" ^[1]. This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The "special supporter" parameter RfC was about another template. The RfC about "special supporter" was closed by a non-admin in July 2023. The RfC about infobox, specifically for this page, was closed in November 2023. The participants of the latter, me including, were well aware of another, "special supporter" RfC. This is the case of consensus specifically for this page. What has changed for Belarus since then? One of important changes was placing the nuclear weapons by Russia at the Belarusian territory. Another was their involvement in the abduction of Ukrainian children. During all this time, Russian forces were located in Belarus. Informally speaking, Belarus is no longer an independent state. One can also consult with our page Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, as we have sources that say they were a belligerent [[13]], [[14]]. We do not need an explanation, just a footnote. We have plenty of sources for them allowing Russia to attack in the body, and this is unlike any other example given, neither Sweden or Russia allowed attacks from its soil. As such it goes well beyond just support, but stops short of being a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How does sourcing describing them as a belligerent support the listing of them as "supported by"? FOARP (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It shows that there is a middle ground. That this is not a black and white issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Identifying a middle ground that is not stated in a reliable source is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These and other sources say that Belarus was a direct participant in the war in a lot of different ways, such as providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, hosting Russian military forces and nuclear weapons, giving up to Russia nearly all military equipment and ammunition they had, uniting in the same state, kidnapping Ukrainian children, and helping to resolve the rebellion by Wagner forces. That is why Belarus should be included to the infobox either as an "ally" to Russia or "supporter". My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, but we're not saying in the infobox that Belarus is a direct participant in the war. We're saying "supported by". FOARP (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did Belarus support Russia during this war per multiple RS? Yes, it certainly did. Hence, this is correct info. Even though I think we need to include Belarus as a "co-belligerent". My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We not only need to show RS cites showing Belarus support for Russia/North Korea, we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that (according to RS analysis) other countries (e.g., Iran) don't give Russia/North Korea. I actually have more sympathy for a belligerent status than I do for "supported by", but ultimately am against it because it gives us nowhere to go if Belarus ever does directly intervene with their army in this war. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that other countries don't give Russia. Yes, of course. And such "very special support" is noticed in numerous RS. It includes: (a) providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, (b) hosting Russian nuclear weapons, (c) kidnapping Ukrainian children as a part of genocide conducted by Russia, etc. None of other countries helps in the same way to Russia or Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do RSs treat that as a "special support"? FOARP (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NoNeutral - We all agree that Belarus let Russia invade from Balarusian territory, right? If that's not support, I don't know what is. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one's denying Belarusian support for the invasion. The question is whether it makes sense to call them out in the infobox like this given we don't mention any other supporting country (e.g., Iran) and generally don't name supporting countries in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great question. What defines "support"? My understanding is that Iran sold Russia weapons used in the conflict. If selling weapons is "support", we'd probably need to list a whole bunch of people. My sense is that letting another nation's troops on to your territory is more meaningful "support" than simply selling weapons. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously Belarus has given important support, but it's very hard to draw the line in a way that makes including Belarus and no-one else make sense. Particularly, reliable sources don't seem to do this. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. Drawing the line at "has provided troops" and/or "has allowed use of territory for launching attack" seems like a reasonable line to me.

  Asking for a source that says "These countries count as supporters and these countries don't" is a bit of an extraordinary request. I can't imagine there are many sources for many conflicts that really lay things out like that.

  The problem is that "Support" is always going to be somewhat subjective. For us, and for sources.

  If we follow your reasoning, we'd basically have to eliminate "support" from all infoboxes of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Eliminating support from all info boxes was basically what was decided back in 2023. An exception was made for this info box, but I don’t think that makes sense. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you link the 2023 decision? NickCT (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading the RfC's more closely; it's not 100% clear to me why the template RfC calling for the removal of "Supported by" from the template doesn't apply here. While I think saying Belarus "supported" the Russian invasion is probably neutral and verifiable, the rationale for stripping "Supported by" from these templates also seems pretty good. I'm changing my position to neutral. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The RfC was about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC was about the manner of usage of 'infobox military conflict', which that template page uses. The RfC also explicitly refers to 'related templates' and applies to them. It does apply here. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with RnD. If you look at the closing rationale for the RfC, all the same reasoning would seem to apply to this template. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC about the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine was more recent, and specifically about this page and this template. Hence, it ether overrides the previous RfC for this page or simply is an RfC about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC at Template: Infobox military conflict (see here) clearly applies to similar infoboxes such as Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, which incidentally also invokes Template: Infobox military conflict. The closers comment was: ... in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted. However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. A strong affirmative consensus is reasonably interpreted as an RfC. Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs. The 2003 RfC referred to in the OP of this herein for retaining Belarus under "supported by" (see [15]) was initiated because "supported by" had now been deprecated and the OP in 2023 specifically linked to that. Per the close of the discussion at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, the 2023 RfC for listing Belarus created an exception to specifically list Belarus (and only Belarus) under "supported by". There is no reasonable doubt as to the scope and relationship between the two RfCs. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per FOARP, it’s a bit ridiculous to have Belarus there and not the US etc. If it is to stay, Ukraine’s support parameter in the infobox should say Various, see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Support for Ukraine Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No, as they were a co-belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. The majority of sources characterize Belarus' actions as "aggression" or "violation of the law of neutrality"[16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. - please have a look at this Times Radio (which I do not endorse in any way, btw) YT video - guest comments about Belarus and Russia : "Why pausing war in Ukraine could signal a Russian invasion of NATO" HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Informative video but does not actually seem to explicitly address the nature of Belarus's involvement in this war or its role as a "belligerent" or "supporter" thereof. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree. He speaks of how Belarus's military is now joined at the hip with the Russian Federation's (in so many words.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  20:58-22:47 – His main takeaways regarding the Belarusian military were that it is small and of poor quality, lacks combat experience, and is needed internally by Lukashenko in case of civil unrest. He thus came to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that they would take part in the war.

  8:13 – He spoke of the existence of some "combined battalions" composed of paratrooper companies from both the Russian and Belarusian militaries but did not elaborate on whether or not they had taken part in combat in Ukraine or otherwise acted as "supporters" or "belligerents" in the war.

  18:54 – He spoke of a Belarusian officer publicly warning Belarusian forces in 2022 not to participate in the war in Ukraine, without suggesting that any Belarusian forces had actually done so.

  What am I missing here?

  SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No There have been extensive discussions regarding the status of Belarus in the infobox and most particularly the 2023 RfC. By virtue of allowing Russia to launch attacks from its territory, Belarus is a party to this armed conflict (arguably a belligerent/co-belligerent) but it is unique in that it is not a combatant in that it has not physically engaged in the conflict. Note that the parameter in the infobox is called combatant but those listed as combatants appear under a heading belligerents. The consensus in the 2023 RfC was to list Belarus under "supported by" because of this unique situation. I believe that it probably remains the best solution. The fact that Belarus's support was for the initial invasion but not subsequent does not alter that Belarus has been involved. That involvement remains a key fact. Also, I give no credence to the argument of ambiguity because Belarus supported Russia but not North Korea that is now listed as a belligerent. Infoboxes are blunt instruments that supplement the lead, where such detail is clarified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No - Belarus allowed Russia to utilize its territory to launch the initial invasion and missile strikes against Ukraine, but hasn't committed its own troops. The infobox is sufficient as a general overview, with more context in the main body of the article. I would also be in favor of adding Iran under Russia and NATO under Ukraine. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No Cinderella157 summed it up well, we have not had some timeline alteration where Belarus uninvolved itself from the invasion since the last time this was brought up. It remains one of the only nations on either side (now with another obvious example being North Korea) directly involving itself in the invasion outside of materiel and economic support. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK but we have North Korea as a belligerent. It appears the majority of posters here supporting Belarus being in the infobox consider Belarus to be a belligerent, not simply a supporter. That being the case, shouldn't we just list them as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Other I support pretty much any change to the status quo. I think it should either be removed or (2022) should be added, or even add Belarus as belligerent. The current version seems to just cause confusion/frustration about why the generic West isn't listed on the other side, as seen in dozens of discussions on this page—could even make an IAR argument to this effect Placeholderer (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to see this because I honestly feel the same. The host of "No, Belarus is a belligerent" !votes seem to breeze straight past the obvious problem with that position (if they are a belligerent then we should list them as such, not just as a "supporter"). However, people don't seem to have any problem with that contradiction and there's not much that can be done if they don't. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Belarus has not played much of a role in the invasion. It has hosted Russian units, however this was early in the war and has since had little to no involvement in operations in the region. It should be removed, especially if NATO and other western powers cannot be added on as supporters of Ukraine. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the above close, shall we start (yet) another RfC that combines the Belarus/"West" question? Or should we get something conclusive here and maybe reopen the above RfC? Placeholderer (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a further discussion. I feel the "no" voters are embracing a clear contradiction ("Belarus should be listed as a supporter because we think it's a belligerent") and a discussion where they have to discuss this in combination with the other countries proposed as "supporters" would make that contradiction untenable. FOARP (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a separate article for the 2022 invasion will help in regards to Belarus. Belarus was involved in the initial invasion, allowed Russia to stage attacks from its territory, so I think their inclusion as a supporter in the invasion article is appropriate.

When looking at the war as a whole, Belarus' involvement was marginal at best. The president of Belarus said on several occasions that Belarus will not be sending soldiers to Ukraine (and they haven't). Belarus also hasn't sent any money or weapons to Russia, since they themselves depend on Russia for defense. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussions but no RFC (unless I missed it in my search in which case please feel free to post a link - I only saw the 2023 RFC), and a number of editors in the above discussions have voiced dissatisfaction with listing Belarus, which indicates consensus may have changed. Additionally, adding North Korea to the infobox has created an ambiguity in listing Belarus as a supporter. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that placing North Korea to the infobox has created any ambiguity. Why? The placing of North Korea is very much obvious and unrelated to Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is right under North Korea in a section labelled "supported by". A natural interpretation is that North Korea is supported by Belarus. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its does not, that is a total misunderstanding of how headings work. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A list that reads:

A

B

Supported by:

C

Naturally implies that C supports both A and B. I don't see the misunderstanding here. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Yes, the Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in their multiple publications ^[5]. We could include it as a "co-belligerent (disputed)". My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per ManU9827[21], Euromaidan Press says co-belligerent too^[6] Placeholderer (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have previously advocated for using Supported by:  Belarus (2022); see discussions of July 2024 and August 2024.

The primary argument to include Belarus as a "supporter" is the fact that a Russian army group travelled through its territory in order to invade Ukraine. It is very important to note that this arrangement only lasted for ~40 days of a nearly 3-year-long war – today is day 1,070, so that represents under 4% of the duration of the war.

Belarus's "support" ended with the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in April 2022, and to leave this unaddressed in the infobox falsely implies that Belarus's "support" has been continuous through 2025.

