Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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

---

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

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

RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section

Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section? If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? –LordPickleII (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Background: This article (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) included a section titled "Peace efforts" until 11 August 2022, when it's content was moved to the newly created 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. There has been a main article about the peace talks at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations since 8 March 2022.

Explanatory note: This RfC is composed of two questions, but each is considered independently of the other; so a reply to Question B does not imply that the editor supports Question A. The options suggested for Question B are only initial forms, to be later built upon if neccessary.

Question A: Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section?

Question B: If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? Option 1 or Option 2 (see below)?

Option 1 (previous version, until August 11)

Option 2 (newly suggested)

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February, 3 March, and 7 March 2022, in an undisclosed location in the Gomel Region on the Belarus–Ukraine border, with further talks held on 10 March in Turkey prior to a fourth round of negotiations which began on 14 March. The Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba stated on 13 July that peace talks are frozen for the time being. On 19 July, former Russian President and current Deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said: “Russia will achieve all its goals. There will be peace – on our terms.”

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."

Please voice your opinion below. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No to question A not a section. See the reasons in the threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can you maybe format this to more clearly indicate on which question you are commenting? Just so it is easier for the closer to evaluate later. Also, it would be helpful to give a very brief overview of your arguments again, as this is not a vote, and the closer might not be able to find all previous points made in the other discussion(s). And again, you may (but don't have to) also voice your opinion on the Options for Question B, even if you don't think we should have a section. Think of it as chosing the "lesser evil", only for the case that consensus would develop to include it. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said no to a section, how much clear can I be. I am not going to give my support to something I do not support. If this RFC assumes the answer is "yes we must have a section" it is badly flawed and should thus be withdrawn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I guess it was clear enough, but anyway thanks for amending. And no, you don't have to vote on the second question. I am just hoping enough people oppose Option 2 so it never happens (tbh I'd rather have no section than it), but I think you have made your point clear on that below. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: would you mind briefly summarising the reasons why you're against a section? Alternatively could you point me to which parts of the above discussions are relevant? It'll save me some time trying to understand your argument by scrolling through the rather large discussions further up the page. Jr8825 • Talk 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can add no more to what I have said in two threads above. I see no reason why we need this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful! Skimming through the above threads, am I right in understanding your argument against a section on peace negotiations is 1) that this article is only about a specific "military campaign", not the war itself and 2) that the negotiations are unimportant because they failed? Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to not create another cluttered RFC with umpteen responses for one post. But OK, I oppose this as this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war, and yes also because they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion. Nor do they tell us anything about this invasion, and any context would best be covered in the other articles. Moreover, it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations and (even if we accept their presence here) only the last one is really relevant. It is better covered elsewhere, with a see also here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've continued this thread below in the new discussion section as there are things I'd like to discuss in more detail without crowding out other editors' opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose option 2 as a violation of NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. My primary reasoning is that per WP:SS, this is expected and allowed, and we have Template:Main to link to the main article. The counter-argument of "content should not be duplicated" doesn't make sense to me, and I know of no guideline or policy that would confirm it. And per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, point 6.: Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.

My secondary point is that while the underlying conflict is older, the invasion is definitely the newest development. Peace talks only really happened because of it; and now the article is on the main page "in the news". Per WP:AUDIENCE (and WP:RF), people come to this article first, and expect a good overview. They currently would have to scroll down to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Reactions, then out of the 6 (!) options given click on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions, and then scroll down again to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts, from where they are finally pointed to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, the main article. Far too complicated, as the question of peace is an obvious and acute one, not a side note to be discussed only for the underlying conflict.

Question B: Option 1. I strongly reject Option 2 as a gross violation of WP:NPOV, as it distorts the facts through WP:CHERRYPICKING from only parts of a few (reliable) sources, while completely ignoring most others. It does also not align with the main article, and so would violate the summary that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in good faith; but it basically repeats Russian propaganda efforts that "the West" had prevented peace.

Option 1 on the other hand is what we have had before, and for a long time; it is concise, neutral, and gives a good overview. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: The last sentence of Option 1 should be struck, as per Mx. Granger, since with it it reads slightly biased as well. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the fact that Option 2 is kind of cherry picking but I think that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV in the first place. It already chose its position in this issue, picking a side and picking on the other. All the details aren't attributed to the RS as it should. It doesn't represent multiple POVs. Treating Kremlin announcements as disinformation and fake news snd conspiracy theories while the American government's as solid facts. This violates Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't right. This is not what Wikipedia is made for. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm for neither sides. I think we all, as Wikipedia volunteers, should respect the reader to make their opinion on the matter by complying with Wikipedia's policies. It's for the reader to pick the side they feel is right. Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right.

