Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '{{Talk header|archive_age=120<!--Discussion regarding archive period at [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 3#Archival_period]].-->|archive_units=hours|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{FAQ|page=Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=brief}}
{{Section sizes|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine}}
{{banner shell|collapsed=yes|
{{censor}}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=History|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History}}
{{ITN talk|24 February|2022|oldid=1073710622}}
{{Copied
|from1 = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war
|from_oldid1 = 1073622125
|to1 = 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|to_diff1 = 1073620027
|from2 = 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|from_oldid2 = 1075058325
|to2 = Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|diff2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1075058518&oldid=1075053089
|date2 = 3 March 2022
|from3=2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|to3=NATO and EU reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|date3 = 8 March 2022
}}
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 invasion of Ukraine, '''Not moved''', 26 February 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1074155891#Requested_move_26_February_2022]]
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, '''Not moved''', 28 February 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1074464634#Requested_move_28_February_2022]]
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022), '''Not moved''', 21 July 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1099563809#Requested_move_17_July_2022]]
}}
{{British English}}
{{Press
| collapsed = yes
| subject = article
| author = Stephen Harrison
| title = How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia
| org = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]
| url = https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html
| date = {{date|1 March 2022}}
| quote = On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate =
| subject2 = article
| author2 = Jenny Nicholls
| title2 = History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors
| org2 = [[Stuff (website)]]
| url2 = https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/128021729/history-is-written-as-it-happens-by-wikipedia-editors
| date2 = 12 March 2022
| quote2 = It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks – [[2022 Wellington protests]], with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
| accessdate2 = 14 March 2022
| author3 = Ina Fried
| title3 = Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world
| org3 = [[Axios (website)]]
| url3 = https://www.axios.com/2022/07/15/wikipedia-blazes-a-trail-to-agreement-in-a-divided-world
| date3 = 15 July 2022
| quote3 = The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
| accessdate3 = 17 July 2022
}}
{{Top 25 report|Feb 20 2022|until|Jul 24 2022|Aug 28 2022|Sep 11 2022|until|Sep 25 2022}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|European=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=High|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|hist=yes|mil=y|pol=y}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject NATO|class=B|importance=Mid|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|b6=y}}
{{WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Refideas
|1=Ramsay, S. (2022, March 4). [https://archive.ph/20220305050357/https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-teams-harrowing-account-of-their-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585 Sky News team's harrowing account of their violent ambush in Ukraine this week.] Sky News. Archive.
|2=O'Leary, N. (2022, March 15). [https://archive.ph/20220309004640/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/united-nations-advises-staff-against-using-war-or-invasion-regarding-ukraine-1.4821438 United Nations advises staff against using ‘war’ or ‘invasion’ regarding Ukraine.]
|3=
|4=(2022, March 9). Россия признала нахождение солдат-срочников в Украине - BBC News Русская служба. Bbcrussian. https://www.bbcrussian.com/russian/news-60680182
|5={{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Sam |last2=Rathbone |first2=John Paul |last3=Sevastopulo |first3=Demetri |title=‘A serious failure’: scale of Russia’s military blunders becomes clear |url=https://www.ft.com/content/90421972-2f1e-4871-a4c6-0a9e9257e9b0 |access-date=12 March 2022 |work=Financial Times |date=12 March 2022}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d)
| archive = Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 10
| maxarchivesize = 800K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft = 6
}}
==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]]==
{{Archive top
|result =
|status = }}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1675104641}}
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: [[Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox?|Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?]]: closed 6 March 2022.
Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section ==
{{not a vote}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1665748884}}
Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section? ''If'' a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:This RfC has now been open for over a month. Perhaps it is time to close it and, if a consensus is believed to have been reached, be bold and act upon it in the article. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
'''Background''': This article ([[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]) included a section titled "Peace efforts" [[Special:PermanentLink/1103941141#Peace_efforts|until 11 August 2022]], when {{Diff|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|prev|1103941705|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)''?
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Option 1 (previous version, until August 11) !! Option 2 (newly suggested)
|-
|
{{Main|2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations}}
Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February,<ref>{{cite news |last=Hopkins |first=Valerie |date=28 February 2022 |title=Initial talks between Russia and Ukraine yield no resolution. |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-talks-belarus.html |access-date=16 March 2022 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314231723/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-talks-belarus.html |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> 3 March,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Reevell |first1=Patrick |last2=Hutchinson |first2=Bill |date=2 March 2022 |title=2nd round of talks between Russia and Ukraine end with no cease-fire |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054 |access-date=15 March 2022 |work=[[ABC News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314224621/https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054 |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> and 7 March 2022,<ref name="DW-2022-03-07">{{cite news |author=<!--not stated--> |title=Ukraine and Russia hold third round of talks |date=7 March 2022 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-and-russia-hold-third-round-of-talks/a-61039008 |access-date=15 March 2022 |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |agency=[[Reuters]], [[Agence France-Presse]], [[Deutsche Presse-Agentur]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314110854/https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-and-russia-hold-third-round-of-talks/a-61039008 |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> in an undisclosed location in the [[Gomel Region]] on the [[Belarus–Ukraine border]],<ref>{{cite news |last=Roshchina |first=Olena |date=28 February 2022 |script-title=uk:Переговори делегацій України та Росії почалися |trans-title=Negotiations between the delegations of Ukraine and Russia began |url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/28/7326809/ |access-date=7 March 2022 |script-work=uk:Українська правда |trans-work=[[Ukrayinska Pravda]] |language=uk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314012254/https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/28/7326809/ |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live |script-quote=uk:Деталі: Переговори відбуваються на Гомельщині на березі річки Прип'ять. Із міркувань безпеки точне місце організатори переговорів не називають. |trans-quote=Details: Negotiations are taking place in the Gomel region on the banks of the Pripyat River. For security reasons, the organisers of the talks did not name the exact location.}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Russia-Ukraine war latest: Ukraine rules out ceasefire deal that involves ceding territory; officials to seek grain export agreement – Latest Active News |url=https://lac2c.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-latest-ukraine-rules-out-ceasefire-deal-that-involves-ceding-territory-officials-to-seek-grain-export-agreement/ |access-date=14 July 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref> 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.”<ref>{{cite web |title=Peace will be on Moscow's terms, says former president |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=20 July 2022 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-putin-and-erdogan-to-meet-us-weaponry-stabilising-frontlines-ukraine-military-chief-says |access-date=20 July 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref>
||
{{Main|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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/|title=Possibility of talks between Zelenskyy and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit - UP sources|date=5 May 2022|author=ROMAN ROMANIUK|publisher=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent|title=The World Putin Wants|date=September–October 2022|author=Fiona Hill and Angela Stent|publisher=[[Foreign Affairs]]}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine|title=Playing With Fire in Ukraine|author=John J. Mearsheimer|date=August 17, 2022|publisher=[[Foreign Affairs]]}}</ref>
|}
Please voice your opinion below. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
===Survey===
*'''No to question A''' not a section. See the reasons in the threads above. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::<small>{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Slatersteven|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Oppose option 2''' as a violation of NPOV. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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.: {{tq|Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.}}
:My secondary point is that while [[Russo-Ukrainian War|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 [[2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations|main article]], and so would violate the [[WP:SS|summary]] that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in [[WP:AGF|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::''Addendum'': The last sentence of Option 1 should be struck, as per {{u|Mx. Granger}}, since with it it reads slightly biased as well. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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 [[WP:attribution|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 12:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] and also Boris Johson is not (and never was) president. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. "{{tq|Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right}}" {{ndash}} 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; {{u|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). –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::To add, option 2 only gives the Russian side, so violates NPOV. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Super ninja2|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, [[WP:RSN|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. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk: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''' [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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 [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/turkey-says-russia-ukraine-close-to-agreement] was reported as refuted by insiders [https://www.ft.com/content/c9381570-5e3c-4e89-a5a0-7a98bbd880f6]. 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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 {{template link|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 [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
*Question A: <s>'''no opinion'''. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.</s>
: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.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::'''Changed vote on Question A''' Per {{u|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.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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 [[WP:NPOV|editorial bias]]. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:{{re|Cinderella157}} what's your view on including a brief negotiations section generally (Question A)? [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 10:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*::Was I not sufficiently clear in saying "No both"? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::ok how about you calm down? [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 11:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{re|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 {{tq|"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 {{tq|"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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Jr8825}} I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, {{u|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]]): {{tq|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: {{tq|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 <nowiki>{{Main|name of child article}}</nowiki>.}} ''(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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Err... no offense @{{u|ErnestKrause}}, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? {{tq|Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation}} {{ndash}} 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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations&oldid=1075847279 here] on 8 March 22. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1075846993&oldid=1075846553 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. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk: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 [[2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_sanctions_and_ramifications|section]]) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sanctions-wont-be-lifted-until-russia-signs-peace-deal-with-ukraine-germanys-2022-05-02/], so it is not a minor detail. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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]] -- [[User:Rauisuchian|Rauisuchian]] ([[User talk: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 ''"[[2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations|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. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 [[Google ngrams|ngrams]] test, but [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Ukraine%20nuclear%20plant,Ukraine%20refugees,Ukraine%20food,Ukraine%20peace,Ukraine%20negotiations a Google trends comparison] of different aspects of the Ukraine war does show strong demand among internet searchers for information on peace prospects. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]], can you please answer the previous two objections? Thanks.[[User:Jirka.h23|Jirka.h23]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Jirka.h23|Jirka.h23]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for '''Question A''': I find correct to cover the attempts to find a diplomatic solutions and it is correct to insert a brief summary in this article. Regarding Question B, I prefer '''Option 1 ''': I prefer to stick to facts and leave out comments and conjectures [[User:P1221|P1221]] ([[User talk:P1221|talk]]) 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for '''Question A''': I'm not in favour of either version as the summary does not cover any of the reasons and the changing events that stalled the talks. There were statements by both sides as I remember. [[User:Thelisteninghand|Thelisteninghand]] ([[User talk:Thelisteninghand|talk]]) 21:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*:'''Support for question A''' with '''weak support for Option 1''' though I imagine more information would be added to it in the future. In general I think it's a good idea to have at least a small section in war articles discussing meaningful peace attempts. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support for question A''', support for '''trimmed Option 2'''. Not sure that Mearscheimer's opinion is notable enough to be included here. I don't see policy-based arguments against mentioning the possibility of reaching the agreement in Istanbul and mentioning Johnson's role. It's not cherrypicking - there were only two major negotiation efforts and we should definitely report on the possible outcome of one of them. Likewise, the UK is one of the major allies of Ukraine and plenty of reliable sources discussed Boris Johnson's visit and its impact [https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?], [https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/07/liz-truss-doesnt-care-about-stopping-the-war-in-ukraine/? Boris Johnson halted a peace deal. Now, his successor is doubling down on his approach.], [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-62998067 Boris Johnson warns against a Ukraine-Russia peace deal], [https://www.salon.com/2022/09/07/in-ukraine-rages-on-with-no-end-in-sight--peace-talks-are-essential/ The U.S. and Britain sabotaged peace talks in favor of grinding, endless war. Ukraine's people are paying the price], [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/negotiating-with-putin-like-dealing-with-crocodile-uk-pm-johnson-says-2022-04-20/ UK PM Johnson says Ukraine peace talks are doomed because of "crocodile" Putin]. Of course there are differing views on this (e.g., [https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/17/no-the-west-didnt-halt-ukraines-peace-talks-with-russia/ No, the West Didn’t Halt Ukraine’s Peace Talks With Russia] but that only proves the importance of this). [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 06:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''No to question A, Support B, version 1''' - per arguments by others above. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion===