That being said, I have some concerns about whether or not this is a level of nuance unsuited for the infobox and whether or not this proposal approaches WP:OR per FOARP above, and I may be leaning towards excluding Belarus from the infobox outright. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this change (appending the year) is necessary and helpful if we opt to retain Belarus as a supporter. Personally I'm in favour of this as Belarus permitting the initial assault of Kyiv to be launched from its territory was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Jr8825 • Talk 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Ironically, as some commenters noted, this help by Belarus played against Russian forces. If, instead of attacking Kyiv, they kept these forces in reserve and/or use them at the South and East of Ukraine, they would occupy a lot more and faster. But who could predict what had happen? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Every single "No" votes I've seen so far is essentially stating that Belarus is a belligerent. At present Belarus is listed as a supporter, not a belligerent. Should we have another option for simply adding Belarus as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes to having another option: By my read, the responses of the "No" voters My very best wishes, Slatersteven, YBSOne, Eluchil404 and Cinderella157 all make the argument that Belarus is a belligerent and/or invoke sources that do; there may be a stronger consensus among the No party to list Belarus as a belligerent rather than as a supporter. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The very problem of having so much discussion around including Belarus in the infobox, and the Belarus-inspired discussions of including the "West", is something that was supposed to be mitigated by the deprecation of "supported by" Placeholderer (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Existing photo
• 
  Suggested replacement

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

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

• "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials."

• "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter."

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

I do go with Jr8825 that the need for an (easily) identifiable individual civilian casualty is prolematic. I do see the problem more in lines of privacy protection of/moral decency to the victim and his family than to gratuity though so I would for arguments against this photo more in Foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people. Perhaps a relevant moral dilemma question that might bring the morality of using this photo close to home would be whether you would be happy if a recognizable photo of a family member appears in the School shooting article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even factoring in the need to be honest about the brutality of war the wider range of pictures on the page already covers that pretty well.©Geni (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's needlessly gratuitous. People die in wars, shocker. We don't need to see the blood and gore on the encyclopedia. It's not an issue of "censorship". A common misunderstanding is that WP:NOTCENSORED merely posits that offensive material may be permissible, not that it is always necessary or desirable. JDiala (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I went ahead and changed the image. Feel free to change the description if you think the current one is lacking. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against Wikipedia, meant to be an uncensored encyclopedia of knowledge, shying away from graphic content. This is quite clearly not an instance of using graphic imagery for the sake of it, as it is directly related to and showing the results of the section it accompanies, namely attacks on civilians. Why is it better to show an image of the scene after it has started being ″cleaned up″? That blood in the suggested replacement came from somewhere, so dancing around it by showing a later aftermath photo seems less valuable than actually showing what happened.

Now I am sure your suggestion is in good faith, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean you can't have human decency, but who are we as random Wikipedia editors to decide if the victim's family does not want the image displayed or not? Because that's what I'm guessing this is, assumption. They could just as easily be in support of it so that people can see the consequenses of such attacks. I'm not convinced (especially not by the version TurboSuperA+ took upon themselves to implement, which conveniently cut out the casualty toll that was added in your original edit) this change is for the better, even though your intentions are likely good. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are five editors that think the image

should be changed. This is not the first time you went against editor consensus and I think WP:OWN might apply. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So no actual arguments, just acting as if Wikipedia consensus is a WP:VOTE. I don't think your ″vote″ is as valuable as you seem to think it is, given all you do here is try to push Russian narratives supported by a broken understanding of Wikipedia policy, the same goes for JDiala, who is dropping comments like ″people die in wars, shocker.″, way to show how you're on the right side of morality for wanting to scrubb off the image from the article.

This is long standing content, and evidently I am not the only one who thinks the replacement is not an improvement, so I believe we need to have a stronger ″consensus″ than whatever this is. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"all you do here is try to push Russian narratives"

Do you have evidence of this? And what is a "Russian narrative", exactly? Anything you disagree with?

The gore adds nothing to the article, it is meant to shock and elicit an emotional response rather than impart knowledge or give context to the text.

I would be OK with removing the picture altogether, because I am pretty sure that people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them.

Your behaviour is close to WP:SQS and WP:OWNERSHIP. I would also appreciate it if you stopped insulting me by implying I am "pushing narratives" instead of giving my own opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, try clicking on your contribution history, which is filled with policy violations, for example violating WP:DUE to insert your favorite NATO special forces in Ukraine theories and edit warring, removing referenced content about North Korea, etc. And that's just on this article, you're clearly a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It's ironic that you say I WP:OWN the article, because as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you attack them and WP:BLUDGEON discussions to no end, which people can see by simply scrolling up to the RfC on support. I don't see how it is possible to discuss anything with someone who unironically makes arguments like ″people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them″. I guess we should get to work removing most images on Wikipedia then, since they include things that people know. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves that I am "pushing Russian narratives." You didn't say what a "Russian narrative" is, either. Are you accusing me of being a paid actor or do you recognise that my contributions and opinions are my own? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of anything other than being WP:DISRUPTIVE (violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it) and WP:TENDENTIOUS (giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories, attempting to remove content about North Korea, applying double standards based on content presented) which I believe you have demonstrated with great efficiency. This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"(violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it)"

Not true.

"giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories"

Example?

"attempting to remove content about North Korea"

Not true. I tried to add content to the article, not remove it.

"applying double standards based on content presented"

Again, not true.

"This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time."

Implying it is just as egregious as saying it. All your ad hominems amount to a bunch of personal attacks. You're not engaging with the arguments in this topic, instead you choose to insult me, only because I disagree with you. You have been doing this for a while, writing threats on my Talk page and pinging administrators. I ask you, once again, to stop harassing me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no point in going in endless circles with you, especially not here, I will end this by simply providing the diffs so that your lies are on record.

Adding undue weight

Removing North Korea content

Removes North Korean content because ″no evidence″, ″evidence″ suddenly no longer matters when it comes to NATO special forces in Ukraine.

It is an interesting tactic to keep making blatantly false statements on a website where every single edit you make is recorded. Goodbye. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves that I am "pushing a Russian narrative". Or have you forgotten about that since you throw around accusations hoping something sticks?

Adding a book source is not undue, you just don't like what it says.

You seem to disagree with my edits, but that doesn't make them wrong. I don't think there is a policy that says one must not disagree with TylerDurden. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alternatives include:

• 
  Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution
• 
  Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred
• 
  Bucha mass grave
• 
  Bucha mass grave (2)
• 
  Bucha bodies
• 
  Bucha executions
• 
  Bucha civilian
• 
  Avdiivka market

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

Too sanitised no, I oppose because you yourself admit that the reason you want to change it because you consider it too graphic, and I disagree with the insinuation that it is included without justification. Graphic content should be justified yes, and in this case it is since it accompanies relevant content. We don't shy away from showing the horrors of war on other articles like World War II, Vietnam War etc, why should this one be any different? --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I find it too graphic. I think it's "obscene", i.e. morally offensive and disagreeable (at least to most readers) to use a photo of this man's death to illustrate a broad section when other options exist. I don't believe the use of the photo in this context is encyclopedic. The photo labelled 'Bucha executions' above is a far better fit, for example, and it is also very graphic. Jr8825 • Talk 03:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is the picture not encyclopedic? It's easier to look at ″faceless″ bodies, that arguably makes them less impactful and encyclopedic. I think it would be morally offensive to keep using the image if people who actually knew the victim objected to it being displayed, like I said before this is going on assumption that could just as easily be incorrect as correct. This is Wikipedia editors taking offense on behalf of a person who is dead. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may hold European moral values here, but with such a recognisable picture my point is that we need explicit statement there is no objection from next of kin before showing it, instead of assuming it is ok unless someone complains, which is the position you seem to take. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd comment about what continent your ″moral values″ are attached to, please stick to the topic which is the image and the policies relating to it. I think your suggested approach is very unrealistic for an encyclopedia like this, the image has been on commons since April 2022 without issue. It is valid with or without the outrage of a handful of Wikipedia editors with no relation to the person depicted. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are "European moral values"? As an Englishman, I would love to know. 2603:6080:21F0:7210:C125:1D13:123C:710D (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TylerBurden that the existing picture is better as it provides more insight.Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What insight does it provide? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact additional insight provided by the easily recognisable face of the victim (the recognisability makes the image seriously problematic to me). Given the current timing of the war most next of kin and friends are probably alive (which makes it different from e.g. WWII). Nobody so far has given a reason for the additional insights provided by this recognisability. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IMGCONTENT tells us: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. ... Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate.

The section where the image under discussion appears is War crimes and attacks on civilians. The death of civilians in war is not ipso facto an attack on civilians. the Kramatorsk railway bombing (as it is described in the caption) is not necessarily an attack on civilians or a war crime. Railway infrastructure may be a reasonable military target and the death of civilians unfortunate but proportional. The section where the image appears makes no mention of the Kramatorsk railway bombing that would establish context, that the railway station was not a reasonable military target and/or that the action was not proportional. We as editors, with a knowledge of the subject might know this but the reader does not. This particular image does not satisfy the cited P&G in this case. It should therefore not be used here. This image appears to be more about coatracking the caption, which is not a reason for retaining it. We write the article (prose) in the readable prose. A image caption is not readable prose.

There are lots of images that might serve to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter ... [and] have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. Dead civilians, even lots of bodies in a grave, do not necessarily do this - it is common to use a mass grave in a war zone. A picture of a mass grave does not tell us how or why they came to be there. However, the image of those bound an killed (even if not of the greatest quality) illustrates something that is pretty clearly a crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view most of the objections to the specific photo included is that it shows an easily recognisable face which may be very tough on people who know the victim and is hence (in my view) morally problematic. The additional insight or value of showing a recognisable individual is not justified by anyone so far. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion and understand your rationale. I acknowledge the concern. Even so, if the image use here was consistent with the prevailing P&G, it might nonetheless be appropriate to use the image. However, its use in this case is not consistent with the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having also read the discussion above, I agree that the photo is a candidate for being replaced. My main rationales:

• First, WP:GRATUITOUS closes with the following: "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images." The mere fact that this image is graphic and describes a graphic topic does not alone merit its inclusion.
• Second, as other editors have noted, there is an identifiable face in the image. It is true that WP:BDP only applies to recent deaths, and we are now well outside of the period after which it ceases to apply. Nevertheless, the identifiability of a non-notable person needs to be weighed against the merits of other images that do not have the same concerns.
• Third, the image itself is not notable. Arguably, the Bucha massacre photos included above as examples are more notable; many networks carried those images at the time that the scale of the massacre was revealed. The non-notability of the image is evident, in my view, from the fact that it is not even included in the article about the train station attack itself.
• Finally, also as noted above, the image does not "increase readers' understanding" of the topic of war crimes, nor does it "have a clear and unique illustrative purpose" in its inclusion. A dead civilian after a military attack is tragic, but is not necessarily a war crime absent other factors. The Bucha massacre is widely understood to have been a war crime, and the example images above of civilians executed in basements or placed in mass graves does serve an illustrative and explanatory purpose.

--Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, the images with bodies are a lot more telling and therefore more informative. No replacement, please. Such is death. WP is not censored. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are pictures of people without blood, brains and guts that would also illustrate death. Purpose of gore is to shock, not inform, therefore the image is inappropriate for wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, the purpose of graphic images is to inform readers on graphic realities, this is an article about an invasion in which thousands of civilians have been killed in reckless attacks. Your assumption is one of bad faith. It is just as easy to say that the purpose of replacing the image is to hide such realities, we now have a generic picture of body bags, aka an image of a situation after it has been cleaned up, rather than the direct consequences which would actually inform readers of what such a scene looks like. In other words, moral outrage on behalf of editors with no relation to victims of the invasion and censorship defeats information. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained what extra information or context a picture of a dead body with its brain splattered on the pavement provides over a picture of a dead body? If the images are equally as informative, then the picture without gore should be used per WP:GRATUITOUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GRATUITOUS, "Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Yes, it is exactly the purpose to use these images. Personally, I do not see such images as anything "offensive". Offensive for whom? For the perpetrators of the war crimes. Tragic - yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does a picture with someone's brains blow out increase readers' understanding more than an image of a dead body without the gore? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos. Actually, something like Come and See is even more graphic, and informative. This is not just about people being killed. How exactly they have died is important. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos."