By adding this section I tried to represent the other side's POV. And I'm keen to hear your thoughts to improve it. Thank you for voicing your opinion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE and also Boris Johson is not (and never was) president. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the Eastern world pov a minority and extraordinary view? There are only two sides in this fight, the west and the east, how is the other side a minority? Formal governmental announcements aren't extraordinary. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't to decide that the Western governmental claims are solid facts while the Russian's and Chinese are not. One either equally treat all governments' announcements as facts or fake news. But to treat the side that one agree with differently and say that all other POVs are extraordinary then claiming that they are trying to avoid making false balance is an utter cherry picking and a fallacy. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There are only two sides in this fight, yes; but we are on neither, we are Wikipedia. As for POVs in the press, there are several: US, European, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, etc. We do not chose to simply represent the Russian POV because they deserve it. "Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right" – I think that is exactly what Option 2 does, so I somewhat agree with you. Also, this RfC is not about the aricle in general, but about the section, specifically. We cannot achieve a balanced view by presenting one POV in parts, and another POV in others. We need NPOV everywhere; Slatersteven correctly pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is policy. Feel free to vote for one of the options in Question B, but maybe better give the reasonings in your own vote, not in a reaction to mine (it's more difficult to check later). –LordPickleII (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To add, option 2 only gives the Russian side, so violates NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2 you object that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV, but I think you're misunderstanding how the policy works. In a nutshell, Wikipedia policy is that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a subject.

Government controlled news in countries with low press freedom range from dubious to totally unreliable. Russian news organizations have long been established as not Reliable - for good reason. NPOV is that we address all significant views roughly in proportion to their presence in Reliable Sources. If essentially no Reliable Sources report some Russian claim, NPOV is that we do not report that claim. If substantially all Reliable Sources reporting on a Russian claim present it as a false claim, then NPOV is that we present it as a false claim.

If anyone attempts to argue that substantially all Reliable Sources are wrong, biased, or part of a conspiracy, then under policy that is an argument that we must accurately summarize that wrong/biased/conspiracy content. If anyone wants to argue Russian News sources are Reliable, Reliable Source Noticeboard is over here. However I doubt people at RSN are going to be friendly to another frivolous waste of time on that subject. Alsee (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Question 1: support having a section for peace negotiations. We do need a section to summarize the long main article. Readers need this section to decide whether they are interested in reading the main article or settle for the summary in this section.

Question 2: option 2 Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. To both options. There are already two articles on Wikipedia which contain this information at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts and also at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. It appears redundant to add a third copy of the same material for a third time at Wikipedia in this article. Does Wikipedia need a third version of this section already existing on two other Wikipedia articles. The present article on the invasion is already over 400Kb in size and super-adding a third copy of the same material in such a large article seems a poor choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Peace negotiations aren't "reactions" to the invasion. The brief summary at the reactions article (identical to option 1 presented here) should be added here and removed from there. The peace negotiations article is the WP:SPINOFF article that we're looking to summarise in the appropriate "overview meta-article" (to use the wording of the guidance), which in my view is this one. Jr8825 • Talk 10:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. It is standard to summarise a sub-article in a main article about a subject, just like Zaporizhzhia#Russian_invasion_(2022) in Zaporizhzhia, which is a summary of Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (needs updating). This RfC was called because one editor used abstract arguments against including a section summarising peace efforts. Another editor argued that the peace efforts aren't going anywhere (true, but besides the point). As we enter into the next (and hopefully, final) phase of the war, peace efforts are becoming one of the main issues that sources are reporting on this subject, and that's why we should include them in this article.

Question B: Option 1 is better than Option 2 because the commentary about Boris Johnson is unwieldy and polarising. As Ukrainians, we don't need a Brit to tell us that a peace deal with Putin isn't worth anything, and the earlier claim that we came close to an agreement with Russia in Istanbul [1] was reported as refuted by insiders [2]. I think the commentary from Hill and Mearsheimer belongs more in the main article, and they should be called commentators, not experts. I also think there should be a sentence about Zelenskyy's call on Putin for direct talks, which the Russians have dismissed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Strong support. Per WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF, this article is a high-level overview of the invasion and efforts to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic; a brief section summarising the negotiations (providing an overview of the content at the sub-article) is therefore essential for our readers. This is what hatnotes such as {{main}} are for. There are perennial problems about the overlapping scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, but that's outside the remit of this RfC, and this article remains the main place for content relating to the intensification of the conflict in 2022.