* I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that {{u|Slatersteven}} raises above, namely: (1) {{tq|"this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war"}}, (2) {{tq|"they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion"}} and (3) {{tq|"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 [[WP:10YT|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::I have said all I wish to say above, and have no more to add. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
<!-- References used —''Please type above this''— -->
{{Reflist-talk}}
== Polls ==
@[[User:ErnestKrause|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:I doubt your first source is an RS. Your second source is a Blog. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:blog|self published source.]] [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes it does, as its a blog, blogs are blogs. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::[[WP:NEWSBLOG]] are acceptable sources. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Its not a "news organization". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, agreed [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::Radio liberty is not used as a source. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::+1 support. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::What do you support? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Support for Slatersteven on this. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{u|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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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)]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::So which countries version is this? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::svoboda.org is the russian version of it [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Is it, this seems to be the link Radio Liberty gives https://www.rferl.org/Russia. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 09:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::(For anyone observing this discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1109960070 this] is the edit being currently discussed) [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:::{{u|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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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/enwiki/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. [[User:Johncdraper|Johncdraper]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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]] [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::I have made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1112365343 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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::It can be a subsection of the reactions section. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That seems reasonable [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::It's in a good shape. I agree on this version. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{u|Super ninja2}} was it necessary to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1113219696 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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::As discussed here I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1114957678 added] the information about the polling back in, for people to expand or otherwise make adjustments to. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 04:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no consensus on this question at present. Make consensus on Talk page. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] Do you still object to the inclusion of any information about polling in this article, and if you do, what is your rationale? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] You might also want to read [[Wikipedia: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"]] [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wikipedia policy for Support and Oppose comments is that they stand for the duration of the discussion taking place. It is not a matter of the 'most recent comments' approach which you appear to be wanting to apply. You need to follow [[WP:Consensus]] and reach consensus on the Talk page. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would suggest reading through the page you just linked because your understanding of consensus is wrong. Reaching consensus is a natural process where people continually move the discussion forward and attempt improvements and changes which address or make a compromise with other people's concerns, based on policy. It does not mean absolutely everyone that was ever involved in the discussion needs to explicitly agree to a particular edit before that edit is even made. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] did not object to the inclusion of information about polling in this article, he had some issues with the sources, and we discussed that. @[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] You are the only person objecting to any inclusion of information about polling in this article, I haver repeatedly asked you what your rationale is for your objection, and you have not explained. Besides you there is broad support on the talk page for at least some information about polling in the article. You are the one editing against consensus.
:::::::::::::::Not that [[WP:CON|consensus]] is not a unanimous vote. You cannot simply say "I object" and then refuse to ever explain why. Note on [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT]] it says "arguments like 'I just don't like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever" [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Steven is able to speak on his own behalf; he has already articulated his position above. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Yes, he is, and he never said he objected to the inclusion of information about polling in the article. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments. But I will say that if we include this it should only be about a line, and must point out how the polls may be biased. Personally, I am unsure what it adds, as these are snapshots that may not reflect the real situation (given the allegations of bias). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::So you're fine with including information about polling in the article then?
:::::::::::::::::You never said you objected to the inclusion of information about polling. You objected to two sources, one because you thought it was the website of a political party (which it wasn't, and that source isn't in this edit), and the other because you said it was a blog. However, the discussion demonstrated that it wasn't a self published source, and the acceptability of the source was supported by other people. Regardless, that source does not need to be used, anyway. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 22:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::(also note @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] all the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%253A2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1116113788 above comment] was not addressed to you, but to ErnestKrause, I just realised you may have read it that way) [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 06:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::And as I said "Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments.", I objected to inclusion and thus without my withdrawing it that objection should have stood. But you are correct in that once my concerns had been addressed (assuming I agreed they had been) I should have made other objections more clear, I now have. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::You never objected to inclusion either, though, you just objected to the sources. Thank you for engaging, anyway. I was not inserting the same edit that you previously objected to (which was added by someone else), by the way, it is a substantially reduced edit that also includes concerns about the reliability of the polling. So, to be clear, you do object to the inclusion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1115943937 this edit]? Is there a way that it could be adjusted that would make it acceptable to you? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Two things, one it needs to be in past tense, and more recent polls are also needed, as I said this is just a snapshot. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I'm not sure what you mean about the past tense, since it's already in the past tense? How is this:
::::::::::::::::::::::Polls conducted following the invasion in February and March found between 58% and 81% of Russians said they support the war,<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Troianovski |first=Anton |last2=Nechepurenko |first2=Ivan |last3=Safronova |first3=Valeriya |date=2022-04-01 |title=Shaken at First, Many Russians Now Rally Behind Putin’s Invasion |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/world/europe/russia-putin-support-ukraine.html |access-date=2022-09-26 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2022-03-17 |title=What do ordinary Russians really think about the war in Ukraine? |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/17/what-do-ordinary-russians-really-think-about-the-war-in-ukraine/ |access-date=2022-09-26 |website=EUROPP}}</ref> and polling conducted into September continued to indicate support from a majority of Russians.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Six Months On, Most Russians Still Back the War in Ukraine |url=https://time.com/6208238/why-russian-support-for-the-war-in-ukraine-hasnt-wavered/ |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=Time |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Burakovsky |first=Arik |title=Russia is enlisting hundreds of thousands of men to fight against Ukraine, but public support for Putin is falling |url=http://theconversation.com/russia-is-enlisting-hundreds-of-thousands-of-men-to-fight-against-ukraine-but-public-support-for-putin-is-falling-191158 |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=The Conversation |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kolesnikov |first=Denis Volkov, Andrei |last2=Kolesnikov |first2=Denis Volkov, Andrei |title=My Country, Right or Wrong: Russian Public Opinion on Ukraine |url=https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803 |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |language=en}}</ref> However, the accuracy of polls may be affected by self-censorship due to a fear of voicing dissent and new censorship laws, as well as concerns about indifference in the population and wording of polls.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Would you like to try writing a couple of sentences on Russian polling that you would accept, even if to state they are unreliable, and why? [[User:Johncdraper|Johncdraper]] ([[User talk:Johncdraper|talk]]) 14:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::If pressed on this issue, it might be useful to consider adding a small edit to the current phrase in the reactions section which states, "...public response, media responses, peace efforts,...", and adding the phrase "polling responses" piped to the Reactions article and indexed to the polling section there. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
*I agree [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1115943937&oldid=1115910444 this] does not belong to the lead. But it could be mentioned in the body of the page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] No one was trying to put that in the lede, the question is whether that should be in the body [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 03:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::OK then. Welcome include this to the body of the page somewhere. I do not see why not. That is something definitely important for this war. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
== 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 direct military intervention, 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 [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
:Please see the FAQ at the top - this has been discussed before. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 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. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::: [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ|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?]]. [[User:Kleinpecan|Kleinpecan]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5|2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5]] ([[User talk:2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5|talk]]) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::by definition "belligerent" means the military of said country is actively participating with troops/air attacks/artillery barrages et al - NATO is not a belligerent any more than the USA was in WW2 prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, despite the massive materiel supplied by the Americans to Britain and the USSR prior to Dec 7, 1941 ... [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23|talk]]) 10:53, 20 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. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046|2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::The article has a major section about support: [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement]]. It ''would'' further Russian propaganda if we listed states under “Belligerents” in the infobox that are not. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::What a ridiculous argument. Russian propaganda should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is included in a Wikipedia article. NATO is quite plainly offering enormous military support to Ukraine. Your suggestion of not including NATO in the infobox because of perceived "Russian propaganda" is a flagrant violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 08:19, 14 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ex nihil|<span style="color: red;">Ex </span>]][[User:Ex nihil|nihil ]]<small><sup><i>([[User_talk:Ex nihil|talk]])</i></sup></small> 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::One of the main sections is “[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement|Foreign involvement]],” right there in the table of contents. Very easy to find for anyone seeking it. For someone who wants the top of the article to prominently advertise NATO as “belligerent,” this would be creating a [[WP:NPOV]] problem.