Are you saying readers won't understand people die in war unless there's a gory image for them to see?

"How exactly they have died is important"

An image of a person's head blown out doesn't give any clues or information in regards to how the person ended up like that. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said something obvious. Consider the famous photo of Saigon Execution (the head blown out), for example. Such photos are extremely important for understanding the effects of war and many other things. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of alternatives have been proposed that do show bodies (namely the Bucha images) but do not have the same issues as the image in question. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include graphic images; it is only a protection against excluding images for the sole reason that they are graphic. WP:GRATUITOUS guides editors on whether a graphic or shocking image ought to be included and makes clear that graphic images are not privileged over non-graphic images. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @My very best wishes, @TylerBurden: you are both against replacing the current image because you feel showing the dead body is more informative than the photo before the partial cleanup at Kramatorsk. What is your opinion on the alternative images I linked above showing the Bucha massacre? Specifically, the images labelled "Bucha mass grave" and "Bucha executions". These also show civilians who have been killed, as well as being from the most well documented Russian atrocity, so seem like a suitable fit for the war crimes section. Do you feel either of these (or any of the others I linked, or from the Commons) are an adequate replacement? Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's a 7-3 split with (Jr8825, Arnoutf, JDiala, TurboSuperA+, Geni, Cinderella157 , Delta1989) for replacement and (Myverybestwishes, TylerBurden, Jeppiz) against

Consensus has been reached in this discussion
Contradicting statements.

But I would say Bucha crimes are the most notable for this invasion, so probably some photo representing those would be a better fit. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be the worst attempt at a close I have ever seen, neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements, and you are directly involved in the dispute. If a change is to be made, it should be to something that illustrates the section while staying relevant, such as Bucha which has been suggested by several other editors. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements"

Why are you mentioning me? I made no recent changes to the article. I have asked you repeatedly to stop accusing me of things. Please edit your comment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you made a near identical edit, which JDiala is now claiming has consensus. Neither of you have consensus, even the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians, instead of an image of the scene after it has started being cleaned up with minimal context provided. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that the current photo is not desirable. 7-3 is a consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. Involved editors can conclude non-RfC discussions. I'm happy to select a Bucha image instead, in fact I'd prefer that and will do that now. The main issue is that there seems to be some filibustering and WP:BLUDGEONING happening here, where we have one person (you) taking up disproportionate text space when in reality your position is a clear minority position. It is particularly egregious when said text space contains little in the way of policy arguments, mostly just accusations and insinuations towards other editors which are better suited for ANI/AE. JDiala (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

″Consensus does not require unanimity″, very convenient for you to cut out the part about WP:CONSENSUS that comes after, which is ″nor is it the result of a vote″. ″7-3 is a consensus″, that is a vote, and contrary to what you say, not one based on policy but on moral judgements and ″I don't like blood and guts on Wikipedia″. I guess it is only bludgeoning when someone argues against your viewpoint, otherwise you would be calling out the actual bludgeoning on this article talk page by TurboSuperA+. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a vote, but in practice the vote tallies do matter significantly. At some point, a decision needs to be made, and a handful of bludgeoning editors cannot bring the entire process to a halt. The pro-replacement side also clearly has the far more compelling policy-based arguments read e.g., Turbo, Delta, Cinderella's detailed rationales whereas the non-replacement side is pretty weak on that (just a vague and unconvincing insistence that a more bloody image is somehow more informative). JDiala (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment from experience that it's hard to not look bludgeony when giving a minority opinion.

I'll also comment that in terms of being strictly informative, there is a line to be drawn where not every image has to be a graph or map Placeholderer (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Because you made a near identical edit,"

That was a week ago.

"the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians"

And I agreed[22] that an image with bodies can be used. Your accusations are misplaced. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@JDiala The content appears to be a brief overview of Russian plans for the occupation of Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion, so seems important and relevant to this article. Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't addressing the article size issue. I would suggest reading WP:SS and WP:ARTICLESIZE. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the article size link: Removing appropriate content, especially summary style, and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Content removal § Reasons for acceptable reasons. The BRD threat is funny tho. You wholly missed out on the D. Arkon (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One, there is no threat. The is a bizarre WP:ASPERSION. Second, WP:ONUS. The onus is on the one including content to start the discussion. Third, the quote you copied clearly proposes the alternative solution of "moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting" which I proposed both in this thread and in the edit summary. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit.

1) What makes RUSI a good source for Russian plans?

2) "Captured documents" would need several WP:RS discussing them for WP:V, not just RUSI.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE are also relevant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That content was added previously by another user [23], but I summarized it more briefly. It is important to say about the plans by the Russian side for the war, i.e. what exactly they wanted to achieve. That was reliably published. Perhaps this material could be moved somewhere on this page, but this should be said. The size of an article is not a prohibition to improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not germane precisely who added it. It was added recently enough that WP:ONUS is applicable. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:RECENT also apply? DN (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have deleted someone else's contribution and added a WP:whatever does not shield your edit from being reverted.YBSOne (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the plans for occupation they do seem important for the reader to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action.YBSOne (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action"

This isn't a place to push narratives, WP:SOAPBOX and it certainly isn't a place to push a viewpoint, WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regime that, by source, wants to exterminate political opposition is a neo-totalitarian regime. YBSOne (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those wishing to add content to argue why it belongs in the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article. Your combined effort is to remove any Russian wrong doing, even if it is sourced and confirmed. The less the better. Just like JDiala did here to name just one amongst many: Anna Politkovskaya.

According to OSW Russia is a neo-totalitarian regime. No pluralism, no democracy, only repressions. YBSOne (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article."

These aren't facts though, but allegations by RUSI analysts. We also can't include everything, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

"The OSW's key tasks are funded from the state budget on the basis of an annual decision by the Polish Parliament."^[1]

They're not independent, and therefore exist to promote a certain view. In this case, that of the Polish government. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for invasion are notable and important. One of the reasons was to punish pro-democratic opposition ie eliminate them. YBSOne (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are jumping to conclusions what they promote based only on their funding. OSW does not exist in a neo-totalitarian regime and therefore can be independent. As opposed to state-owned media in neo-totalitarian regimes like Belarus or Russia. YBSOne (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We should say somewhere that the military operation and the occupation were planned by Russia/Putin in advance and what they have planned to do. That was widely published based on orders received by Russian military and FSB/police units and other info. This is not only by RUSI which is a great source on this subject. One can use publications by the Institute for the Study of War, for example. I do not see what is the problem with saying it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reverted your edit because there is no way to verify this supposed "plan" is real. The RUSI report states the following: "However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "The underlying source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public, this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study. Given the requirements for operational security, it is necessarily incomplete".

  Your edit uses WP:WEASEL words like "reportedly" without proper attribution. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TurboSuperA+ RUSI is a well respected, in fact leading, expert source on military affairs. It reflects a Western military establishment view, but bias does not mean unreliability. The fact that it explains that the origin of its information is confidential sources is evidence of its rigour, not its weaknesses... in an authoritarian regime, leaking incriminating evidence of planned abuses is obviously highly dangerous business.

  I think the content added is important to this article as I explained above, even if it would benefit from attribution. You've now edit-warred to revert 3 different editors who think it's important, citing various policies about process (inaccurately in my view) but not engaging with the substance of the content -- it feels a bit like "I just don't like it". Jr8825 • Talk 22:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my comment again. The authors of the report wrote themselves that it is not academic and it consists of opinions. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the source is notable and carries WEIGHT, even if it is an opinion, it might be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article as long as it's properly attributed. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WEIGHT here is actually very low as this has received scant attention from reliable secondary sources. JDiala (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the seeming lack of coverage, but who know whether it will get picked up by media in the US or Europe. Therefore, I think WP:RECENTISM might be a valid concern. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite unlikely that it will get picked up. It's over two years old. JDiala (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I think that's a very good point. Granted, what's going on there is horrific, but as editors WP:RGW always applies. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You are clearly WP:SYNTH that a classified source is the same as non-existent source. It is not. Read your own quote again and focus on underlying sources for this data remains classified and source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public. YBSOne (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should focus on: "this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study."

  Not every opinion related to this war belongs in the article. Especially not one based on questionable evidence that has only been picked up by the Kyiv Post and Sky News, but has received no academic attention. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop manipulating and shortening the text to your desired section and don't SYNTH the meaning that isn't there: However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship. Because they are secret for now they cannot cite and therefore issue this disclaimer. YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you accuse me of shortening and manipulating when it was me who posted both of the quotes? I only "shortened" it in my next comment because you want to focus on a single sentence while ignoring the rest. The authors write the report is not academic, but opinion and testimony. Why that is doesn't really matter.

  Perhaps you should read WP:SYNTH yourself, as you are making a judgment that the report is more than an opinion based on your view, ignoring what the authors of the report say. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The onus is also on you to demonstrate reliability. Prima facie a Western think tank very closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex seems to be a lower quality source compared to say academic scholarship or non-partisan journalism, as there are usually serious conflicts of interest involved. If the material is to be included, it's probably important to attribute it and usual WP:DUE considerations apply. Importantly, it seems that these shocking war plan revelations somehow escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN etc. ... if so many reliable news orgs are ignoring this it's probably a sign that it is not that important, not that interesting or potentially just unreliable. This combined with article size considerations and WP:SS conventions where only critical information is included in the main article (when a correspondingchild article exists) gives a pretty clear case to exclude. Not seeing much in the way of engagement with my policy arguments here. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex can you prove it or just using talk pages as a forum for your anti-west propaganda? Remind us is this another democrat partisan article? YBSOne (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE YBSOne (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "there is no way to verify..."??? It satisfy WP:V as something described in multiple RS. More importantly, no one ever disputed that Russian forces wanted to quickly seize Kyiv (they almost did it) and in fact established filtration camps. They did hunted and arrested former Ukrainian activists at the occupied territories. There is nothing questionable here. I do not understand why this is such a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hope we are done with this disruptive edit warring. If not, the course should be clear to all involved. To clarify a point, this edit was reverted shortly after it was first added. Therefore, WP:VNOT/WP:ONUS do apply. There needs to be a consensus to re-add the material before it is re-added. Given this is contentious, a consensus needs to be clear and I would suggest it not be one unilatterally declared by one of the participants herein. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, let's vote then. YBSOne (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how it works, WP:!VOTE, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in... to address the issue of article size I propose shortening the passage from:

The Russian plan for the war reportedly included seizing Kyiv and defeating Ukraine within ten days. After this, Russian troops would transition to "mopping-up" operations at the newly occupation authorities and their annexation. Filtration camps for Ukrainians were reportedly planned, and people involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity were to be put on trial and executed.. According to captured copies of orders issued to Russian units, all Ukrainians would be divided into four categories: those to be "liquidated", those "in need of suppression and intimidation", those to be encouraged to collaborate with Russia, and those whom Moscow had established as already being willing to collaborate.

to:

Russian war plans reportedly included defeating Ukraine within ten days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity.

with option of a clearer attribution. I think a shorter passage would also help mitigate the concern about weight Placeholderer (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be clearer attribution since it is based on opinion. I don't know why this particular opinion needs to be added though, WP:DUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING especially since it wasn't covered much by WP:RS. Just because it is uploaded to the RUSI website is not enough. If we included every single opinion on the war, its supposed plans or desired outcomes, the article would be endless.