Question B: Weak support option 1, which I think is a suitably succinct summary of the main points, although the text shouldn't be seen as locked-in by consensus, rather as a basic building block. However, I believe the Bucha massacre should be mentioned, as I recall a number of RS stating that its discovery was a significant factor in the breakdown of talks. Strong oppose option 2, which has pretty serious WP:WEIGHT issues to my eyes. In particular, far too much emphasis is put on Johnson's actions, based on one Ukrainian source, which goes against the wider coverage in international press that I've read, which doesn't put anywhere near as much emphasis on Johnson's individual role (and as IntrepidContributor's points out, it could also be seen as devaluing the agency Ukraine has in making its own negotiating decisions, based on an exceptional claim without exceptionally strong sourcing). Additionally, the opinions of two commentators, a U.S. diplomat and Mearsheimer are undue. (I don't recognise the diplomat, but Mearsheimer holds minority views on the conflict, such as arguing NATO was largely responsible for the war, and therefore again due weight applies here – Mearsheimer's analysis is noteworthy but not suitable for a brief, broad summary of negotiations, it is only suitable for the main article on negotiations, and should be given coverage proportional to more mainstream analyses. Jr8825 • Talk 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: no opinion. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.

Question B: support option 1. Option 2 is too long, it implies that Boris Johnson stopped Kyiv from surrendering (excuse me, "ending the bloodshed"), and I see no reason to give Mearsheimer's opinion so much prominence when he's basically been wrong about everything. He continues to claim that Putin doesn't want to take over all of Ukraine when that is exactly what Putin says he wants and completely ignores the fact that Ukraine is a country with agency and security concerns of its own. He can be included in some sort of "reactions" article where we give the "it's-Nato's-fault!" crowd's opinion, but certainly not here in the main article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed vote on Question A Per Cinderella157, this deserves at most a very brief mention in passing, not a dedicated section. If we're including one though I still prefer option 1 for question B.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Where else in this article would you summarise the negotiations? I don't see any existing section where a brief summary would logically belong. Jr8825 • Talk 10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: But have you actually read those guidelines? Both WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT explicitly suggest we need a section, not the opposite! See below for quotes from them. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, as the peace process is a key part of information about the conflict. Question B: neither option is ideal. Both seem to have cherrypicked quotes that display editorial bias. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I can actually see your point about the last sentence. Yes, it should be removed; better to just have the bare facts, and not any statements and opinions. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• No both as written. It would appear to me that some editors forget that we should be writing in summary style and that when we have a sub-article dealing with a particular aspect of content, detail like when Putin last farted and what Zelenskyy had for breakfast belongs there. The main article need only mention in passing a WP:SPINOUT - which it does without the need for a separate section. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: what's your view on including a brief negotiations section generally (Question A)? Jr8825 • Talk 10:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Was I not sufficiently clear in saying "No both"? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  ok how about you calm down? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I only asked as I thought you might be responding to both of the options presented for Question B, rather than both questions. I don't see why summary style/using sub-articles means we shouldn't have a section summarising negotiations. If anything, I see it as a reason for having a brief section, as it ties together this article with the spin-off much better than relegating it to a "see also" link: the guidance at SPINOUT says "when you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article". Regarding excess detail, this article currently includes miscellaneous minutiae such as the sale of 18 "CAESAR self-propelled howitzer systems, mounted on the Renault Sherpa 5 6×6 chassis" (I'll have a go at cutting the foreign military sales section soon, if nobody else does first, as it's a section I've highlighted in the past, too). This reminds me of the earlier discussion we had regarding the background section; it was sliced up and squeezed into a couple of sentences in order to save space even though there's plenty of less important fat to trim elsewhere. There's plenty of room for cuts that will provide space for a brief summary of the efforts to make (and occasions when) negotiators from both sides sat down. Jr8825 • Talk 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, Cinderella157, but your argument seems self-contradictory, with the policy you cited stating that we need such a subsection. This is the same for WP:SS (summary style), which you alluded to, but not linked. Quote from there (specifically WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE): Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. [...] Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. And also: In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link such as "Main article", generated by the template {{Main|name of child article}}. (my emphasis in bold). This is exactly what's being discussed here, whether or not we should adhere to that. Article size is a concern I understand, but every pointer to policy or guidelines I have seen brought up seems to only support the opinion for a section. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation. Wikipedia does not need to re-duplicate articles three times in different places merely for the sake of making redundant copies with pointers and redirects to the same information content. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... no offense @ErnestKrause, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation – yes, those we pointed to above. If you can point to a different guideline that supports your view, it would help your cause! It's a little irritating to constantly hear "clearly, this should not be done", when we clearly have guidelines that disagree. That was a similar issue in another RfC I started, where people would give their opinion, without being able to back it up. You guys have had some valid arguments otherwise, but "article content must not be duplicated" is a really weak one at present. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... fully supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Both of them have articulated on this issue clearly and straightforwardly. Possibly you should re-read their statements which are really strong in comparison to your weak reading of their well-stated and well-directed points. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The various guidance being cited would assume that a spinout article has been created from a section of the main article that has evolved to be of substantial size. This is not the case here. 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations was created here on 8 March 22. This version of this article (the main article) immediately prior to that creation has no such corresponding section and doesn't even mention the talks as far as I can see. The advice is not consistent with the particulars of this circumstance. Perhaps we should refer to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations as a spinoff rather than a spinout. If one were to summarise 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations into this article it would read: Unsuccessful peace negotiations were held at A [place] from W-X [dates] and B from Y-Z [or similar]. In the greater scheme of things (this, the main article) these efforts to date (by virtue of their lack of success) are litte if anything more than a footnote and should be trated here accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why must the peace efforts be successful in order include them as a section here? It won't be possible to lift the sanctions (on which we have a section) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [3], so it is not a minor detail. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Thanks, I can actually follow your argumentation here! I still don't quite agree, but it's a lot more helpful also for other people to have it spelled out thus. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question B: Oppose Option 2 as against WP:NPOV, not reflecting WP:RS consensus, and excess usage of "commentators" per MOS:QUOTATIONS -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: No per Cinderella and WP:PROPORTION. The failed peace talks were not significant enough to warrant a section the article. I'd suggest a single sentence along the lines of "Unsuccessful peace talks were held between Russia and Ukraine during February and March." instead. Details like the locations and dates of the talks, the number of rounds, comments from either on whether they were open to more negotiations, etc. don't add anything important; the talks didn't produce any results and until another round of negotiations happen there's nothing new to report.