::::::Incidentally, there have been well over a couple hundred conflicts since WWII, but just over a dozen declared. See [[Declaration of war#Declared wars since 1945]]. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The total in that list is 17 declarations of war, which seems notable. The key phase "conflicts since WWII..." should say something about Pearl Harbor which set a standard for 'acts of infamy' for subsequent generations. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::It says something about the [[Nuremberg trials]], which were history’s first trial, convictions, and hangings for the [[crime of aggression]]. A declaration of war is legally a confession to the crime. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)f
:::::::::The Wikipedia article for [[casus belli]] states that there are three exceptions as follows: "In the post–World War II era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except: 1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression; 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries that embark on wars of aggression." It would be nice if someone would update these other articles from time to time. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Well I stand corrected on declarations of war among quite a few states (Can always learn something new everyday!). A number of the following points given seem quite unrelated to the discussion at hand. The question still stands and will probably be asked here again and again again, Is Ukraine's material support by other countries of such an impact that it deserves to be mentioned in the infobox similar to that of other articles. As the war, and the international politics surrounding the war, is so deeply effected by this aid I would certainly think that it should be listed clearly in the infobox. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::No one is saying it is. However giving hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid, decisively turning the conflict in Ukraine's favor, should probably be mentioned in the infobox. You don't need to have boots on ground to be a supporter of a belligerent, that is the entire point of a "Supported by" section. The [[Vietnam War]] article is a perfect example of this. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Literally in the first line of the first source I provided (the official NATO website): "'''...NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence.'''" Ukraine is supported by NATO, if the previous statement plus the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid was not enough to convince you. It does not get any more straightforward than this. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The United States alone has allocated aid worth [https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/09/27/congress-to-vote-on-123-billion-ukraine-aid-package/ $65 billion], over ten times Ukraine's pre-war defense budget and on par with the entire annual military spending of Russia. This includes economic assistance, massive amounts of arms, training, supply lines just outside of Ukraine's borders, and intelligence sharing from American aircraft conducting surveillance. To not list them (among other countries) under a "supported by" line, when every other article on this wiki (e.g. [[Iran-Iraq War]]) gives that distinction to any country that so much as sent a truck full of grenades to a belligerent, is absolutely ridiculous.--[[User:Nihlus1|Nihlus1]] ([[User talk:Nihlus1|talk]]) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
*The primary question is whether this (an extensive list) should or should not go in the infobox, noting that there is a section of the article dealing with foreign aid of various types, where prose can capture the nuance of the nature of the aid that cannot be done in an infobox. There have been two RfCs on this already, closed with no consensus. Consensus is [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] but determined by strength of argument made against objective criteria ([[WP:P&G]]). Given that the RfCs are relatively recent, the question to be asked is "what in P&G has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?" The answer is, nothing. Continuing to discuss this is just a [[WP:BIKESHED]]. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
*:The infobox is one of the first things readers will see and effects the overall picture of the rest of the article (WP:BIKESHED was an interesting read but I'm not sure it applies here). If the question really simply boils down to is the article improved by including the countries that clearly support Ukraine in the infobox or not these other articles may serve as a good comparison: [[Korean War]], [[Crimean War]], [[Yom Kippur War]], [[Russian Civil War]]. Would those articles be improved by removing supporting information from their infoboxs? Of course the reader could go deeper in the articles to find more but clearly the supporting countries listed in the infoboxs are well justified. A similar feature in this article's infobox, listing supporting countries, would be a big improvement to help readers understand the situation as they begin to dive into the article. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Everything you have said has been said and responded to before. My question was: {{tq|"what in [[WP:P&G|P&G]] has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?"}} A [[WP:BIKESHED]] is a ''time sink''. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity and a time sink. How is this not a case of [[WP:DEADHORSE|flogging the same dead horse]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 09:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Ok, I'll do my best to respond your question as you've laid it out here "what in [[Wikipedia:P&G|P&G]] has changed so that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?". Nothing at least as far as I know.
*:::However I hope you will at least consider the following. First from the Bikeshed page you have mention: '''This page in a nutshell:''' Don't get hung up on trifling details. The infobox at the top of the page is not a trifling detail as it informs the reader of the basics of the situation and what to expect from the rest of the article. If you feel it is a time sink to discuss this I would encourage you to consider why this question comes up so often. Also apologies if this is taking any considerable time from you as that really is not my intention.
*:::Secondly, it's only flogging the same dead horse if there is no potential for change. Editors on this page are, I would hope, more than capable of having a reasonable discussion and coming to some consensus. Furthermore consensus can change over time and as was previously mentioned by [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] "The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old." Since that discussion Kiev has gone on two major counter offensives aided with a great deal of outside materiel support.
*:::Lastly, and I'll make this one as concise as possible, using procedure to avoid an honest discussion is a cop out. However these [[Wikipedia:P&G|P&G]] will provide the most basic argument for having further discussion about this matter: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CCC&redirect=no WP:CCC], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IGNORE&redirect=no WP:IGNORE], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:5P5&redirect=no WP:5P5].
*:::Rather then spending time trying to close discussion why not at least try to engage with it to improve the article? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I am in firm agreement with [[User:BogLogs]]. The entire purpose of a "Supported by" section is to list non-combatants who support belligerents in an armed conflict. Should the [[Vietnam War]] article have its infobox's "Support by" section wiped? It includes nations that offered only diplomatic support too, not material. And after answering the previous question, ask yourself if said article would be better for it. Your citation of [[WP:BIKESHED]] just seems like a convenient excuse to shut down discussion. The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 01:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*I agree with Cindarella157. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*+1 for Cinderella. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:You are welcome to share who, or perhaps which idea, you support but it would further the discussion more if you provided a short reason or two for that support. This actually isn't an RfC yet (though I suspect it may become one again in the future). In either case giving your point of view and reasons furthers the work of this talk page to providing the best possible article on a subject we clearly all care deeply about. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
== crimean bridge explosion ==
"In October, After the signature of the Russian-Crimean bridge under [[2022 Crimean Bridge explosion|an unprecedented attack]]." I believe there is a minor error here, could anyone fix it? [[User:Fivehundredgrams|Fivehundredgrams]] ([[User talk:Fivehundredgrams|talk]]) 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree, we do not know it was an attack. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
::Agree - Couple of things here. What does the sentence mean '..After the signature..'? Needs a rewrite I suggest. There is a heading 'Rear action in Crimea' and this material really belongs there where there is a brief summary. It's duplication. I'll do it at some point.[[User:Thelisteninghand|Thelisteninghand]] ([[User talk:Thelisteninghand|talk]]) 20:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
::Careless smoking, you think? Reliable sources report that it was an attack. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 02:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Need to follow RS on this. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Not all do [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63192757]], it being a Ukrainian attack is unconfirmed.. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I didn’t say ''Ukrainian'' attack. Your source doesn’t even consider possibilities that aren’t an attack, like an accident or something. I haven’t seen any that do.
:::::I guess it doesn’t hurt to leave it open and say “explosion” when we don’t know the cause, but it would also be irresponsible to give the impression that it might be anything other than an attack, and I don’t have a problem with implying or assuming that the only likelihood is an attack. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is even if we accept it was an attack, by who? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::And according to this [[https://news.yahoo.com/british-intel-says-crimean-bridge-130700181.html]] it might have been an accident. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I wouldn't use that report - the first line says "a fire" - many sources described the incident as an explosion, which is the only thing that would have taken out a span of the bridge. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23#top|talk]]) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== What is missing ==
Good morning. IMHO We need two separate pages regarding:
* '''Targeted killings''' listing people like Valery Kuleshov, Dmitry Savluchenko, Serhii Tomko, [[Darya Dugina]], [[Sergei Gorenko]] and many others occurred in the occupied zones or outside Ukraine (or even their attempts by partisans) I think is needed.