There is no evidence or WP:RS that corroborate the RUSI report, and the supposed plans were not carried out. I don't think the article needs to be laden with someone's "what if" scenarios, the article is about the war and how it happened, not n possibilities of how it could have happened. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the article doesn't need "what if"s, but a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that. As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka[24] and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity Placeholderer (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that"

But they aren't actual (confirmed) plans, but opinions of analysts. I'd agree to the inclusion of the paragraph if the attribution said something like "According to analysts from the British think tank RUSI..." (or something to that effect).

Also, Sky News and Kyiv Post are reporting the claims made in the RUSI document, they aren't reporting on any alleged plans in that document since they haven't seen it (they are like tertiary sources who trust the secondary source implicitly). The authors of the RUSI document aren't reporting anything either, but stating their opinion. The paragraph should avoid wording like "reportedly" when talking about the plans:

For example, "Russian war plans reportedly included" should be written as "are claimed to have included" (or something to that effect).

I would like to say that I am willing to collaborate to find a compromise, but I find it difficult in this case. I won't fight the inclusion with attribution and I certainly won't be 1AM. However I ask that you reconsider if this is actually a good addition to the article in the context of WP:DUE. Ignoring sides and narratives, does this information add anything of real value, does it impart relevant knowledge to readers who wish to learn about the war? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence. It does need attribution, however, as I acknowledged above, because it's not a neutral source (the researchers are linked to the Ukrainian and British military). Again, that doesn't mean it's propaganda or false – Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that follows established/respected sources; in-text attribution so our readers are aware of the source is the solution per WP:BIASED. The reason we reflect Western narratives more is a mixture of following sources with good reputations and common sense – academics and journalists inside Russia do not currently have much freedom. We need to work to avoid bias, but at the same time, we don't need to treat Russian state narratives equally (or at all, if they are only parroted by Russian politicians/media, and not in reliable sources), per WP:FALSEBALANCE and fringe.

I restored the text once because it wasn't clear to me at the time what the substance of objection was (article size isn't a good reason to remove content multiple editors believe is important), but I'm happy to get stuck in and workshop the text. I agree restoring the text isn't productive until we establish consensus. IIRC, I've read about these plans in other sources as well. I'll do some digging as more sources may help strengthen the weight argument for inclusion (although I personally think it's already met). It belongs in a high level summary about Russian approaches to areas it has occupied, so perhaps we can do some broader work here. The article as a whole needs to be gradually rewritten in the long term anyway to follow summary style. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence."

In the RUSI report they state that the report is not an academic work, but made up of opinions.[25] I am not talking about bias, or Western narratives, I am saying that opinions should not be admitted as statement of facts but treated accordingly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "the supposed plans were not carried out". No, they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point. They did try to quickly seize Kyiv, exactly as was planned. They did conduct repressions against the civilian population at the occupied territories, exactly as was planned. No one ever disputed these facts. This is pretty much a non-controversial and widely published info. Is it significant enough to be included? I think yes, and based on the editing so far, most people agree with me except only two. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point."

  WP:OR. Do you have a source that says Russians carried out their plan (or attempted to) as laid out in the RUSI report? Saying there are similarities between what's in the report and what one has read somewhere else is WP:SYNTH. We need a WP:RS that connects the two. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the inserted text in the article does not include any OR, and it does not say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished". They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it does say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished""

Who says that? Which plans have been accomplished?

"They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example."

What you said there is WP:OR, we need a WP:RS to say that Russia attempted to carry out the plan laid out in the RUSI report. You can't say yourself "This thing Russia did is exactly the same as what they wrote in the RUSI report", that is by definition WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a note of order, JDiala claimed that I included this material in the beginning of the thread. This is not true. It was someone else [26]. I only made a shorter compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this discussion has been overcomplicating itself, so I've trimmed the passage to address article length concerns and added attribution. If anyone is unsatisfied with this version, let it be known! Placeholderer (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it. Thanks for your efforts. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only willing to compromise up to including claims along the lines of Russia planning on winning quickly, which is relevant and not disputed. I wouldn't even be opposed to including said claims without attribution since they are, again, not disputed. The more bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" however should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although Russia’s tangible goals in February 2022 were not explicit, analysis by Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi, Jack Watling, Oleksandr V. Danylyuk and Nick Reynolds, based partly on captured Russian papers, shows that much can be established. Russia aimed to swiftly establish full control over most of Ukraine, with the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv together with “the coerced cooperation of regional governors and local authorities” in the occupied areas. and so on. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian plans are confirmed by many academic sources and should be included. Those who would like to "trim" this important and highlighted by many academic sources information should trim "Events" section instead.

Aiming for the advantage of surprise, Russia attacked Ukraine from the north, east and south, with wide- ranging objectives, such as capturing the capital and seizing major cities across these directions to occupy as much of the territory as possible within a short time. Within a few days, these objectives were revealed to be too broad for the Russian military to achieve. The inability to destroy expected military targets of C2 and recruit Ukrainian military leadership in the first few days as was done in the Crimean scenario was one of the many Russian miscalculations. Similarly, political leadership did not leave Ukraine but remained to defend and f ight for it. The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books

Russia’s goal of capturing the city of Kyiv within two to three days was as ambitious as it was fanciful. Russian soldiers were is sued with parade uniforms to hold a victory parade on the Khresh chatyk, Kyiv’s main thoroughfare, resembling that of the Nazi pa rade in conquered Paris in 1940. The plan to quickly capture Kyiv was based on Russian intelligence ignoring three factors and a fourth because of a reliance on biased sources. Fascism and Genocide - Google Books

Rather than embark on a more costly direct assault on the city, Russia’s strategy to achieve a regime change in Kyiv hinged on encircling the capital, fomenting chaos through acts of sabotage, and reinforcing ties with pro-Kremlin politicians who could take power in Ukraine. Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the general fact that Russian planned on winning quickly, which is not disputed, we're specifically talking about the more bombastic RUSI claims. JDiala (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you can call portion of the source "bombastic" and just remove what you disagree with? While you already have established a clear pro-Russian bias in your edits, you should no longer edit such contentious topics, again may I add. YBSOne (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations have been given repeatedly. WP:DUE requires coverage balanced relative to reporting by reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to win the war quickly is reported by many reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to execute and throw into concentration camp Ukrainians for sport following a quick victory is a rather bombastic claim made by only RUSI, a think tank which as discussed above is biased, and which lacks significant breadth in coverage from other sources. The lack of coverage here is deeply concerning. Further as Turbo has pointed out the anonymous and apparently speculative nature of the sourcing here raises more eyebrows. As for me and my alleged bias, well you're the one soapboxing on this thread as has been pointed out to you, so really a pot calling the kettle black here. JDiala (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's less WP:EXTRAORDINARY to have a historical claim that something was about to happen if that thing did in fact happen Placeholderer (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(with the actual happening being covered substantially enough to, in the case of filtration camps, have its own article) Placeholderer (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed this when Placeholderer linked it above. There are additional sources that demonstrate weight there, such as a UN press release demanding an investigation about reports, an i investigation and coverage in the BBC and Guardian, among others. Jr8825 • Talk 00:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is absolutely key here. If I told you that the US developed a camp to detain Arabs it suspected of terrorism during the War on Terror, that would be true. It's Guantanamo Bay. It I told you that the US planned this out prior to 9/11, that would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. JDiala (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false comparison because 9/11 wasn't planned by the US Placeholderer (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that conduct happening during a war is different from preplanning something before the war, which is the issue at hand here. Making that logical leap is very SYNTH-y. JDiala (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to say they're equivalent, I mean to say it's less extraordinary to suggest something was planned if that thing happened Placeholderer (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Having read the discussion, I see no reason not to Placeholderer (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to jump ahead and ask if anyone other than JDiala is opposed to this version[28], having addressed the initial issues of length and attribution Placeholderer (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be [29], to which I guess TurboSuperA+ may object? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said "I'm OK with it"[30] Placeholderer (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK with the proper attribution. I still have WP:DUE concerns, but I don't think it's worth having endless debates about. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry, I had overlooked this. JDiala, are you aware of any other user than yourself (if you are) who might be opposed to this addition? And if you oppose it, would you mind summarizing the reasons in one or two sentences? Trying to get an overview. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of claims amounting to that Russia thought they would win the war quickly, and support the exclusion of RUSI claims regarding so-called "filtration camps" and "hit lists" in the event of said victory, this due to WP:DUE concerns. I have discussed this here and here and in the edit diff you linked.

I will concede that my position is a minority position, at least currently, and I am the only one with this view. Everyone else appears supportive of inclusion of all the claims provided attribution is provided, which is a proposed compromise. At the same time, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, it is not just a vote and the arguments do matter. I do not believe anyone has properly engaged with my concerns on the DUE-ness of this rather obscure material in this already very bloated article. JDiala (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, now it's not a vote. I suggest that unless you can give a very good reason for your snarky WP:ONUS violation here, the content (which was restored broken formatting and all) is removed asap as it is an obvious violation of WP:DUE, an actual Wikipedia policy and not a guideline that doesn't even say what you claim it says. It is especially interesting that you have spent the last few days here immediately following your edit complaining about ONUS violations, article length and saying content should be in child articles. If this ″rules for thee but not for me″ behaviour isn't WP:TENDENTIOUS I don't know what is. I can imagine that in whatever media it is that you consume, coverage of these alleged Ukrainian war crimes are more widespread than the actually recorded Russian crimes, but that is not the case in WP:RS, so this content is clearly undue and should be removed or replaced with content that actually belongs here on the main article. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would mention the voting thing. See, here's the difference. I actually have policy arguments. You do not, either in this thread or the other one. You did not have policy arguments in the other thread, just a nonsensical claim that viewing bloody dead bodies somehow makes the encyclopedia more informative, mixed with a bunch of personal attacks directed towards me and Turbo. It's not the same thing. There is no equivalence between editors who edit responsibly per policy and editors like yourself and YBSone who use talk pages to attack others and promote their political agenda. I mean, just take an honest look at this thread. Half of it is your friend YBSone soapboxing about how evil Russia is. This is not serious editing. There is no equivalence.

On your other claim that my edit of the image is an ONUS violation, that is also false! Because that discussion had run its course. It was ~10 days since it started and the consensus was manifestly clear. You are allowed to add in disputed changes after discussion regarding said changes ends up with a clear consensus. JDiala (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala Since you are either not reading posts properly or do not understand WP:ONUS and WP:DUE, I will make it very simple for you. Explain how this edit is #1 not a violation of WP:ONUS (restoring content after it has been disputed on valid grounds) and #2 WP:DUE (including Ukrainian mistreatment of Russian POW's while excluding the widely more covered Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POW's in a section about war crimes). Since you are apparently such a Wikilawyer now, this should be easy for you. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it's not due to mention a report of plans for well-documented stuff Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "well-documented". It is basically a think tank opinion piece. I'd suggest reading WP:DUE in more detail because it's quite clear you don't understand it. The point is to represent views in proportion to their prevalence in WP:RS. Obscure think tank claims which have not been validated or even reported on by mainstream journalists are quite undue. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect (haha), I'll just copy/paste what I said elsewhere: "As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka[24] and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" Placeholderer (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala, I'd like to focus on discussing the sourcing for 1) filtration camps and 2) arrest lists, as you argue here and above that content summarising these is not adequately supported in reliable sources.