Question B: Weak Support for Option 1 As mentioned, I think the detail's excessive, but if we are going to have a section it's an alright summary. Oppose Option 2 on NPOV and WEIGHT grounds. I agree with Jr8825's explanation of the problems with that option. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Another argument claiming that the the "failed" peace efforts are a "minor aspect" (per WP:PROPORTION) when we have a huge amount of published material on the subject, including the widely reported statements from Putin, Lavrov, Nebenzya and Gatilov dismissing the possibility of a deal. There was also the alleged Abramovich poisoning during the peace talks in March, which gained very wide coverage. Either editors haven't read the WP:PROPORTION guidance, or the published material on the subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously take this with a pinch of salt per WP:GOOG and the impracticality of doing a more scholarly ngrams test, but a Google trends comparison of different aspects of the Ukraine war does show strong demand among internet searchers for information on peace prospects. Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RaiderAspect, can you please answer the previous two objections? Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, I fully agree with Mx. Granger (and others). The peace process to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic. And that it is standard to summarise a paragraph in a main article about a subject with the relevant link. Question B: It doesn't matter so much now, it can be agreed later. I was mainly concerned with returning to the state before the paragraph, which was there for almost entire existence of the article, was removed without any agreement by the two users. Anyway, I think that both have cherrypicked quotes, it would be better with just the facts (like that the negotiations were for now suspended).Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Question A, for Option 1 and Oppose for Option 2, as expressed by other editors. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that Slatersteven raises above, namely: (1) "this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war", (2) "they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion" and (3) "it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations". I'd like to offer some responses and hear others' opinions on them.

Regarding (1), this article already covers the broader aspects of the war since 24 February (e.g. foreign support, humanitarian/economic impact, global reactions). Its scope is more comparable to our article on 2003 invasion of Iraq, a distinct stage of intense fighting within the broader Iraq War, than it is articles on military campaigns within consistently intense wars (e.g. Operation Barbarossa). The 2003 invasion article covers the prelude, legality, looting, responses etc.; equally, negotiations to end the current fighting in Ukraine, which briefly made up a significant part of media coverage of the invasion for a period of a few weeks, seem within scope here. I recognise the distinction between this article and Russo-Ukrainian War is currently ambiguous (a point I acknowledged above), but that's a topic of discussion for another time – we should be making a decision based on this article as it stands, and the negotiations we're discussing were uniquely in response to the 2022 invasion: negotiations revolved around the occupation of large parts of Ukrainian territory and were very different in substance to previous negotiations centred around the War in Donbas, for example.