* '''War on cities''' with the several attacks (and/or retaliatory attacks) occurred to the civilian cities (Mariupol theater; Vuhledar; Kramatorsk; Zapo; Odessa; Kiev; Lviv… and on Russian hand/side like Donetsk; Belgorod etc.) or their infrastructures (Markets; Hospitals; Electic power plants, Railway stations, bridges [eg. [[Zatoka Bridge]] ([https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Підйомний_міст_у_Затоці]) targeted at least 8 times] etc.) and the use of ballistic missiles (Tochka-U, Iskander) or Kalibr cruise missiles (Moldovan Airspace violation and consequent official protest), use of Iranian drones (renamed Geran 2).
Thank you. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
*:We need sources saying these were proven attacks. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::*You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Which sources say she was the target of a Ukrainian hit, not "unnamed intelligence sources", a clear official statement? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::There are multiple reliable sources making this report. Russian diplomatic officials have made this claim, and Estonian diplomatic officials have gone on the record as denying it. Also, Ukraine has put forward diplomatic officials to deny the claim made by Russia. Just read the Wikipedia articles for [[Darya Dugina]] and [[Killing of Darya Dugina]]. Regarding the Crimean bridge incident, I'm not sure what your issue is? What are your reliable sources saying was the cause of the bridge incident? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly, it is a claim, not a fact. So we can't say it is a fact, only a claim, an allegation.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::[[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63192757]], it has not been confirmed what caused it. So we can't say it has been confirmed. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Well we can easily solve the issue using '''Alleged targeted killing''' and so on. Moreover '''War on cities''' is a fact, nobody else own Kalibr [[SLCM]] cruise missiles except Russia. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
We seem to be having confusing issues here. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:Then, check the correct section you both were editing/replying to each other before. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::We have two separate questions asked in the OP, then we have comments about the editing of already existing sections, and not in the creation of new articles (the OP,s question). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::There are two sections now for dealing with this. If Nicola would like to add further edits to the 'Russia' section such as the one about Rostov, then I'll try to support here: [https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Europe/Russian-Refinery-On-Fire-After-Kamikaze-Drone-Strike.html ]. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*I do not think that Dugina and her death are notable enough to be included on ''this'' very general page. She was just a barely notable propagandist. And a lot about her killing still remains unknown. And how she is relevant to this war? The text does not explain it. This is definitely undue on ''this'' page. As about other mentioned people (Valery Kuleshov, etc.), I do not see any sources. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::So, once again, no one knows for sure if assassination was targeting her father ("apparently" does not work here). Moreover, no one knows who was behind this assassination. An unnamed US official saying something was possibly a disinformation, especially because he/she did not provide any details. Overall, the connection of this material to the subject of the page is highly questionable at best; this is certainly undue on ''this'' page. Remember, this is main page about the war. Some other pages - yes, no problem, this can be included. You guys need [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for including this material. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:In addition, I do not understand your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1117231288&oldid=1117211968 here]. The Crimea sections are fine, I did not remove them. As about bombings in Russia, yes, there were quite a few of them. So what? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
== Add Syria to Russia's "Supported By" section of belligerents infobox ==
It has been well documented that Syrian mercenaries, and regular military units of the Syrian Army (The 25th Division to name one), have been deployed to and experienced combat in the Kherson region. Syria itself has been added to the infobox of the [[2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive|Kherson Counteroffensive]], so it would make sense to add it here similar to how Belarus has been added. [[User:DragonLegit04|DragonLegit04]] ([[User talk:DragonLegit04|talk]]) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:As long as there are verifiable sources to back this up this would seem to be a good addition to the infobox. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:If it can be shown that regular military units (not mercs) have been deployed, yes we can add them. But we need to see some RS saying it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The reports appear to be somewhat isolated in the press such as here: [https://www.memri.org/reports/jihad-and-terrorism-threat-monitor-jttm-weekly-september-24-october-1-2022 ]. Is the mainstream press covering this story about Syrian troops with RS? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Institute for the Study of War talks about this, including Syrian régime cooperation in recruiting. These reports include reference links to their sources.
:::* March 11:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-11] “The Kremlin announced plans to deploy foreign fighters, including up to 16,000 Syrian fighters, to Ukraine”
:::* March 13:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-13] “Ukrainian intelligence provided further details on Russia’s initiative to deploy existing pro-Assad units to Ukraine and recruit additional Syrian and Libyan mercenaries on March 13”
:::* March 14:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-14] “Russia continues to face difficulties replacing combat losses and increasingly seeks to leverage irregular forces including Russian PMCs and Syrian fighters”
:::* March 17:[https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-17] “The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories.”
:::* March 23:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-23] “Russian efforts to bring Syrian forces into Ukraine may be encountering challenges”
:::* March 31:[https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russia-mobilizes-reinforcements-syria-and-africa-ukraine] Plenty in this item.
:::** “Russia is attempting to redeploy Syrian units with experience working under Russian commanders to Ukraine to mitigate high Russian casualties”
:::** “Russia began a redeployment of Wagner units and their Syrian proxies from Africa and Syria to Ukraine in early February‚”
:::** “Russian forces are redeploying within Syria in order to recruit and mobilize additional Syrian fighters for a second wave of reinforcements [to deploy to Ukraine]”
:::** “Russia is leveraging its pre-existing relationships with multiple pro-regime units to coordinate the recruitment and select individuals from these units with combat experience”
:::** “Finally, Russia is attempting to recruit and train a wider range of pro-regime Syrian fighters”
:::* April 20:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-20] “Ukrainian forces reported the presence of small numbers of Syrian or Libyan mercenaries fighting in Popasna (eastern Ukraine), likely individual recruits fighting under the umbrella of the Wagner Group rather than larger units”
::: —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::When (and if) official Syrian units are deployed we can add Syria. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Boots on the ground in Ukraine appears to be the decisive factor here. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::These sources seem more than enough to justify the addition to the infobox as providing support. If boots on the ground, large military units, are sent they should then be listed as a belligerent. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:I am against this. If the NATO member countries that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, proving a decisive factor in the war thus far, are not mentioned the infobox neither should Syria for sending a handful of mercenaries that will prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The decisive factor is if reliable secondary sources say so.
::It doesn’t matter if it’s pennies or billions. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. (“Handful”?)
::If these are really only individuals part of Wagner PMC then they are a Russian outfit. But if the Syrian government and military are part of recruiting them, then that may be something else. If it is forming up units and handing them over to Wagner’s command, that is something else too. There’s a reason Western governments are having nothing to do with Ukraine’s foreign legion. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 23:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm I'm pretty sure officially supporting], while having a plethora of your member nations freely donate hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid both counts as "participation" (look up the definition of that word), and warrants a mention in the infobox. That's the entire point of "Supported by" section. Furthermore, noncombatants are listed in the [[Vietnam War]] infobox, and is thus warranted here. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 00:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, legally that is not participation in an international conflict. States give each other military aid all the time, and that does not create a conflict, so doing it during a conflict that is not participating in one either. Look it up.
::::''143 states support Ukraine'' by condemning the Russian invasion, and five support Russia’s crime, in the UNGA (see [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4]]). But that doesn’t belong in a list of [[belligerent]]s. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 01:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I honestly believe at this point you are a case of [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. I and many others have explained to you that they would not be listed as a belligerent, but as '''supporting''' a belligerent, [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm which they (NATO) are by their own admission]. They are giving copious amounts of military hardware to a belligerent nation in an armed conflict, for the express purpose of winning said conflict. Q.E.D., they belong in the "Supported by" section of the infobox. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 03:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Sorry if I’ve been unclear. Let me spell it out in case you can’t hear me. ''Belligerent'' has a legal meaning: participant in an international conflict (a war).
::::::Belarus may belong because – although it is not a participant in the military conflict – it is guilty of the crime of aggression by providing its territory for direct attacks against Ukraine by Russian land forces and Russian missile attacks. It literally and directly supported aggression by criminal acts defined in the UN’s definition of aggression.
::::::“Supporters” on the surface means states that support Ukraine. Going by UN resolutions that could mean 143 states that have condemned Russian aggression. Supporters in this sense are not belligerents. “Supporters” should not be presented as a subcategory of “Belligerents” if it used to mean states that support Ukraine.
::::::Providers of military training, equipment, weapons, and ammunition are not belligerents either. Military provisions are traded and donated all the time, without creating a state of international conflict or war, and so such provisioning does not make a state a belligerent in a conflict. “Supporters” in this sense are not belligerents and the label should not be presented in such a way as to imply that they are. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::The huge help Western weapons have given Ukraine against Russia is undeniable. We will have that arms supplies discussion over and over again until they're added to the infobox. {{tq|Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict.}} indeed. Adding those countries at the same level as Ukraine would be a mistake. But the proposal was to make a "Supported by" section or similar. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::If your feelings are drawing you towards looking at this issue, why do you not create an infobox for placement within the section for "Foreign military sales and aid" to list the nations providing such support. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::This is an interesting idea but it begs the question of why we wouldn't simply list the supporting countries in the original infobox again as many other wikipedia articles do without controversy. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::It seems that the sub-infobox in the "Foreign military sales and aid" section would be needed first, in order to attract any serious consideration for the possible later inclusion in the main infobox. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::This is a very bizarre argument. In what other article on wikipedia has a sub-infobox been required for data to be amended in the main info box (much less even for consideration of it as you have written)? That said if you would like to make a sub-infobox as you have proposed and post it here for discussion at the very least I suppose that might move things from a dead stand still and open the way to moving towards a future consensus. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 23:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Not completely clear how you have moved from your statement "This is an interesting idea" to your statement "very bizarre" comment. It seems like it would be easier to get your edit into that infobox information in the subsection, before you try to make arguments for getting it into the main infobox. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Your first comment was about the creation of a an infobox for the section for "foreign military sales and aid". While not the outcome I think is best for the article, I do think its an interesting idea and it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to discuss it. Your following comment that it would be required for discussion of further points is what is bizarre to me. We have already been discussing in depth changes to the infobox, why would a sub-infobox be required for infobox changes much less continued discussion?