To begin with, RUSI is not obscure. It is linked to the British military establishment, so it may not be impartial, but it is a well established and notable source. You say above that RUSI's report has "escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN". According to Google Scholar, the 2023 report linked and discussed below (which details filtration camps, lists of Ukrainians, arrests and torture) has been cited 42 times since it was published in March 2023. Manyareasexpert quoted a book published by Taylor & Francis in the discussion above that directly referred to the RUSI report, and the AP investigation I mention in the next paragraph also quotes Jack Watling (an author of both the 2022 & 2023 reports) and RUSI. The evidence seems to indicate this report is well cited and influential.

Secondly, you say that "bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" ... should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources". I think we have shown this isn't the case, and that the sourcing extends well beyond the RUSI report: another editor pointed out we have a well sourced article on filtration camps, and I've picked out a number of notable sources from that article in this diff. I also picked out some of the sources the 2023 RUSI report cites below, which includes an AP investigation into arrest lists.

Please could you take a look at the sources I've linked, and let me know what your thoughts are? Do you agree with my analysis, and if not, what is it you disagree with? Jr8825 • Talk 03:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, I appreciate your detailed reply and willingness to respond to the substantive issues. I will address your claims, but before I do so I'd like to briefly highlight precisely what it is that I am opposed to including. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included ... establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity is the edit I most recently reverted.

For context, the Revolution of Dignity involved an estimated 400,000–800,000 protestors. The least charitable (but nevertheless very plausible) interpretation of the quoted sentence would suggest that Russia intended to execute all of these protestors. This would be a genocide. The quoted sentence above therefore would indicate to the reader that Russia literally pre-planned a Nazi-like genocide against the Ukrainian people. This connection would be further entrenched in the reader's mind with the reference to "camps", immediately conjuring images of Hitler's extermination camps.

This is a wildly strong claim. True, even today there are allegations that Russia is attempting a genocide in Ukraine, but such claims remain highly contentious and legalistic and even the most radical such claims do not allege that Russia is or plans to execute close to a million civilians.

The position that I hold is that the inclusion of content even hinting at this requires exceptional evidence. This is supported by our policy e.g., WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I do not believe that the source provided meets this standard of exceptionality. 40-50 citations is not that impressive; these are typical numbers for average academic papers. I can find papers claiming Ivermectin treats COVID with 50 citations, it doesn't mean much for the DUE-ness. The citations in this case are also from no-name journals. Also, a citation is not necessarily an endorsement of everything in the paper per se. I brought up higher-quality sourcess like AP/NYT and the like, because the quality of the source matters. I think it's reasonable to assume that if there was indeed compelling evidence of such a genocidal plan, the highest tier of reliable sources like AP/NYT would report on it.

One compromise I am willing to consider would be as follows. Replace "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" with "executing political opponents." The genocidal connotation here is a bit less strong and bombastic.

That being said, I must say that this comment will be my last here. It's obvious that this issue has caused a great deal of disruption to the article, and I am also in the minority here. I'll let the rest of the community decide on the appropriate outcome at this point. JDiala (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respect your decision to step back from the article if you wish, but I'd add that although this descended into disruptive edit warring, being a minority of one is not always a bad thing if it encourages scrutiny of sources. I disagree with your argument about the content being an extraordinary claim (if you'd like to continue discussing that, I'm happy to explain why), but your objection to "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" led me to examine the RUSI reports more closely to see whether they explicitly say this. The 2022 report does (page 22), but the updated 2023 report doesn't quite; it again mentions the existence of a top category of "those deemed leaders of Ukrainian nationalism who were specified for physical liquidation on a high-priority target list, or for capture to enable show trials" but it doesn't directly mention Euromaidan in that context (as the 2022 report does) -- although it does mention plans to "hunt down" leaders of the Revolution of Dignity on page 18. Either way, the text is clear that not everyone involved in Euromaidan was a target for execution/trial, only those deemed ringleaders. The AP article on arrest lists does not mention the Revolution of Dignity either. So I agree that your suggestion "executing political opponents" would be an improvement over the original text unless more sources are found, or perhaps a clarification about leading figures is added. Jr8825 • Talk 05:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I didn't read through the source before trimming the passage, as I meant to straightforwardly crop what previous editors had said. However, the relevant passage from the 2022 report is "For [people on Russian hit list], the FSB had conducted wargames with detachments of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) to conduct kill-or-capture missions. In many cases, the purpose of capture was to put individuals involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (often referred to as the Maidan Revolution) on trial to be executed". However^2, I do think "trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" as included isn't a faithful paraphrase of that, and so I support rephrasing along the lines of plans including "a hit list of Ukrainians to kill" or some more elegant phrasing. One point is that the report doesn't specify "political opponents" Placeholderer (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the proposed edits make extra-ordinary claims. The RUSI report appears to be based on information provided by the Ukrainian armed forces, while the AP analysis is based on UK/US intelligence. The militaries of UK, US and Ukraine are not exactly WP:INDEPENDENT sources. While I think the information should be included, I also think our wording should reflect the source of this information.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the current state seems to be "clear consensus for the addition of [31] and one-against-multiple-others for [32]". I'm aware this is not a vote. I'll have another look before the protection ends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a follow-up to that RUSI paper where they actually provide confirmation for those plans - Preliminary Lessons from Russia’s Unconventional Operations During the Russo-Ukrainian War, February 2022–February 2023 | Royal United Services Institute ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is pp 20-27. Page 21 talks about plans for occupation based on categorisation of high priority individuals. Pages 22-24 talk about the actual operation of Russia's occupation in the areas it seized, including arrests, torture and filtration camps. The report includes inline citations, largely to confidential interviews with Russian and Ukrainian officials. However, page 21 citations include an AP investigation about lists of Ukrainians to be arrested, page 22 cites various news reports about torture chambers (we have a separate article on this) and page 24 cites news reports about arrests of mayors and a New Yorker investigation on filtration camps. Jr8825 • Talk 00:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the sourcing appears adequately extensive that at least some of the added content, e.g. filtration camps and the existence of arrests lists, may not need attribution once we have reviewed the range of sources. Jr8825 • Talk 00:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far this discussion has invoked WP:ARTICLESIZE, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:SS, WP:ASPERSION, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POVPUSH, WP:WEASEL, WP:BIAS, WP:IDLI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:RGW, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLE, WP:VNOT, WP:!VOTE, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Duplicates from different redirects notwithstanding, I propose we add on WP:SNOW and go with this near-unanimous-support version[32] Placeholderer (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following a constructive point, I no longer think this[32] is the best proposed phrasing Placeholderer (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since my earlier comment, I have more closely considered the points of this discussion. In considering VNOT, material should be added in a way that presents a coherent narrative and not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement. The section is telling us about Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine. It would read as follows (noting some discussion that would amend the exact wording).

"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included defeating Ukraine within 10 days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."

The argument for adding the material is to show that there was a plan to invade and that, in saying he had "no plans", he was lying. It is the existence of the plan and not the details of the plan that are pertinent to showing that he was lying. It might be better written as:

"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. However, according to the Royal United Services Institute, there were Russian war plans for the subjugation of Ukraine. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."

This then focusses on the rationale for citing the source without adding detail that disrupts the narrative (as much). The details of the plan are a footnote to the fact that the plan existed. The detals could be added as a footnote. However, the fact that [t]he invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech ipso facto means there was a plan. Afterall, 100,000 Russian troops didn't just spontaneously assemble at the border and commence to invade. The lie is self-evident by virtue of the action. Making it explicit is redundant. Interjecting this into this section disrupts the continuity of the narrative. If this material were to have a place in this section (by this or another name), it would need to be substantially rewritten such that the material became a coherent part of the narrative.

Some comments here are that we should tell the reader what the Russian plan was. An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. This is not uncommon (see Operation Barbarossa#Axis invasion plans as an example). Unfortunately, while such a section could be written, it does not presently exist. Furthermore there is a concern that an opinion as to what the Russian plan was, does not mean that this was the Russian plan. Evidence after the fact does not mean that what happened was a plan made before the fact - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Filtration camps is mentioned in the section Prisoners of war and such a plan would intrinsically constitute war crimes, for which there is also a section. It is possible that the plan might reasonable be incorporated into these sections of the article.

In short, I do not see that it is appropriate to incorporate the disputed text into Putin's invasion announcement but it might be reasonable to incoperate it into the article elsewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement
What if we would not concentrate on this particular section name, for the reason being that academic works really pay little attention to this particular detail.
The possible solution would be to just rename the section to something like
An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue/s I have identified have nothing to do with what the particular section is called but what is written in that section and where it is proposed to add the text. In a section about the Russian invasion plan, Putin's announcement is not about the plan but the start of its execution. It would not be coherent. It is not just a case of delete one name and insert another. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with the compromise version by Placeholder [33] or something similar. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also second the Placeholderer's proposed phrasing. YBSOne (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would now implement this if Placeholderer hadn't retracted their support 05:40 above. What now? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I propose replacing "and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" with "and capturing or killing Ukrainians on a hit list" to (imo) more faithfully paraphrase source. But I'm not opposed to the other version being used as a placeholder ;) Placeholderer (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much! The compromise version is now live (Special:Diff/1277522736) and I guess My very best wishes and Ybsone can agree and implement that change if it's uncontroversial. I'm out with this, I think it doesn't need moderation or administration at this point anymore. Some may argue it never did, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trying and executing? Or "trialling" and executing, putting to trial and executing? YBSOne (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Trial" is a noun, not a verb. In English, when someone is on trial, they are being tried. ToBeFree wrote it correctly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would propose something like this: "Information originating from intelligence of Ukraine, US and UK, which was later analyzed by RUSI and AP, indicated that Russia planned to..." Or, "RUSI and AP stated that Russia planned to...based on information they received from the intelligence agencies of Ukraine, US and UK." Or some other wording. But its important we say where RUSI and AP got their information from.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A word to the wise: if you have proposals to change the scope of this or other articles, or to rename other articles, please save your suggestions for later. Previous experience has shown that everyone seems to have their own different convoluted plan on how to rearrange titling and scope across multiple articles. Such tangents will only serve to diverge our positions and derail the conversation. We can sort the rest out in future discussions; let us try in this RM to take the first step by staying focused on what I think many of us agree on, which is that invasion is no longer the appropriate term for an article covering 2022–2025. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Russia–Ukraine war for this article and Russia–Ukraine conflict for the broader article covering events since 2014. Two things there: First, "Russo-Ukrainian" is a Wikipedian invention; combining forms have not been standard in English for decades unless used in historical contexts. Second, Russia and Ukraine have not been at war since 2014, and no sources say that they do. The vast majority of reliable sources (as proven at length in the prior discussion) explicitly consider February 24, 2022, to be the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine. It would be the equivalent of Wikipedia having an article titled "World War" covering the events of a "war" spanning 1914 to 1945. Russia and Ukraine were at war when Russia invaded Crimea and 2014 until the Donbas cease-fire in 2015. They have been at war again since 2022 when Russia invaded again. Those two wars are linked in the same conflict but in no way are they a single continuous war, and I ask any editors suggesting otherwise to provide sources other than Wikipedia that back up the assertion that the current war in Ukraine began not three years ago but eleven. DecafPotato (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would rather not raise the question of whether or not the events since 2014 should be called a war or a conflict in this RM. Start a discussion on the other article if you would like it to be moved. I have no strong views on the issue myself but there is definitely a faction of editors who will be salivating to dispute your assertions here. I ask that they resist the temptation. My goal is for us to judge the merits of renaming a single article, not two or three of them at once. If we make things more complicated, the outcome of no consensus becomes much more likely, and the status quo, which we agree is problematic, persists.