Regarding (2), I think if we apply the 10-year test it's likely future readers will want to know about the failed negotiations that took place early in the invasion but quickly broke down for various reasons (accusations of Russian bad faith, anger after the Bucha revelations). The previous negotiations are a part of the history of the invasion, even if they turn out to be a relatively minor part; for example, their failure may represent a moment when it became clear the invasion was developing into a longer-term conflict. They may also impact future negotiations.

Regarding (3), I think the best option is to write a summary of the peace negotiations that took place that we can then adjust when future negotiations take place. It's impossible to predict when and how this might occur, but we can easily reduce the coverage of the previous negotiations to something like "early in the war, a series of failed negotiations took place etc. etc., after XX/XX/2023, negotiations were reopened". Keen to hear others' responses to these points. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said all I wish to say above, and have no more to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Polls

@ErnestKrause, the Reaction section did not mention the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, which is essential for both, making a balance to the said section in order to satisfy the WP:NPOV and to add an essential addition to the article's content. The articles, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions and Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, are both unrelated to my edit. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt your first source is an RS. Your second source is a Blog. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? How is it that Radio Liberty isn't a RS?

The second source belongs to London School of Economics , meaning that it's not a self published source. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, as its a blog, blogs are blogs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG are acceptable sources. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not a "news organization". Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

its a blog, blogs are blogs.

Not all blogs are treated the same. News blogs are acceptable sources because their "writers are professionals." So we can say that research organizations' blogs are acceptable sources too since their writers are professionals.

But if you're not OK with that we can cite the individual sources that LSE used in their article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Note, as seen here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/about-europp/. They only publish pieces from people with expertise in the area, and submissions are reviewed by the editors. The editorial team are all academics in political science. I think it's fine as a source. Tristario (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

LSE Blogs are good, but should points should generally be attributed in-text to the author of the blog, as it's their personal view as an expert. Jr8825 • Talk 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Tristario (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think given that polls showing the level of Russian support for the invasion have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:DUE to include in the article, but it should be briefer, and within the reactions section.

Radio Liberty is generally a respected source and I think acceptable for this purpose. The LSE blog is also not the same as a self-published source, and even it was, they're subject matter experts. I would prefer sources such as the NYTimes or BBC though Tristario (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Radio liberty is not used as a source. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 support. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you support? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably another source can just be used then, I don't think that's a big issue. Radio Liberty does not operate in the west so people largely only associate it with its cold war origins and the fact that it's funded by the US government. However, in my experience, its quality is on the level of a WP:GREL source. I have had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives and have not seen any substantive objections to its reliability besides the fact it's funded by the US government. Tristario (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Then link to Radio Liberty, and not svoboda.org, which appears to be the website of Svoboda (political party). Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda means liberty in a few different languages. The political party is named after the word for liberty. Svoboda.org is the website of radio liberty Tristario (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So which countries version is this? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda.org is the russian version of it Tristario (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it, this seems to be the link Radio Liberty gives https://www.rferl.org/Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the english language version. Look at this: https://www.rferl.org/navigation/allsites. It's on that list Tristario (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(For anyone observing this discussion, this is the edit being currently discussed) Tristario (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There are already several articles on Wikipedia showing the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, so I'm not sure why the exact same thing should be in the main invasion article. Various opinion polls are used by the Kremlin in its propaganda campaign, which is also why opinion polls are allowed in Russia, unlike independent media. During the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, no one cared about opinion polls in Iraq because it was seen as Hussein's propaganda. Why is Putin's propaganda so important? There is a dictatorship in Russia, everything is decided by a narrow group of people led by Putin, all the media is controlled by Putin's regime and Russians are informed only about the Kremlin's version of events, people can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for criticizing the war and the Russian army, for spreading so-called "fake news". According to some sources, in telephone polls, a high percentage of people polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or President Putin, because these are topics that are subject to prosecution in Russia, so the question is whether these polls can be trusted, even if it's from Levada. It should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia, but why in this main article? --Tobby72 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We won't say the exact same thing, we provide a briefer summary of those things in this article. And we can include caveats as reported in reliable sources. I don't think this talk page is the right place for a discussion about details of authoritarianism and propaganda in Russia, and I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about that. Ultimately that's irrelevant, we'll just say what the reliable sources say. Tristario (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin propaganda? What are you talking about? You mean we should hide any information that is used by the Russian side (or any side you don't like) even if it's 100% true and satisfy Wikipedia's rules and policies and mentioned in multiple RS? Your argument is not adequate and doesn't make any sense and therefore is not considered.