:::::::::That said again, I don't think the original idea you came up with is a bad one by any means, if this is a serious idea on your part why not make an infobox model for the subsection to be discussed further? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Sticking to the original idea then, my concern is to indicate the difficulty factor of doing this. For any editor who wishes to do this, there will be the initial difficulty of getting it first into the 'Foreign military sales and aid" section, then there would be the even more difficult task of trying to transfer it to the main Infobox. Each of these represents added difficulties. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you for this reply, I can understand what you mean more clearly now. It wouldn't be my preferred solution but you are correct any change at this point would probably require a great deal of determination and effort by those editors. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You should absolutely add Syria, Iran, NATO, Transinistra, whatever have been cited to have given any sort of support to any of the sides, these are things that we know by living at this era and time, but in the following years people will open this page and not know which country supported the war. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/179.108.243.210|179.108.243.210]] ([[User talk:179.108.243.210#top|talk]]) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::"supported the war" and aiding a victim of the Putin regime's aggression are not the same thing
:[[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23|talk]]) 10:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:We do say it, just not in the infobox, we do expect people to read the article. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:Transnistria has no role in this conflict. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::There are a large number of Russian troops still stationed there from before the Ukraine military operation? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::That is unrelated to the russo-Ukrainian War. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
*I am not sure. If Russia just recruited a number of individuals from Syria (I thought that was the case), that would not justify inclusion. However, if these guys came as a unit of Syrian army and fought as such, that would be different. What sources say? According to ISW [https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russia-mobilizes-reinforcements-syria-and-africa-ukraine], "Russia’s attempt to generate Syrian recruits appears to focus on individual replacements for Russian fighters rather than the redeployment of existing Syrian militias as coherent units." Based on that, I would say no. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
== Iran should be added as “Supporting Russia” ==
Not only because of the various mainstream news reports of Russian usage of Iranian suicide drones, but the additional reports of Russia [https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-iran-agrees-ship-missiles-more-drones-russia-defying-west-sources-2022-10-18/ purchasing Iranian ballistic missiles] as well as the Institute for the Study of War reporting on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members present in occupied Ukraine [https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-18 training Russia on how to use the drones mentioned earlier]. The arms sales, training, and [https://www.iranintl.com/en/202202241958 diplomatic support] (“The Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations.”, Iranian Foreign Minister, largely echoing Russian messaging) justify the addition of Iran to the “supporting Russia” list in my opinion. [[User:Deepblueazure|DBA78]] ([[User talk:Deepblueazure|talk]]) 02:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:I would agree. [[User:Teammm|<font style="color:black;font-family:fantasy">'''''Teammm'''''</font>]] {{su|p= [[User talk:Teammm|<font color="green">'''''talk'''''</font>]] |b= [[Special:EmailUser/Teammm|<font color="black">'''''email'''''</font>]]}} 05:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Absolutely not. If NATO and its member countries, which have given hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid to Ukraine, is not listed as "Supporting Ukraine", then Iran definitely should not for giving Russia some missiles and drones. To do so would be an egregious double standard and violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Iran sold them weapons, they didn't "give them." Just to be correct. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23#top|talk]]) 10:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Agreed. Adding Iran would be a serious double standard.
::We should maintain a high bar for addition (provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public) for "Supported by".
::A lower bar, if applied, should be applied evenly!
::That would mean Iran, Syria and China for the invading forces, and USA, UK, Poland, France, Germany, Canada, see: https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ [[User:XVI Chancer|XVI Chancer]] ([[User talk:XVI Chancer|talk]]) 08:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::By this standard, provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public, Belarus would have to be removed. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 09:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Belarus is here because of the military access it provided to russia. But yes, Iran and several Western countries should be listed. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::From a neutral point of view, the Iranians should absolutely count as supporting the war just from the drone training alone. It counts as support when NATO had troops in Ukraine ([https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/europe/ukraine-recruits-england-russia.html and now currently have Ukrainian troops on NATO soil for training]) on training missions while showing how to use Western arms and suppling. It's a double standard for Iran not to count when they are doing the same thing: deploying troops on a training mission and supplying Russia with arms. It is not violating [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Deepblueazure|DBA78]] ([[User talk:Deepblueazure|talk]]) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Boots on the ground: “[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/us/politics/iran-drones-russia-ukraine.html Iran Sends Drone Trainers to Crimea to Aid Russian Military],” ''NYT''. And they are designated terrorist boots of the [[Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps]]. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, I totally agree: boots on the ground. According to publications, the military personnel of Iran directly guided at least some of the drones from Crimea (an occupied Ukrainian territory). Importantly, these guys remained the military personnel of Iran while performing their duties in another country, just like Soviet "advisors" in old times. If USA were to provide F-16 manned by US Army pilots, that would justify inclusion of USA to the box. However, if they just were to provide F-16 for Ukrainian pilots, then presumably "no". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::I’m not sure how “designated terrorist” is in any way relevant to this question. '''''[[User:Serafart|Serafart]]''''' ([[User_talk:Serafart|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Serafart|contributions]]) 18:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*I think that the time has come to add all those countries who are providing weapons under "support". According to the archives, {{U|LouisAragon}} proposed it back in February 2022[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox?] but the proposal clearly suffered a degree of railroading by those who had no sensible policy based reasoning to oppose the proposal. The only known allegation at this moment is that Iran supplied drones to Russia. But right now it does not deserves to be on infobox unless the aforementioned proposal has been accepted. [[User:Segaton|Segaton]] ([[User talk:Segaton|talk]]) 04:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I am in agreement. My opposition to Iran added being to "Supporting Russia" is contingent only on the on the plethora of western nations providing copious amounts of aid to Ukraine, and any other relevant party, being added as well. I suspect there will be some sort of RfC regarding this soon. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 14:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, let's stick to the subject of this thread. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am. I only support adding Iran to the "Supported by" section of the infobox if the basis by which it is is enforced consistently. I.e., if Iran is to be added, so too should all the states sending hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and military hardware to Ukraine. To say you are against the equal implementation of article criteria is essentially an admission of bad faith. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 19:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced that equipment and training for said equipment is quite the same "boots on the ground" discussed in previous requests for this type of change. It's one thing to send a drone and the guys who can teach you to control it, and another entirely to send battalions of soldiers in to fight under orders of the supporting government. [[User:King keudo|King keudo]] ([[User talk:King keudo|talk]]) 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::There was a large distinction in Vietnam between the USA first sending special forces advisors to provide advice to them, as opposed to when USA later started sending combat troops to do battle in Vietnam. Does this distinction apply to this discussion of Russia's invasion; is the support advisory or is it participation in combat? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm for using that type of distinction when it comes to personnel support. Generally advisors and training staff are labelled as non-combatants, correct? If so, these trainers for using the drones would count not as "boots on the ground". [[User:King keudo|King keudo]] ([[User talk:King keudo|talk]]) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, special forces would be boots on the ground. According to publications, these Iranians personnel were not just advisors, but actually guided the drones. And even if they did only training ''on the occupied Ukrainian territory'' (such as Crimea), they would still qualify. If they did such training in Iran, then probably "no", that would be just training. That's why NATO countries do not do training on the Ukrainian territory. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::If supplying weapons as well as military personal to conduct on the ground training and possibility also combat missions does not qualify as "supporting", I'm not sure what does. Iran should certainly be added. [[User:JLKlein12|JLKlein12]] ([[User talk:JLKlein12|talk]]) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
* If Iran is to be added due to selling weapons to Russia, then states which ''give'' weapons to Ukraine, e.g. the US, Germany, and a plethora of other states, should absolutely be added as supporting Ukraine. If they are not, then I oppose this. If they are, then I would support adding Iran to a list of supporters. '''''[[User:Serafart|Serafart]]''''' ([[User_talk:Serafart|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Serafart|contributions]]) 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:*This is not about selling weapons, but about Iranian military ''servicemen'' taking part in hostilities ''at the Ukrainian territory''. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '{{Talk header|archive_age=120<!--Discussion regarding archive period at [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 3#Archival_period]].-->|archive_units=hours|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{FAQ|page=Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=brief}}
{{Section sizes|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine}}
{{banner shell|collapsed=yes|
{{censor}}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=History|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History}}
{{ITN talk|24 February|2022|oldid=1073710622}}
{{Copied
|from1 = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war
|from_oldid1 = 1073622125
|to1 = 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|to_diff1 = 1073620027
|from2 = 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|from_oldid2 = 1075058325
|to2 = Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|diff2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1075058518&oldid=1075053089
|date2 = 3 March 2022
|from3=2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|to3=NATO and EU reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
|date3 = 8 March 2022
}}
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 invasion of Ukraine, '''Not moved''', 26 February 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1074155891#Requested_move_26_February_2022]]
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, '''Not moved''', 28 February 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1074464634#Requested_move_28_February_2022]]
* RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022), '''Not moved''', 21 July 2022, [[Special:Permalink/1099563809#Requested_move_17_July_2022]]
}}
{{British English}}
{{Press
| collapsed = yes
| subject = article
| author = Stephen Harrison
| title = How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia
| org = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]
| url = https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html
| date = {{date|1 March 2022}}
| quote = On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate =
| subject2 = article
| author2 = Jenny Nicholls
| title2 = History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors
| org2 = [[Stuff (website)]]
| url2 = https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/128021729/history-is-written-as-it-happens-by-wikipedia-editors
| date2 = 12 March 2022
| quote2 = It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks – [[2022 Wellington protests]], with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
| accessdate2 = 14 March 2022
| author3 = Ina Fried
| title3 = Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world
| org3 = [[Axios (website)]]
| url3 = https://www.axios.com/2022/07/15/wikipedia-blazes-a-trail-to-agreement-in-a-divided-world
| date3 = 15 July 2022
| quote3 = The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
| accessdate3 = 17 July 2022
}}
{{Top 25 report|Feb 20 2022|until|Jul 24 2022|Aug 28 2022|Sep 11 2022|until|Sep 25 2022}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|European=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=High|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|hist=yes|mil=y|pol=y}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject NATO|class=B|importance=Mid|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|b6=y}}
{{WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Refideas
|1=Ramsay, S. (2022, March 4). [https://archive.ph/20220305050357/https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-teams-harrowing-account-of-their-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585 Sky News team's harrowing account of their violent ambush in Ukraine this week.] Sky News. Archive.