  That said, Russia–Ukraine instead of "Russo-Ukrainian" has my endorsement. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast majority of reliable sources (as proven at length in the prior discussion) explicitly consider February 24, 2022, to be the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine
  Actually, the opposite is true. Academic sources say the war has started Feb 2014. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See below for the long, long list of academic sources defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and the time before that as "pre-war". Additionally, this is not primarily an academic topic, so I don't see why academic sourcing should automatically be favoured over, e.g., high-quality broadsheets like the Times/NYT/Guardian or broadcasters like the BBC, who overwhelmingly use the term "Russia-Ukraine war" to refer to something that began in 2022. Similarly, other encyclopaedias also tend to refer to this being a war that began in 2022 (e.g., Britannica). FOARP (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a short list of ten poorly curated and indiscriminately chosen sources specifically intended to push a view. Your very first source's topic area is 'airline stock prices'. It is completely irrelevant for this article. Several others have no subject matter relevance either. Hell, one of your sources makes the utterly ridiculous statement that this war is Russia's 'first invasion attempt' of Ukraine. And its topic area is the financial markets of the Asia-Pacific region. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, these are statistical analyses where (unlike in other fields where this can be obfuscated) it is important to define a start-date for the war. They (together with the overwhelming majority of with high-quality news media, which we have to ignore for some reason?) universally identify 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.

  Pooh-poohing analysis *of the war* on airline stock prices, or on Asia markets and other areas, just shows a lack of understanding of the extent of the impact of this war in the economic, medical, environmental, and agricultural fields.

  But OK, let's repeat this analysis today using the first page of Wikipedia Library search engine results for "Russia-Ukraine war" and see which war they are referring to. My search results are as follows:

First page of 30 results for a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" on Wikipedia Library

"STEM Students' International Mobility in Kazakhstan in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War Conflict", Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education - refers to 2022 as "...when the war started". "The US-India Interactions to Russia-Ukraine War", Journal of East Asia & International Law - refers to events after 2022 as "... since the Ukraine war" "Impact of Russia-Ukraine War on the Financial Sector of India", Drishtikon: A Management Journal - "The war between Russia and Ukraine began on February 24, 2022..." "ASSESSING THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCES OF THE RUSSIA - UKRAINE WAR ON ECONOMIC GROWTH", Buletin Stiintific - "...in 2021, only one year before the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine. "Generation climate crisis, COVID-19, and Russia–Ukraine-War: global crises and mental health in adolescents", European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry - Refers to "...the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War (RUW) as something that happened in this decade (i.e., in the 2020's). "The dependency structure of international commodity and stock markets after the Russia-Ukraine war", PLOS ONE, "... the Russia-Ukraine war, which broke out on 24th February 2022... "The Russia-Ukraine War: A Good Case Study for Students to Learn and Apply the Critical Juncture Framework", Journal of Political Science Education - "As of October 2023, more than 1.5years into the Russia-Ukraine war..." "The Annexation of Crimea and Türkiye's Balancing Role in the Russia-Ukraine War", Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, "Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 to further enhance its dominance in the Black Sea and subsequently declared war on Ukraine in 2022". Obviously "declare war" is used in an informal sense and not literally, but it is clear that the author does not consider 2014 as the start of the war. "Correcting misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine War reduces false beliefs but does not change views about the War", PLoS One - the sentence "The Russia-Ukraine War has been marked by misinformation since the start, when false claims about the rise of Nazis and persecution of Russian minorities in Ukraine were offered as justification for Russia’s invasion" is cited to news stories published in 2022, showing that they consider 2022 to be the "start" of the war. "Characteristics of Household Energy Consumption in the Shadow of the Russia-Ukraine War - A Case Study from Hungary", International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning & Management - only refers to events post-2022 as "the war". "A Revolution in Military Affairs and Modern Armaments in the Russia-Ukraine War of 2022-2023", Future Human Image - clear from the title that they consider the war to have begun in 2022. "Impact of social media-based dance therapy in treating depression symptoms among victims of Russia–Ukraine war", Health Promotion International - "The war between Russia and Ukraine broke out on 24 February 2022...". "The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Laboratory: Observations Informing IAMD", Military Review - only discusses post-2022 events. "Planning for economic integration: addressing trade challenges posed by the Ukraine-Russia conflict in Europe", Theoretical & Applied Economics - equivocal, e.g., states that "Ukraine and Russian-backed soldiers fought after Russia invaded and seized Crimea in March 2014. Peace efforts between 2014 and February 2022 were unsuccessful, and on February 24, 2022, Russian forces attacked Ukraine. The war continues to this day.... "Exposure to trade disruptions in case of the Russia–Ukraine conflict: A product network approach", World Economy - describes the Russia-Ukraine war as "The recent war" and the 2014 conflict as an "antecedent". "Ukraine's President Zelensky Takes the Russia/Ukraine War Viral", Orbis - clearly only referring to post-2022 as "the war". "Comparative analysis of the quality of life of women who left the territory of Ukraine during the ongoing Russia - Ukraine war and women who stayed at their homes", Wiad Lek - uses the term "the full-scale invasion of Russia on the territory of Ukraine" synonymously with "Russia-Ukraine war" "Instrumental goals shape EU citizens' attitudes to the Russia–Ukraine war over time", International Journal of Psychology - only refers to events after 24 February 2022 as "the Russian–Ukraine war" "Correction to: Gendered silences in Western responses to the Russia–Ukraine war", Place Branding & Public Diplomacy - evidently a correction to an existing article and so excluded. "Diasporas during conflict: A mixed‐method analysis of attitudes of the Russian‐speaking community in Finland towards the Russia‐Ukraine war", Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology - Only refers to events post-2022 as "the Russia-Ukraine war", e.g., "With the Russia-Ukraine war altering Finland's geopolitical position, Finland has joined NATO, given significant aid to Ukraine (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023), and received more than 50,000 Ukrainian refugees (The Ministry of Interior, 2023)." "Russia-Ukraine war perspective of natural resources extraction: A conflict with impact on sustainable development", Resources Policy - "The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war since February 2022..." "Trend and disparities in authorship of healthcare-related publications on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war", International Journal for Equity in Health - Clearly considers that the war began in 2022, for example saying in 2023 that "It has been over a year since the Russia-Ukraine war began..." and that "...from the start of the war in February 2022..." "African Cultures And Values In The Mediation Process Of The Russia-Ukraine War", Journal of African Union Studies - refers to the war as "Since 2022...". "EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN CONFLICT: THE IMPACT OF STARLINK IN THE RUSSIA - UKRAINE WAR", Revista Academiei Fortelor Terestre, "The invasion of the Russian Federation that began on February 24, referred to by Russian propaganda as a “special military operation”, has not achieved its objective of replacing the pro-Western government led by President Zelensky with a Kremlin-obedient government, and the “short” military intervention has transformed into a war of attrition that has now exceeded 2 years in duration.. Clearly considers the war to have begun in 2022. "Regional and periodic asymmetries in the effect of Russia-Ukraine war on global stock markets", Heliyon - statistical analysis of the impact of the war with 24 February 2022 as "the event day" "A Comparison of Ukrainian Hospital Services and Functions Before and During the Russia-Ukraine War", JAMA Health Forum - clearly states that 23 February 2022 is the dividing line between "before" and "during". "EVADING THE PAST: America’s War in Ukraine", The Nation - Refers to the events after 24 February 2022 as "the new war" and talks about "The Russia-Ukraine War of 2022". Arguably this isn't an academic source though, but again it's remarkable that the author does not consider there to have been a continuous war since 2014. "Chinese lithium rally slows while global uptrend persists amid Russia-Ukraine war", Fastmarkets MB Daily - not an academic source but does appear to be referring to the Russia-Ukraine war as something that started recently in 2022. "For whom the bell tolls. A spatial analysis of the renewable energy transition determinants in Europe in light of the Russia-Ukraine war", Journal of Environmental Management - describes the increase in gas prices in late 2021-early 2022 as "The energy crisis [that] started right before the war...". "Exchange rate instabilities during the Russia-Ukraine war: Evidence from V4 countries", Heliyon - Analysis centres on the period 1 February 2022 to 1 February 2023 and before this is treated as pre-war. Early 2022 is described as "during the first three months of the war in Ukraine".

That is 30 results, all published after the beginning of the war, in reliable sources, selected randomly and not cherry-picked, 27 of which are articles in academic journals (two are opinion-pieces/news, one is a correction), and not a single one of these journal articles is referring to the Russia-Ukraine war as something that begun in 2014. Instead, overwhelmingly they treat 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.

It is very hard to understand why we are supposed to ignore both the reports in high-quality news-media *AND* the output of academics writing in reputable journals on this.FOARP (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for Russia-Ukraine war and "2014" has hundreds of thousands of results with numerous sources saying that the war started in 2014. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I think you need to learn more about how Google works. The first thing to understand is that the number of hits it reports is rarely very accurate (the reality is it only return 24 pages of results, so roughly 247 hits). The second is that the hits will include sources that aren't reliable (e.g., there's a lot of Youtube videos in there). The third is that the result will include results that merely mention the search terms. In the case of the search you've just made, the first five hits are two Wikipedia articles, a House of Commons article saying the war began in 2022, a Britannica article saying the war started in 2022, and a CFR article that is at best equivocal on when the war starter. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have lots of academic sources in the first line of Russo-Ukrainian War#History, many of which were originally added by myself. The link to the Google search was simply to show there are many more sources of various kinds. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but many of those sources don't actually say what you're using them to say and/or aren't reliable, independent sources. Taking those sources in turn:

Collapse sources discussion

An ECHR case - not a reliable, independent source, and anyway published in 2021. Serhii Plokhy - We've discussed this elsewhere, Plokhy is clearly arguing his own POV against what he acknowledges as an existing viewpoint (i.e., that the war began on 24 February 2022 but he argues instead that it began on 27 February 2014). Bacon - "The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine", but this doesn't contradict that the war that began in 2022 was a separate war to the Donbas war that began in 2014. Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse - They appear to be referring to the Donbas war, not the present war. Heisbourg, François - appears to be referring to the Donbas war, not the present war. John Hopkins - published 2020, not relevant to this discussion. Literally the Ukrainian government website, published in 2021. D'anieri - "therefore, almost no one predicted the limited war of 2014, or (until it was imminent) the much larger war of 2022. War was certainly not seen as inevitable. Does Russia's massive invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 represent a continuation of the war that began in 2014 or does it represent an overturning of that strategy? .... They're literally calling the present war a separate war and questioning whether it is a continuation of the 2014 war. How does this substantiate the point you are trying to make with it?