AND the Russian protests are used by the western probaganda and its already mentioned in the main article since forever and no one said it shouldn't be here. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is No consensus for your edit earlier today in the main space for this article on the Talk page here which is still in progress. You have been contacted by two editors on your Talk page regarding this matter and associated edits you have made. Establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, your response to Editor:Super ninja2 proclaims a consensus based on a number of editors and like the rest of your posts in this discussion, it did not make any substantive argument for or against the content. Please put a stop to this behaviour lest I take it to an administrator noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind a summary of polls on main article pages. The problem is when they are conducted under autocratic regimes, when there is a clear self-censoring effect. I cleaned up a sloppily written attempt which made it clear that a) under the Putin autocratic regime, accurate polling is difficult, b) I inserted 'polled' and 'surveyed' to stress that this was the opinion of those polled, not the general population, c) I made clear that the polls covered the period just prior to, and just after, the invasion, i.e., implying they may not represent present opinion. I suggest my revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1112295639&oldid=1112281240&diffmode=source)is an adequate starting point for further revisions. Full disclosure: I have Rus ancestry, I have visited Russia several times, I was director of a social survey center conducting public polling in countries with both autocratic and military regimes, I have a relationship with a UN peacebuilding NGO, and I have worked with one or more militaries. Johncdraper (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you given any thought to adding your insights about this to the section on Polls in the reactions article at Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems that making note of some of the problems with reliability in polling would be useful in that Reactions article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've said I think we should be include polling in this article however it needs to be briefer than what attempts so far have done, this article is not the place for an extended discussion about polling in Russia, and it also needs to comply with WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made this edit which is briefer and includes some of the caveats that people are concerned about. It could probably be expanded on and updated a bit. Tristario (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I like Johncdraper's longer version for the Reactions page and your summarised version for this page. It can be expanded and updated as public sentiment in Russia becomes clearer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a section specifically just for polling on this page? I can't make up my mind for that Tristario (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It can be a subsection of the reactions section. IntrepidContributor (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable Tristario (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is so short. The article is so long and contains details on every aspect including a section about foriegn protests which is not directly related to the war. So why this section has to be brief?! If anything, the section about foriegn protests is the one that has to be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in a good shape. I agree on this version. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Super ninja2 was it necessary to delete the summarised version instead of trying to expand it a bit with some context? Some editors oppose including anything, and some oppose including too much, so a summary seems like a good place to start. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Feel free to undo my edit and I will try to expand it to add more context. THX for your note. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with IntrepidContributor that JohncDraper's version should be adopted. I believe that given the context of the issue, the depth of the article a more detailed version should be included. This perspective gives justice to the topic and I don't see the downside of more details. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a more in depth version as long as it sticks to the kind of summary style this article is for Tristario (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As discussed here I've added the information about the polling back in, for people to expand or otherwise make adjustments to. Tristario (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this question at present. Make consensus on Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause This was what was suggested, and no one objected to it for over a week. If you wanted to object to including this, you had over a week to do so. What is your objection to including at least a brief mention of polling in this article? As I said people can expand and adjust it Tristario (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Slatersteven and myself are not supporting this edit as stated above. Make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven has not objected to including a mention of polling in this article. He had some issues with the sources and we discussed that. What is your issue with this edit? Tristario (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause You might also want to read Wikipedia: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Tristario (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Considering the sources, here and there, I believe we should add Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi in the infobox in the "Commanders and leaders" section, with a boldening on the head of states Putin and Zelenskyy. It's done this way in most wartime infobox, such as Operation Barbarossa. What do you think? Aréat (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarise key points of the article and we don't write the article in the infobox. Accordingly, the article establishes who goes into the infobox, because their significance is established through the article by more than passing mentions. Only the two presidents meet the criteria. Zaluzhnyi has a single passing mention, in which he is reporting a claim and has been attributed for doing so. Being the reporter of record however does not establish any substantial significance to the article. As to bolding, this would be contrary to MOS:NOBOLD. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then 1) it is a problem with the article that the military commanders aren’t covered, 2) it seems obvious to me that the supreme commander of each side in a war is basic fundamental information about it, and we should consider it one of the exceptions mentioned in MOS:IB, as amelioration until no. 1 is corrected, and 3) omitting them represents a bias towards information about one side, because public personalities are discouraged under the authoritarian–charismatic Russian leader (I can find sources), and 4) the infobox section head is literally “commanders and leaders” and should have the commanders. —Michael Z. 02:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