|2=O'Leary, N. (2022, March 15). [https://archive.ph/20220309004640/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/united-nations-advises-staff-against-using-war-or-invasion-regarding-ukraine-1.4821438 United Nations advises staff against using ‘war’ or ‘invasion’ regarding Ukraine.]
|3=
|4=(2022, March 9). Россия признала нахождение солдат-срочников в Украине - BBC News Русская служба. Bbcrussian. https://www.bbcrussian.com/russian/news-60680182
|5={{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Sam |last2=Rathbone |first2=John Paul |last3=Sevastopulo |first3=Demetri |title=‘A serious failure’: scale of Russia’s military blunders becomes clear |url=https://www.ft.com/content/90421972-2f1e-4871-a4c6-0a9e9257e9b0 |access-date=12 March 2022 |work=Financial Times |date=12 March 2022}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d)
| archive = Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 10
| maxarchivesize = 800K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft = 6
}}
==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]]==
{{Archive top
|result =
|status = }}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1675104641}}
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: [[Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox?|Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?]]: closed 6 March 2022.
Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section ==
{{not a vote}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1665748884}}
Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section? ''If'' a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:This RfC has now been open for over a month. Perhaps it is time to close it and, if a consensus is believed to have been reached, be bold and act upon it in the article. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
'''Background''': This article ([[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]) included a section titled "Peace efforts" [[Special:PermanentLink/1103941141#Peace_efforts|until 11 August 2022]], when {{Diff|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|prev|1103941705|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)''?
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Option 1 (previous version, until August 11) !! Option 2 (newly suggested)
|-
|
{{Main|2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations}}
Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February,<ref>{{cite news |last=Hopkins |first=Valerie |date=28 February 2022 |title=Initial talks between Russia and Ukraine yield no resolution. |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-talks-belarus.html |access-date=16 March 2022 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314231723/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-talks-belarus.html |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> 3 March,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Reevell |first1=Patrick |last2=Hutchinson |first2=Bill |date=2 March 2022 |title=2nd round of talks between Russia and Ukraine end with no cease-fire |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054 |access-date=15 March 2022 |work=[[ABC News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314224621/https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054 |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> and 7 March 2022,<ref name="DW-2022-03-07">{{cite news |author=<!--not stated--> |title=Ukraine and Russia hold third round of talks |date=7 March 2022 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-and-russia-hold-third-round-of-talks/a-61039008 |access-date=15 March 2022 |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |agency=[[Reuters]], [[Agence France-Presse]], [[Deutsche Presse-Agentur]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314110854/https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-and-russia-hold-third-round-of-talks/a-61039008 |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> in an undisclosed location in the [[Gomel Region]] on the [[Belarus–Ukraine border]],<ref>{{cite news |last=Roshchina |first=Olena |date=28 February 2022 |script-title=uk:Переговори делегацій України та Росії почалися |trans-title=Negotiations between the delegations of Ukraine and Russia began |url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/28/7326809/ |access-date=7 March 2022 |script-work=uk:Українська правда |trans-work=[[Ukrayinska Pravda]] |language=uk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314012254/https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/28/7326809/ |archive-date=14 March 2022 |url-status=live |script-quote=uk:Деталі: Переговори відбуваються на Гомельщині на березі річки Прип'ять. Із міркувань безпеки точне місце організатори переговорів не називають. |trans-quote=Details: Negotiations are taking place in the Gomel region on the banks of the Pripyat River. For security reasons, the organisers of the talks did not name the exact location.}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Russia-Ukraine war latest: Ukraine rules out ceasefire deal that involves ceding territory; officials to seek grain export agreement – Latest Active News |url=https://lac2c.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-latest-ukraine-rules-out-ceasefire-deal-that-involves-ceding-territory-officials-to-seek-grain-export-agreement/ |access-date=14 July 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref> 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.”<ref>{{cite web |title=Peace will be on Moscow's terms, says former president |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=20 July 2022 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-putin-and-erdogan-to-meet-us-weaponry-stabilising-frontlines-ukraine-military-chief-says |access-date=20 July 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref>
||
{{Main|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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/|title=Possibility of talks between Zelenskyy and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit - UP sources|date=5 May 2022|author=ROMAN ROMANIUK|publisher=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent|title=The World Putin Wants|date=September–October 2022|author=Fiona Hill and Angela Stent|publisher=[[Foreign Affairs]]}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine|title=Playing With Fire in Ukraine|author=John J. Mearsheimer|date=August 17, 2022|publisher=[[Foreign Affairs]]}}</ref>
|}
Please voice your opinion below. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
===Survey===
*'''No to question A''' not a section. See the reasons in the threads above. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::<small>{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Slatersteven|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Oppose option 2''' as a violation of NPOV. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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.: {{tq|Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.}}
:My secondary point is that while [[Russo-Ukrainian War|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 [[2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations|main article]], and so would violate the [[WP:SS|summary]] that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in [[WP:AGF|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::''Addendum'': The last sentence of Option 1 should be struck, as per {{u|Mx. Granger}}, since with it it reads slightly biased as well. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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 [[WP:attribution|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 12:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] and also Boris Johson is not (and never was) president. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. "{{tq|Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right}}" {{ndash}} 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; {{u|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). –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPickleII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::To add, option 2 only gives the Russian side, so violates NPOV. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Super ninja2|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, [[WP:RSN|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. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk: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''' [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 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 [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/turkey-says-russia-ukraine-close-to-agreement] was reported as refuted by insiders [https://www.ft.com/content/c9381570-5e3c-4e89-a5a0-7a98bbd880f6]. 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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 {{template link|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 [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
*Question A: <s>'''no opinion'''. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.</s>
: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.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::'''Changed vote on Question A''' Per {{u|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.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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 [[WP:NPOV|editorial bias]]. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:{{re|Cinderella157}} what's your view on including a brief negotiations section generally (Question A)? [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 10:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*::Was I not sufficiently clear in saying "No both"? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::ok how about you calm down? [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 11:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{re|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 {{tq|"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 {{tq|"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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Jr8825}} I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, {{u|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]]): {{tq|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: {{tq|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 <nowiki>{{Main|name of child article}}</nowiki>.}} ''(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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Err... no offense @{{u|ErnestKrause}}, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? {{tq|Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation}} {{ndash}} 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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations&oldid=1075847279 here] on 8 March 22. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1075846993&oldid=1075846553 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. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk: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 [[2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_sanctions_and_ramifications|section]]) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sanctions-wont-be-lifted-until-russia-signs-peace-deal-with-ukraine-germanys-2022-05-02/], so it is not a minor detail. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|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. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 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]] -- [[User:Rauisuchian|Rauisuchian]] ([[User talk: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 ''"[[2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations|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. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 [[Google ngrams|ngrams]] test, but [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Ukraine%20nuclear%20plant,Ukraine%20refugees,Ukraine%20food,Ukraine%20peace,Ukraine%20negotiations a Google trends comparison] of different aspects of the Ukraine war does show strong demand among internet searchers for information on peace prospects. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]], can you please answer the previous two objections? Thanks.[[User:Jirka.h23|Jirka.h23]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Jirka.h23|Jirka.h23]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for '''Question A''': I find correct to cover the attempts to find a diplomatic solutions and it is correct to insert a brief summary in this article. Regarding Question B, I prefer '''Option 1 ''': I prefer to stick to facts and leave out comments and conjectures [[User:P1221|P1221]] ([[User talk:P1221|talk]]) 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for '''Question A''': I'm not in favour of either version as the summary does not cover any of the reasons and the changing events that stalled the talks. There were statements by both sides as I remember. [[User:Thelisteninghand|Thelisteninghand]] ([[User talk:Thelisteninghand|talk]]) 21:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*:'''Support for question A''' with '''weak support for Option 1''' though I imagine more information would be added to it in the future. In general I think it's a good idea to have at least a small section in war articles discussing meaningful peace attempts. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support for question A''', support for '''trimmed Option 2'''. Not sure that Mearscheimer's opinion is notable enough to be included here. I don't see policy-based arguments against mentioning the possibility of reaching the agreement in Istanbul and mentioning Johnson's role. It's not cherrypicking - there were only two major negotiation efforts and we should definitely report on the possible outcome of one of them. Likewise, the UK is one of the major allies of Ukraine and plenty of reliable sources discussed Boris Johnson's visit and its impact [https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?], [https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/07/liz-truss-doesnt-care-about-stopping-the-war-in-ukraine/? Boris Johnson halted a peace deal. Now, his successor is doubling down on his approach.], [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-62998067 Boris Johnson warns against a Ukraine-Russia peace deal], [https://www.salon.com/2022/09/07/in-ukraine-rages-on-with-no-end-in-sight--peace-talks-are-essential/ The U.S. and Britain sabotaged peace talks in favor of grinding, endless war. Ukraine's people are paying the price], [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/negotiating-with-putin-like-dealing-with-crocodile-uk-pm-johnson-says-2022-04-20/ UK PM Johnson says Ukraine peace talks are doomed because of "crocodile" Putin]. Of course there are differing views on this (e.g., [https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/17/no-the-west-didnt-halt-ukraines-peace-talks-with-russia/ No, the West Didn’t Halt Ukraine’s Peace Talks With Russia] but that only proves the importance of this). [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 06:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''No to question A, Support B, version 1''' - per arguments by others above. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion===