Can you see what the issue is with these? FOARP (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't reading sources which say the war has started in 2014, and claim otherwise :)

War in Ukraine - Google Books First, what we often call “the Ukraine War” didn’t start in February 2022, even if that is when its most intense, calamitous, and globally resonant phase began. Just as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was the prologue to its all- out invasion of China in 1937, the war between Ukraine and Rus sia began in 2014 with Vladimir Putin’s taking of Crimea and his intervention— first through proxies and then with regular forces—in the Donbas. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you see how the author there is arguing against what they tacitly acknowledge is a consensus? The consensus is that the Sino-Japanese war started in 1937 (incidentally, that’s also what our article on the topic says). A “prologue” is not necessarily the start of something, it is the thing that comes before the start. FOARP (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't reading the source and claim otherwise :)

just stick to what it says. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a policy requirement to cite sources directly relevant to the article topic. The example sources aren't analysing the war, they are analysing their respective fields during the period of the war. These are distinct topics. Consequently, citing sources that have no subject matter relevance to build this case is a problem. Many of the cited sources aren't about the conflict, but use it as a backdrop for their relevant subject matter. They aren't RS here; they are RS elsewhere. If it isn't a source that could be used to write this article, it certainly isn't a source that could be used to determine its scope (this discussion is only ostensibly about the title). Moreover, I won't consider a source that has basic factual errors about a subject it discusses in passing.

The above "statistical analysis" – employing terminology without grasping it (ctrl+f-ing through the first page of Google or Wikipedia Library is not a statistical analysis and a data set of 10 or 30 for a subject with thousands of available just academic sources is unacceptably tiny to call it one) – has the same problem as the last one. It's a grab bag of sources, many of which are not germane. The approach is fundamentally flawed and unserious. You're arguing elsewhere against SME sources that don't align with your stance, whilst defending sources containing basic errors about this subject that do.

You are asking to have treated Antonio Miguel Martins, an assistant professor of Economics at Madeira University with a PhD in management with the same weight as Gwendolyn Sasse, a political scientist, Director of Eastern Europe and International studies, and professor for the Comparative Study of Democracy and Authoritarianism focussing specifically on the history of the Soviet Union at Humboldt University in Berlin. One is an SME for this subject area and one has no relevant background. That is the stark qualitative difference in sourcing presented in an indiscriminate list and carefully selected SME sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, from my perspective what's happened is this:

1. I produce high-quality WP:RSNP news-media sources overwhelmingly reporting 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war.
2. Response: "news media doesn't count, only academic sources count".
3. I produce academic sources in reputable journals, all of which are clearly - as is shown by the article-titles - writing about various aspects of the present war, that overwhelmingly report 24 February 2022 as the start of the present war. I then also review the first ten hits in the journal Survival which is clearly germane to the field of international politics and warfare even if you think that academics in other fields writing about the impact of the war in their field isn't relevant.
4. Response: "those are the wrong academics, only academics saying the exact thing I want to say count".

Can you see why this seems like possibly not an entirely fair process? FOARP (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

# Response: "those are the wrong academics, only academics saying the exact thing I want to say count".
No, the response is - It is a policy requirement to cite sources directly relevant to the article topic. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and I went through the first ten hits of a journal (Survival) that is presumably germane - because it’s the one you selected - and they all reflect the viewpoint that this war started in 2022. FOARP (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore the argument - it stays. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Russia-Ukraine war per previous discussion. Essentially this is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC together with WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE.

In terms of WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of reliable, independent sources describe the present conflict as a war that began on 24 February 2022. To see that this is true you need only look at all of the articles being published today discussing "three years of war" in high-quality news media. This includes the BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Newsweek, Al Jazeera, CNN, Sky News (etc. etc.). Indeed, if you go down the sources listed as highly reliable at WP:RSNP, if they cover Ukraine, they will have an article out today talking about this war having last three years. This isn't a recent change either, last year there were many, many articles in high-quality sources about the "1000th day of the war" and similar:

Long list of high-quality media sources referring to 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war"

Associated Press: "1,000 days of war" BBC: "'Push Russia harder' Zelensky urges allies on war's 1,000th day" Le Monde: "War in Ukraine: After over 1,000 days of war, morale is being tested" Al Jazeera: "Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war with pledge to ‘never submit’ to Russia" Sky News: "Nearly three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, Sky News asks experts how the conflict is going from a military standpoint and what the coming days could look like." Euronews: "1,000 days of war" Reuters: "In pictures: 1,000 days of war in Ukraine" Bloomberg: "Russia grinds deeper into Ukraine after nearly 1,000 days of war" WaPo: "Zelensky addresses E.U. as Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war" Guardian: "Zelenskyy says North Korea may send 100k troops to Ukraine, as war reaches 1,000 days" ABC News: "Tuesday marks 1,000 days of the war in Ukraine"

That this is the primary topic for Russia-Ukraine war can be seen by comparing the number of articles covering 24 February as the anniversary of the war with those covering 27 February (the anniversary of the start of the 2014-15 war). 24 February massively predominates regardless of the source consulted.

It is completely artificial to insist that only academic sources should be considered when considering what the common-name is here, since this is not primarily an academic topic yet but instead a military/diplomatic one, however academia also largely considers this a war that began in 2022. This can be seen in academic articles published since 2022 which define 24 February 2022 as the "start of the war" and the period before that as "pre-war" including the following:

Long list of academic sources defining the start of the war as 24 February 2022

Mayday! Mayday! The airlines stock returns are failing. Analysis of the impact of Russia–Ukraine war - "This paper investigates the short-term market impact of the beginning of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (February 24, 2022) on a set of airline stocks listed." A Comparison of Ukrainian Hospital Services and Functions Before and During the Russia-Ukraine War - "before" here is defined as pre-2022 - "Data were abstracted from hospital databases for the prewar period (before February 23, 2022) and during the war (February 23, 2022, to May 30, 2023)." The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework - "Ever since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war on February 24, 2022..." The Russia-Ukraine war: Implications for global and regional food security and potential policy responses - only refers to events post 24 February 2022, not to events before that (e.g., "Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022 and up until January 2023..."). Economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine war - refers to 24 February 2022 as the start of the conflict which is the topic of the article, repeatedly refers to the post-2022 conflict as "the war" and pre-2022 as "pre-war". Repercussions of the Russia–Ukraine war - analyses "war shocks" around the period of the 2022 start of the war, refers to before 2022 as "pre-war" (e.g., "...local governments remained able to borrow at the pre-war cost of funding". Telecoupled impacts of the Russia–Ukraine war on global cropland expansion and biodiversity - analyses statistical impacts of the war starting with 2022, refers to 2022 as the start of the war (e.g., "Since the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Russia–Ukraine war has relentlessly disrupted agricultural production in Ukraine") and to pre-2022 as "pre-war". Reactions of Global Stock Markets to the Russia–Ukraine War: An Empirical Evidence - again, the start of this statistical analysis is 2022, and it refers to 2022 as the start of the war (e.g., "This study measures the immediate impact of Russia–Ukraine war on the global stock markets for the first four months since Russia’s first invasion attempt on February 24, 2022") and it refers to pre-2022 as "pre-war" The impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on volatility spillovers - starts with 2022, repeatedly refers to 2022 as "...the onset of the war" and to pre-2022 as "pre-war" The failures of Russian Aerospace Forces in the Russia–Ukraine war and the future of air power - "In the prelude to the 2022 Russia–Ukraine War...".

In terms of accuracy this clearly is a war, and not just an invasion of Ukraine, since the conflict has long since spread outside the borders of Ukraine in to the Black Sea and within Russia. In terms of conciseness, "Russia-Ukraine War" is shorter than the present title. "Russia-Ukraine" should be favoured over "Russo-Ukrainian" as reliable sources tend to use the former (see above for many examples of this, and also Ngrams though this only extends to 2022).

In terms of what to do with the existing Russo-Ukrainian war article, I favour the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russo-Ukrainian conflict or the Russo-Ukrainian war (2014-2022) solutions (in declining order). If there is not a consensus for Russia-Ukraine war (either with or without disambiguation by year) then I support Russo-Ukrainian war (either with or without disambiguation) as an improvement over the existing title. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the list of academic sources that define the start of the war as Feb 2014, please refer to Russo-Ukrainian War#History. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than simply making a generic hand-wave in the direction of data that mostly pre-dates 2022. This is particularly the case when that page presently has a link to a Britannica page entitled "Russia-Ukraine War [2022–present]". FOARP (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a generic hand-wave in the direction of data that mostly pre-dates 2022
Russo-Ukrainian War#History

List of sources

Sasse, Gwendolyn (2023). Russia's War Against Ukraine. Wiley & Sons. p. 2004. Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea on 27 February 2014. On that day, Russian special forces without any uniform insignia appeared in Crimea, quickly taking control of strategic, military and political institutions. Käihkö, Ilmari (2023). Slava Ukraini!: Strategy and the Spirit of Ukrainian Resistance 2014–2023. Helsinki University Press. p. 72. If asked when the war began, many Ukrainians believe it was when the unmarked Russian 'little green men' occupied Crimea on February 27, 2014, or February 20, the date given on the official Russian campaign medal 'For the Return of Crimea'. Bacon, Edwin (2024). Contemporary Russia. Springer Nature. p. 12. - The seizure of Crimea sparked the war with Ukraine; fought by separatists with Russian military support in the east of Ukraine from 2014, until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched by the Russian armed forces in 2022. Plokhy, Serhii (9 May 2023). The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xxi. - I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Many Ukrainians" - so, not necessarily the view of the source, or from a reliable source, or representative of the common name in English. Additionally no-one is saying that the 2014-15 conflict wasn't a war, only that when people say "Russia-Ukraine War", the conflict that began in 2022 is the one being referred to.

"I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning..." - This is hardly a round rejection of it being so. It practically acknowledges that this is/can be identified as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally no-one is saying that the 2014-15 conflict wasn't a war, only that when people say "Russia-Ukraine War", the conflict that began in 2022 is the one being referred to.
There are sources which say the war started in 2022, and there are sources which say it started in 2014. And there is no contradiction in this. Note that sources which discuss the broader event horizon, including 2014 events, do acknowledge the war started in 2014. The thing is, sources do consider events which started in 2022 as the "war" - a full-scale war. This 2022 war is part of the broader event which started in 2014, and which sources also characterize as "war". That's what we should represent in our articles. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is an editor-constructed analysis, not something the sources have said. This is the entire problem with the way this issue has been approached - the reality is they haven't necessarily thought things through in the way you describe. Instead, they report on what is happening and what has happened, and that is undeniably that today is being marked as the third anniversary of this war, whilst 27 February will go by largely unremarked, and not as the "11th anniversary of the war".

But let's see what we should do if you are right: then we should follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and see which is the most prominent "war" - and we will find that it is undeniable that the war that began on 24 February 2022 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, they report on what is happening and what has happened, and that is undeniably that today is being marked as the third anniversary of this war
Those are media sources discussing the 2022 full-scale invasion, which brought much more press and academic attention than 2014 events.

Nevertheless, discussing the naming of Russo-Ukrainian War, we should pay attention to the sources that discuss wide perspective of events that started in 2014 and call those "war".