For inclusion, the significance of a commander should be evident by their deeds as reported in the article. Whether there is a problem with the article as it exists in respect to this is a matter of opinion. I would note that the presidents are the supreme commander/C-i-C of the two countries and the article does evidence their significance. If additional information is so fundamental, one might observe that it would have been written into the article already. This type of information is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the example exceptions at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text, which is often better tabulated. I donot see how one might reasonably assert bias exists, when both sides are presently equally represented. As to the heading, it does presently list the commanders. We don't write an article to fit the lead. We do the reverse. The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Similarly, it is axiomatic that we don't write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You’re saying the article is finished now? We should stop editing it, because, by definition nothing is missing and everything’s perfect? —Michael Z. 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No. I am saying that if it is such fundamental information wrt other commanders/leaders and on such a high-profile page, one would reasonably expect that it would have been addressed by now and that it isn't (except for the two presidents/supreme commanders) indicates that it isn't so fundamental after all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. This article is WP:ASSESSed B class, meaning “mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.” “It’s not in the article now therefore it mustn’t be added” is not a valid reasoning. Our consensus determines the content.

Zelenskyy is Supreme C-in-C but he is not in direct command or making any battlefield decisions, and below him there is a defence minister, military C-in-C, and chief of staff. Putin does meddle in the battlefield, but he also has a defence minister and CoS. This is the main article for the military campaign and should name the military leaders. —Michael Z. 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, sorry if I let my tone sound combative. My point is that your argument is fallacious. The assumption and logic that everything fundamental “would have been written into the article already” is wrong, and it’s not even related to the substance of the content issue. —Michael Z. 14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. The assertion that some additional commanders are somehow fundamental is an opinion not supported by the body of the article at present. That is the criteria established by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. When and if the article establishes the significance of additional commanders and their contributions (not just a passing mention that they exist) it will be appropriate to add such commanders per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is the guidances and the defined objective criteria for a logical argument to include or exclude additional commanders. Until then, because there is no WP:DEADLINE, we should not try to write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Why have Russian casualty figures been deleted??

Namely this: |- !scope="row"|Russian forces
(VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB) |6,476 killed (conf. by name) |24 February – 15 September 2022 |BBC News Russian & Mediazona |- Please some balance. Wikipedia should not be part of the "war effort".Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It may be that source does not meet RS standards. 50.111.15.31 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't it be "On the 24th of February 2022" and not "On 24 February 2022"?

Reading through the dates I realized that it's not "On the __th/st" It's just "On __". I feel like I am a bit wrong hence why I'm asking as to why it's said like this. Smotoe (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the current format is used widely. It is common in infoboxes, as this is a convenient way to condense the information. The same goes for the main article text. Just to name an example, Operation Barbarossa states: "Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa; Russian: Операция Барбаросса, romanized: Operatsiya Barbarossa) was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941...". 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E135:355C:BD0:538C (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I think the more concise version is fine. See the very first bullet point example at MOS:DATE. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, per MOS:BADDATE we don't use ordinals. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 correctly cites the rule and ordinals are not used. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency with images under "Foreign Support"

There is an image highlighting countries that have sent military support to Ukraine, and an image highlighting countries that have sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Small circles are used to represent either small countries or small territories belonging to countries. Every single territory that is represented by a small circle AND was coloured dark blue indicating military support have their circles missing in the second image for humanitarian aid. Every territory that were not coloured dark blue appears to be unaffected by this. Countries that are represented by circles, such as Luxembourg, are not affected.

List of affected territories:

• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Guadeloupe
• Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands
• Martinique
• Mayotte
• Norfolk Island
• Reunion

The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct the list of Beligerents on Ukrainian side.