* I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that {{u|Slatersteven}} raises above, namely: (1) {{tq|"this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war"}}, (2) {{tq|"they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion"}} and (3) {{tq|"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 [[WP:10YT|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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
::I have said all I wish to say above, and have no more to add. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
<!-- References used —''Please type above this''— -->
{{Reflist-talk}}
== Polls ==
@[[User:ErnestKrause|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:I doubt your first source is an RS. Your second source is a Blog. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:blog|self published source.]] [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes it does, as its a blog, blogs are blogs. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::[[WP:NEWSBLOG]] are acceptable sources. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Its not a "news organization". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, agreed [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::Radio liberty is not used as a source. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::+1 support. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::What do you support? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Support for Slatersteven on this. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{u|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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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)]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::So which countries version is this? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::svoboda.org is the russian version of it [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Is it, this seems to be the link Radio Liberty gives https://www.rferl.org/Russia. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 09:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::(For anyone observing this discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1109960070 this] is the edit being currently discussed) [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:::{{u|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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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/enwiki/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. [[User:Johncdraper|Johncdraper]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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]] [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::I have made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1112365343 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. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::It can be a subsection of the reactions section. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That seems reasonable [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::It's in a good shape. I agree on this version. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{u|Super ninja2}} was it necessary to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1113219696 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. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::As discussed here I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1114957678 added] the information about the polling back in, for people to expand or otherwise make adjustments to. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 04:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no consensus on this question at present. Make consensus on Talk page. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|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 [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] Do you still object to the inclusion of any information about polling in this article, and if you do, what is your rationale? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::@[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] You might also want to read [[Wikipedia: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"]] [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wikipedia policy for Support and Oppose comments is that they stand for the duration of the discussion taking place. It is not a matter of the 'most recent comments' approach which you appear to be wanting to apply. You need to follow [[WP:Consensus]] and reach consensus on the Talk page. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would suggest reading through the page you just linked because your understanding of consensus is wrong. Reaching consensus is a natural process where people continually move the discussion forward and attempt improvements and changes which address or make a compromise with other people's concerns, based on policy. It does not mean absolutely everyone that was ever involved in the discussion needs to explicitly agree to a particular edit before that edit is even made. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] did not object to the inclusion of information about polling in this article, he had some issues with the sources, and we discussed that. @[[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] You are the only person objecting to any inclusion of information about polling in this article, I haver repeatedly asked you what your rationale is for your objection, and you have not explained. Besides you there is broad support on the talk page for at least some information about polling in the article. You are the one editing against consensus.
:::::::::::::::Not that [[WP:CON|consensus]] is not a unanimous vote. You cannot simply say "I object" and then refuse to ever explain why. Note on [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT]] it says "arguments like 'I just don't like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever" [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Steven is able to speak on his own behalf; he has already articulated his position above. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Yes, he is, and he never said he objected to the inclusion of information about polling in the article. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments. But I will say that if we include this it should only be about a line, and must point out how the polls may be biased. Personally, I am unsure what it adds, as these are snapshots that may not reflect the real situation (given the allegations of bias). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::So you're fine with including information about polling in the article then?
:::::::::::::::::You never said you objected to the inclusion of information about polling. You objected to two sources, one because you thought it was the website of a political party (which it wasn't, and that source isn't in this edit), and the other because you said it was a blog. However, the discussion demonstrated that it wasn't a self published source, and the acceptability of the source was supported by other people. Regardless, that source does not need to be used, anyway. [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 22:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::(also note @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] all the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%253A2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1116113788 above comment] was not addressed to you, but to ErnestKrause, I just realised you may have read it that way) [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 06:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::And as I said "Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments.", I objected to inclusion and thus without my withdrawing it that objection should have stood. But you are correct in that once my concerns had been addressed (assuming I agreed they had been) I should have made other objections more clear, I now have. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::You never objected to inclusion either, though, you just objected to the sources. Thank you for engaging, anyway. I was not inserting the same edit that you previously objected to (which was added by someone else), by the way, it is a substantially reduced edit that also includes concerns about the reliability of the polling. So, to be clear, you do object to the inclusion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1115943937 this edit]? Is there a way that it could be adjusted that would make it acceptable to you? [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Two things, one it needs to be in past tense, and more recent polls are also needed, as I said this is just a snapshot. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I'm not sure what you mean about the past tense, since it's already in the past tense? How is this:
::::::::::::::::::::::Polls conducted following the invasion in February and March found between 58% and 81% of Russians said they support the war,<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Troianovski |first=Anton |last2=Nechepurenko |first2=Ivan |last3=Safronova |first3=Valeriya |date=2022-04-01 |title=Shaken at First, Many Russians Now Rally Behind Putin’s Invasion |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/world/europe/russia-putin-support-ukraine.html |access-date=2022-09-26 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2022-03-17 |title=What do ordinary Russians really think about the war in Ukraine? |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/17/what-do-ordinary-russians-really-think-about-the-war-in-ukraine/ |access-date=2022-09-26 |website=EUROPP}}</ref> and polling conducted into September continued to indicate support from a majority of Russians.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Six Months On, Most Russians Still Back the War in Ukraine |url=https://time.com/6208238/why-russian-support-for-the-war-in-ukraine-hasnt-wavered/ |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=Time |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Burakovsky |first=Arik |title=Russia is enlisting hundreds of thousands of men to fight against Ukraine, but public support for Putin is falling |url=http://theconversation.com/russia-is-enlisting-hundreds-of-thousands-of-men-to-fight-against-ukraine-but-public-support-for-putin-is-falling-191158 |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=The Conversation |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kolesnikov |first=Denis Volkov, Andrei |last2=Kolesnikov |first2=Denis Volkov, Andrei |title=My Country, Right or Wrong: Russian Public Opinion on Ukraine |url=https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803 |access-date=2022-10-16 |website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |language=en}}</ref> However, the accuracy of polls may be affected by self-censorship due to a fear of voicing dissent and new censorship laws, as well as concerns about indifference in the population and wording of polls.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Would you like to try writing a couple of sentences on Russian polling that you would accept, even if to state they are unreliable, and why? [[User:Johncdraper|Johncdraper]] ([[User talk:Johncdraper|talk]]) 14:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::If pressed on this issue, it might be useful to consider adding a small edit to the current phrase in the reactions section which states, "...public response, media responses, peace efforts,...", and adding the phrase "polling responses" piped to the Reactions article and indexed to the polling section there. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
*I agree [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1115943937&oldid=1115910444 this] does not belong to the lead. But it could be mentioned in the body of the page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] No one was trying to put that in the lede, the question is whether that should be in the body [[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 03:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::OK then. Welcome include this to the body of the page somewhere. I do not see why not. That is something definitely important for this war. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
== 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 direct military intervention, 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 [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
:Please see the FAQ at the top - this has been discussed before. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 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. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::: [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ|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?]]. [[User:Kleinpecan|Kleinpecan]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5|2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5]] ([[User talk:2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5|talk]]) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::by definition "belligerent" means the military of said country is actively participating with troops/air attacks/artillery barrages et al - NATO is not a belligerent any more than the USA was in WW2 prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, despite the massive materiel supplied by the Americans to Britain and the USSR prior to Dec 7, 1941 ... [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23|talk]]) 10:53, 20 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. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046|2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::The article has a major section about support: [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement]]. It ''would'' further Russian propaganda if we listed states under “Belligerents” in the infobox that are not. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::What a ridiculous argument. Russian propaganda should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is included in a Wikipedia article. NATO is quite plainly offering enormous military support to Ukraine. Your suggestion of not including NATO in the infobox because of perceived "Russian propaganda" is a flagrant violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 08:19, 14 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ex nihil|<span style="color: red;">Ex </span>]][[User:Ex nihil|nihil ]]<small><sup><i>([[User_talk:Ex nihil|talk]])</i></sup></small> 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 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. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::One of the main sections is “[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement|Foreign involvement]],” right there in the table of contents. Very easy to find for anyone seeking it. For someone who wants the top of the article to prominently advertise NATO as “belligerent,” this would be creating a [[WP:NPOV]] problem.