Sorry, this is an editor-constructed analysis, not something the sources have said.
What do you mean? Ukraine and Russia - Google Books ... Therefore, almost no one predicted the limited war of 2014, or (until it was imminent) the much larger war of 2022. War was certainly not seen as inevitable. Does Russia's massive invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 represent a continuation of the war that began in 2014 or does it represent an overturning of that strategy? ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use a source questioning whether something is true as confirmation that it is true, particularly when the source clearly describes two wars, one of which is much larger and thus more prominent ("the limited war of 2014, or ... the much larger war of 2022"). The present war is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Russia-Ukraine war and thus should predominate over other topics. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use a source questioning whether something is true as confirmation that it is true)
The source is referring to the war of 2014 as the limited war of 2014, and the war of 2022 as the much larger war of 2022 no questions.
particularly when the source clearly describes two wars, one of which is much larger and thus more prominent ("the limited war of 2014, or ... the much larger war of 2022")

The present war is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Even if true, it's not a justification to call Russo-Ukrainian War a "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert: We (and reliable sources) call the Israeli–Palestinian conflict a conflict even though it consists of significant armed violence, and, indeed, multiple full-on wars within it. Renaming the article currently titled "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Russia–Ukraine conflict" isn't somehow denying that the War in Donbas and "Russia–Ukraine war"/"Russian invasion of Ukraine" are wars in and of themselves. Sources calling the War in Donbas a "war" don't support your position at all, and indeed only further the point that the 2014–present thing is a "conflict", because long-running interstate conflicts almost always contain multiple wars (whether it be the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, say, First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War ...... or the Gaza–Israel conflict, Gaza War (2008–2009), and 2014 Gaza War .... and I can go on). DecafPotato (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources calling the War in Donbas a "war"
We aren't talking about this. The subject of discussion is the war which started in Feb 2014 with Crimea invasion. See Russo-Ukrainian War#History for sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Russia-Ukraine war and move Russo-Ukrainian War to Russia-Ukraine conflict. Per SaintPaulOfTarsus, clear common name. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Paul's reasoning and extensive evidence from sources of a differing WP:COMMONNAME. This move has been needed for a long time. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Flemmish Nietzsche, just to be clear are you supporting Russia-Ukraine war or a different title (e.g., Russo-Ukrainian war as in the OP)? Do you have a view about what to do with the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian war? FOARP (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the Russia-Ukraine/Russo-Ukrainian issue; in my view Russo-Ukrainian War should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian conflict to eliminate any confusion as to "wars inside of wars" and adhere to sources saying that the war as a whole began in 2022. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Russia-Ukraine war" (with or without "2022-present") as that is more in line with the naming used by reliable sources. Compare a Google search of "Russo-Ukrainian war" with "Russia-Ukraine war" and you'll see that Russo-Ukrainian war is a name primarily used by Wikipedia itself (and the corresponding article is the first result). Meanwhile, a search for "Russia-Ukraine war" results in the "Top Stories" section being generated by Google, and the first actual result is an ABC News article that came out 2 hours ago (with the result after that being Wikipedia's Russo-Ukrainian War article). In addition to ABC News, we also have sources such as the New York Times, AP, The Telegraph, NBC News, Newsweek, and Al Jazeera. International organizations such as Human Rights Watch also refer to a Russia-Ukraine war. Reuters uses the name "Ukraine Russia war" in their URL, and their subheading states "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine started the deadliest war on European soil..." which implies that their view is that the invasion and the war are separate. While the BBC refers to the "Ukraine War" in the section on their website, the short description for the website's Google search result is "Follow the latest news about the Russia Ukraine war." Something similar is the case for The Guardian and The Economist. Separately, I agree with OP that we should not broaden the scope of this discussion too much. Let's focus on this article's name for now. We can worry about how to change other things in a separate discussion. Let's change this article's name to Russia-Ukraine war for now, and then other issues regarding scope or other articles can be addressed afterward. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We have already main page on this subject, Russo-Ukrainian War (yes, it better to be renamed to "Russia-Ukraine war"). However, it was a very different low-intensity war (or a military conflict) before 2022. The actual large-scale war started only in 2022. Making this just a period of the same war seems a little misleading. In addition, the suggested title places Russia and Ukraine on "an equal footing", just as two sides in a conflict as the new title implies. This is not true. This is actually a Russian invasion, as the current title says. It was an invasion in 2022, and it is still an invasion right now, although both "war" and "invasion" wordings were widely used in sources (sure, this is a war and an invasion at the same time). I think the clarity in the title is especially important given the recent attempts by the Trump administration to label Ukraine as the perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @My very best wishes: You seem to be opposing the original proposal. What's your opinion on the alternative (this to Russia-Ukraine War and Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict)? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to distinguish between invasion, war, and occupation. There is no invasion that is currently happening. Instead, Russia is occupying large parts of Ukraine, while Ukraine is occupying a small part of Russia (in Kursk). Separate from this, there is a state of war with a clearly defined front. As I pointed out in my comment in a different section of the talk page, consider the German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940) article. The article states that the German invasion of Denmark lasted "six hours" and was subsequently followed by a German occupation. This idea that an invasion is an ongoing event spanning over three years where both sides of a conflict are fighting over a front that moves slowly is silly. That's not an invasion. That's a war. Of course, an invasion happened, but the subsequent events are not an invasion anymore and this article's title should reflect that. JasonMacker (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JasonMacker - correct. The OED defines "invasion" as "The action of invading a country or territory as an enemy; an entrance or incursion with armed force; a hostile inroad". Similarly Merriam-Webster defines invasion as "an act of invading, especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder". An army is no longer clearly "invading" when it ceases to advance and is in long term occupation and/or is retreating. Referring to events happening now in 2025 in Ukraine as "invasion of Ukraine" just isn't correct English. None of this is to take away from the moral responsibility that Russia and its leadership has for this war of aggression: it is simply to correct the language used.

  @My very best wishes - I don't get how you write "We have already main page on this subject, Russo-Ukrainian War (yes, it better to be renamed to "Russia-Ukraine war"). However, it was a very different low-intensity war (or a military conflict) before 2022. The actual large-scale war started only in 2022. Making this just a period of the same war seems a little misleading." and then oppose the proposed move which corrects this problem. At present the article has the POV that the post-2022 conflict is just a phase in a war that has been going on since 2014, and the proposed move is designed to fix this. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JasonMacker. Yes, German forces quickly took over the entire of Denmark, following by the occupation. But this war is different: Russian forces failed to occupy the entire Ukraine, and they are still trying to invade as much as possible of the Ukrainian territory. And no, the war is not "static": Russian forces made significant territorial advances during last year. Therefore, the invasion is still ongoing. If not, when exactly did it stop? Other pages, such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, says: The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion began on 20 March 2003 and lasted just over one month.... Yes, but this is because USA forces have occupied the Iraq. What would be the time frame here? One month as for the Iraq? A year? There is no specific time frame because the invasion is still progressing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The operative example here is Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets did not take the entirety of Afghanistan, nor did the Russians take the entirety of Ukraine. The article redirects to the initial section following the 1979 coup d'état and going until the invasion stalled during the winter of 1979–80. The analogous stage of the war in Ukraine is, from a popular standpoint, from 24 February until 7 April, when the Russians withdrew from the Kyiv offensive, and from a military standpoint, until 13 May, when the Russians failed to cross the Donets and capture Sloviansk. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. But the Soviet forces and their Afghan allies did control most of the Afghanistan. Not so with Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s the Iran-Iraq war and World War I examples as well: both began with an invasion (Germany invading Belgium and France, Iraq invading Iran) but the invasion was just the initial phase of the war. FOARP (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what your measure of "significant" is, but let's directly compare the map of today (this) with a map from a year ago (this). The main differences between the two maps are the Russian advance northwest of Donetsk, and Ukraine's advance on Kursk... these two almost cancel each other out in terms of territory gained, so the net shift is only slightly in favor of Russia. But otherwise, the maps are mostly the same. In contrast, during the actual Russian invasion, around February and March in 2022, the map in late February was wildly different from the map in late March, because the rapidly advancing (and retreating) Russian forces weren't staying on established front lines like they do today. In other words, the territorial gains of Russia between February 28 and March 30 in 2022 were larger than the territorial gains of Russia from February 2024 to February 2025 (1 year). That's why, at this point, I don't see how Russia's territorial gains in the past year can be seen as "significant". Russia's strategy by 2023 was to build trenches to defend their lines (in 2023!)... that's not what invading forces do. At some point, an invasion that does not successfully capture everything transitions to a "standard" war with established front lines. Again, if you look at the history of the battleground maps, you'll find what is basically today's lines in August 2023. The time frame should be when Russia began to build trenches and no longer was focused on invading new territory, because that's when the invasion ended. JasonMacker (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. Building trenches hardly means anything. No, these are actually very significant offensive/invasion operations and gains by the both Russian and Ukrainian forces. They do not "cancel" each other. Right now and during the coming months, there are significant opportunities for Russian forces to occupy a lot more, either through an aggreement (essentially a capitulation of the Ukrainians) pushed by Donald Trump, or just offensive operations during this summer, given that the Ukrainian forces are starved withoutammunition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are exceptional circumstances where COMMONNAME can be disregarded. These are often when issues of ambiguity or naturalness arise. I think that applies here. It strikes me as odd to have one article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)" and another titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present)", as it begs the question what exactly happened in 2022 that would necessitate such a split. The answer to that is quite clear: an invasion. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 which is precisely the reason for the current escalation. This should be made clear in the article title. JDiala (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala: You seem to be opposing the original proposal. What's your opinion on the alternative (this to Russia-Ukraine War and Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict)? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse non-EC editor vote

That's meant to be a temporary thing so that that page can have a move discussion after. Long term I think that page should be Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(I'm on team Russo-Ukrainian) and the War in Donbas should specifically cover the low intensity war in 2014-2015 seperately from the frozen conflict period. I cite Nagorno Karabakh and Manchuria as good historically examples TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:RUSUKR non-EC strikethrough - ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the scope of this article for a while has been the 2022–present phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. I must caveat this: 2022 was an escalation and continuation of the war since 2014, so this article potentially changing names should not implicate the name of the broader umbrella article. Thus, I do not support renaming Russo-Ukrainian war as the proposal suggests. Furthermore, while this should come down the line as the proposal suggests, I would split out of this article an 'invasion' specific new article covering the invasion of 2022. Yeoutie (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for Russo-Ukrainian War and move the parent article to Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Moreover, I think we should create an entire new article under the name Russian invasion of Ukraine that covers the first phase of the war from 24 February to 8 April 2022 (when the last Russian forces withdrew from northern Ukraine). Apart from the terrific source compilation above, I would like to argue the urgent necessity of this change on the ground of consistency with other historical events. Firstly, I have searched for all the Wikipedia articles that contain "invasion" on their title, and only this and the French invasion of Egypt and Syria have lasted for more than a year. Invasion appears to be reserved for short periods of quick advance of an army on a foreign country and not for a stalled trench war. The current title would be the equivalent of calling the Western Front (World War I) article "German invasion of France (1914–1918)". I think the best recent event we can take as a model is the Iran–Iraq War. An initial invasion, the front stalls in trench warfare, and cross border attacks ensuing for years. The cross border component is really important here. For instance, we currently have the Kursk front as a subset of the attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would mean that the scope of the Russian invasion of Ukraine article covers Ukraine and Russia; this is a nonsense, and by the logic we are currently using, the Kursk article should be named Ukrainian invasion of Russia. In conclusion, the historical precedent suggests deprecating the word invasion in favor of War, and implementing the change would allow to better organize the spillover articles.

Basque mapping (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Russia-Ukraine war acceptable to you? Sources appear to prefer this name (see, e.g., the Ngrams data above). FOARP (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP My personal preference stands in Russo-Ukrainian, but if the majority of sources use Russia–Ukraine (as it seems at this moment), then we must go with it. In any case, per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, the title must use a dash and not a hyphen. Basque mapping (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Basque mapping Note that in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, it would allow for Russo-Ukrainian with a hyphen because "Russo-" is not a complete word. Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse non-EC editor vote

Strong Support It should be seperated into the Donbas war (2014-2022) and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-) it makes more sense and more sources say this Yesyesmrcool (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] "Donbas War" would omit the occupation of Crimea, wouldn't it? OsFish (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]