Ukraine is being provided with Heavy weapons from the NATO alliance. They should be mentioned under the list of beligerents. 2401:4900:4A61:9C7F:1:0:57F3:8ADA (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians also use US satellites to aim artillery strikes. It's not just weapons provided, even if you ignore the US being behind Maidan to begin with 94.189.193.233 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

USA provides satellite imagery of Ukraine to Ukraine: not an act of war. “US being behind Maidan”: Russian disinformation, and irrelevant sour grapes. —Michael Z. 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No its is not an act of war, and MAidan was years ago. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'foreign support' section is a bit problematic

This articles is about the Russian invasion in 2022. But the foreign support section covers NATO support from 2014-2021, that support came in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and foreign support in Eastern Ukraine at the height of which Russia regular forces and offensive platforms were deployed inside Ukraine. Due to the scope none of the later is covered here and thus might seem to someone unfamiliar with the topic that NATO was supporting Ukraine while Russia was a natural observer. --Nilsol2 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The issues of NATO relations with Russia and NATO relations with Ukraine are two separate questions. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

Shouldn't be in the Belligerents the NATO or the European union as a "SUPPORTER"? Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is not consensus to do this, as noted in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Territorial Changes"

The infobox item "Territorial Changes" looks like the outcome of a finished or frozen conflict. This does not seem to be appropriate for the current situation. 2601:646:8600:40C1:A656:9C9:8C4E:F2E5 (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, we need to wait until its over, not use the infobox box as a news ticker. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, addition of "alleged" or "unrecognized" as a modifier would seem to align with the consensus being reported. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I’ll remove this.

Docs at Template:Infobox military conflict say this is for “any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.” But territorial control is currently contested, and the final result is not yet determined. —Michael Z. 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Ukraine supported by NATO (and others)

It just seems odd that the infobox lists "Ukraine" alone as a belligerent. NATO ought to be listed as a supporter as it is providing everything short of military aid, i.e. billions upon billions of dollars of no-strings-attached military aid, both direct and indirect, providing intelligence, military training, etc. Not to mention Ukraine is now officially seeking NATO membership. One might even suggest listing every nation sending aid to Ukraine, as the amount is truly colossal. Many billions of dollars of direct monetary aid as well as military hardware, from a host of countries. What are others' thoughts on this edit?

Sources:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3173378/11-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-announces-further-1-billion-in-military-support-to-ukraine#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20leading%20the,other%20than%20the%20United%20States

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992 BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top - this has been discussed before. — Czello 20:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Then lets having it again, because I can't find a comprehensive discussion in the near-infinitely long archives, and there seems to currently be considerable desire to denote more than nothing in the infobox with regard to Ukraine's foreign support. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ links to the discussion: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the discussion. Sure, many countries are sending aid but the idea that NATO (let alone countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltics) aren't "supporting" belligerents at this point is, IMHO, completely ridiculous. So while listing individual countries is excessive, NATO is most certainly a supporting belligerent. 2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If we have NATO as a co-belligerent, then this would imply that Russia is not only fighting against Ukraine but also against NATO and the West, which would further underline the Russian propaganda and that would be unacceptable. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Does it further Russian propaganda to say which countries are proving support to Ukraine's defense? And even if the answer is yes, if it's the truth as an encyclopedia shouldn't we state it as such? As Russians will continue to make baseless claims regardless why not accurately explain what is happening? BogLogs (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Buzzlightyear99 here, it would be good to at the very least discuss changes to the infobox to include countries which support Ukraine. Since the previous discussion the amount of support has vastly increased and has been shown to be decisive in Ukraine's defense and counter offensives. BogLogs (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

NATO is not involved in Ukraine. The war is outside of its jurisdiction; it is not what NATO is for and not how it is set up to operate. For NATO to make any comment on Ukraine would require all its member countries to agree but no statement has been made and you will not find a citation to that effect in order to include that idea in the article. It is a very important distinction to make between the individual actions of various countries that happen to be members of NATO and NATO deciding to take action. If and when NATO gets involved, this will be abundantly clear and will be a gamechanger. Let us hope that they never have to. Ex nihil ^(talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point. It is true that there has been no formal comment by NATO announcing joint action (certainly not anything along the lines of sending formal armies, thankfully!). That said if that were to happen NATO or any countries sending forces to fight would be belligerents and we would likely have to change the article title to WWW3 if we still have the ability to do so. The argument here at least for me is that given the amount of war materiel support given by NATO, or at the very least the NATO countries that are clearly sourced as providing large sums of that aid, should be listed as supporters of Ukraine's defense. BogLogs (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because giving aid for a proxy war isn't the same as declaring war and being in a war. Andre🚐 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and you are indeed correct giving aid is not the same thing as declaring war. In fact I think no war has been declared since the end of WW2. But this kind of materiel support deserves some kind of mention. This is the most similar situation I could find with support drop downs in the info box etc etc. Soviet–Afghan War. I think it would be a good model for this page but I welcome other ideas and points of discussion. BogLogs (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)