::::::Incidentally, there have been well over a couple hundred conflicts since WWII, but just over a dozen declared. See [[Declaration of war#Declared wars since 1945]]. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The total in that list is 17 declarations of war, which seems notable. The key phase "conflicts since WWII..." should say something about Pearl Harbor which set a standard for 'acts of infamy' for subsequent generations. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::It says something about the [[Nuremberg trials]], which were history’s first trial, convictions, and hangings for the [[crime of aggression]]. A declaration of war is legally a confession to the crime. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)f
:::::::::The Wikipedia article for [[casus belli]] states that there are three exceptions as follows: "In the post–World War II era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except: 1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression; 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries that embark on wars of aggression." It would be nice if someone would update these other articles from time to time. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Well I stand corrected on declarations of war among quite a few states (Can always learn something new everyday!). A number of the following points given seem quite unrelated to the discussion at hand. The question still stands and will probably be asked here again and again again, Is Ukraine's material support by other countries of such an impact that it deserves to be mentioned in the infobox similar to that of other articles. As the war, and the international politics surrounding the war, is so deeply effected by this aid I would certainly think that it should be listed clearly in the infobox. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::No one is saying it is. However giving hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid, decisively turning the conflict in Ukraine's favor, should probably be mentioned in the infobox. You don't need to have boots on ground to be a supporter of a belligerent, that is the entire point of a "Supported by" section. The [[Vietnam War]] article is a perfect example of this. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Literally in the first line of the first source I provided (the official NATO website): "'''...NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence.'''" Ukraine is supported by NATO, if the previous statement plus the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid was not enough to convince you. It does not get any more straightforward than this. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The United States alone has allocated aid worth [https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/09/27/congress-to-vote-on-123-billion-ukraine-aid-package/ $65 billion], over ten times Ukraine's pre-war defense budget and on par with the entire annual military spending of Russia. This includes economic assistance, massive amounts of arms, training, supply lines just outside of Ukraine's borders, and intelligence sharing from American aircraft conducting surveillance. To not list them (among other countries) under a "supported by" line, when every other article on this wiki (e.g. [[Iran-Iraq War]]) gives that distinction to any country that so much as sent a truck full of grenades to a belligerent, is absolutely ridiculous.--[[User:Nihlus1|Nihlus1]] ([[User talk:Nihlus1|talk]]) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
*The primary question is whether this (an extensive list) should or should not go in the infobox, noting that there is a section of the article dealing with foreign aid of various types, where prose can capture the nuance of the nature of the aid that cannot be done in an infobox. There have been two RfCs on this already, closed with no consensus. Consensus is [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] but determined by strength of argument made against objective criteria ([[WP:P&G]]). Given that the RfCs are relatively recent, the question to be asked is "what in P&G has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?" The answer is, nothing. Continuing to discuss this is just a [[WP:BIKESHED]]. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
*:The infobox is one of the first things readers will see and effects the overall picture of the rest of the article (WP:BIKESHED was an interesting read but I'm not sure it applies here). If the question really simply boils down to is the article improved by including the countries that clearly support Ukraine in the infobox or not these other articles may serve as a good comparison: [[Korean War]], [[Crimean War]], [[Yom Kippur War]], [[Russian Civil War]]. Would those articles be improved by removing supporting information from their infoboxs? Of course the reader could go deeper in the articles to find more but clearly the supporting countries listed in the infoboxs are well justified. A similar feature in this article's infobox, listing supporting countries, would be a big improvement to help readers understand the situation as they begin to dive into the article. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Everything you have said has been said and responded to before. My question was: {{tq|"what in [[WP:P&G|P&G]] has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?"}} A [[WP:BIKESHED]] is a ''time sink''. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity and a time sink. How is this not a case of [[WP:DEADHORSE|flogging the same dead horse]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 09:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Ok, I'll do my best to respond your question as you've laid it out here "what in [[Wikipedia:P&G|P&G]] has changed so that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?". Nothing at least as far as I know.
*:::However I hope you will at least consider the following. First from the Bikeshed page you have mention: '''This page in a nutshell:''' Don't get hung up on trifling details. The infobox at the top of the page is not a trifling detail as it informs the reader of the basics of the situation and what to expect from the rest of the article. If you feel it is a time sink to discuss this I would encourage you to consider why this question comes up so often. Also apologies if this is taking any considerable time from you as that really is not my intention.
*:::Secondly, it's only flogging the same dead horse if there is no potential for change. Editors on this page are, I would hope, more than capable of having a reasonable discussion and coming to some consensus. Furthermore consensus can change over time and as was previously mentioned by [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] "The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old." Since that discussion Kiev has gone on two major counter offensives aided with a great deal of outside materiel support.
*:::Lastly, and I'll make this one as concise as possible, using procedure to avoid an honest discussion is a cop out. However these [[Wikipedia:P&G|P&G]] will provide the most basic argument for having further discussion about this matter: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CCC&redirect=no WP:CCC], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IGNORE&redirect=no WP:IGNORE], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:5P5&redirect=no WP:5P5].
*:::Rather then spending time trying to close discussion why not at least try to engage with it to improve the article? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I am in firm agreement with [[User:BogLogs]]. The entire purpose of a "Supported by" section is to list non-combatants who support belligerents in an armed conflict. Should the [[Vietnam War]] article have its infobox's "Support by" section wiped? It includes nations that offered only diplomatic support too, not material. And after answering the previous question, ask yourself if said article would be better for it. Your citation of [[WP:BIKESHED]] just seems like a convenient excuse to shut down discussion. The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 01:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*I agree with Cindarella157. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*+1 for Cinderella. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:You are welcome to share who, or perhaps which idea, you support but it would further the discussion more if you provided a short reason or two for that support. This actually isn't an RfC yet (though I suspect it may become one again in the future). In either case giving your point of view and reasons furthers the work of this talk page to providing the best possible article on a subject we clearly all care deeply about. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
== crimean bridge explosion ==
"In October, After the signature of the Russian-Crimean bridge under [[2022 Crimean Bridge explosion|an unprecedented attack]]." I believe there is a minor error here, could anyone fix it? [[User:Fivehundredgrams|Fivehundredgrams]] ([[User talk:Fivehundredgrams|talk]]) 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree, we do not know it was an attack. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
::Agree - Couple of things here. What does the sentence mean '..After the signature..'? Needs a rewrite I suggest. There is a heading 'Rear action in Crimea' and this material really belongs there where there is a brief summary. It's duplication. I'll do it at some point.[[User:Thelisteninghand|Thelisteninghand]] ([[User talk:Thelisteninghand|talk]]) 20:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
::Careless smoking, you think? Reliable sources report that it was an attack. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 02:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Need to follow RS on this. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Not all do [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63192757]], it being a Ukrainian attack is unconfirmed.. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I didn’t say ''Ukrainian'' attack. Your source doesn’t even consider possibilities that aren’t an attack, like an accident or something. I haven’t seen any that do.
:::::I guess it doesn’t hurt to leave it open and say “explosion” when we don’t know the cause, but it would also be irresponsible to give the impression that it might be anything other than an attack, and I don’t have a problem with implying or assuming that the only likelihood is an attack. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is even if we accept it was an attack, by who? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::And according to this [[https://news.yahoo.com/british-intel-says-crimean-bridge-130700181.html]] it might have been an accident. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I wouldn't use that report - the first line says "a fire" - many sources described the incident as an explosion, which is the only thing that would have taken out a span of the bridge. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23#top|talk]]) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== What is missing ==
Good morning. IMHO We need two separate pages regarding:
* '''Targeted killings''' listing people like Valery Kuleshov, Dmitry Savluchenko, Serhii Tomko, [[Darya Dugina]], [[Sergei Gorenko]] and many others occurred in the occupied zones or outside Ukraine (or even their attempts by partisans) I think is needed.
* '''War on cities''' with the several attacks (and/or retaliatory attacks) occurred to the civilian cities (Mariupol theater; Vuhledar; Kramatorsk; Zapo; Odessa; Kiev; Lviv… and on Russian hand/side like Donetsk; Belgorod etc.) or their infrastructures (Markets; Hospitals; Electic power plants, Railway stations, bridges [eg. [[Zatoka Bridge]] ([https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Підйомний_міст_у_Затоці]) targeted at least 8 times] etc.) and the use of ballistic missiles (Tochka-U, Iskander) or Kalibr cruise missiles (Moldovan Airspace violation and consequent official protest), use of Iranian drones (renamed Geran 2).
Thank you. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
*:We need sources saying these were proven attacks. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::*You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Which sources say she was the target of a Ukrainian hit, not "unnamed intelligence sources", a clear official statement? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::There are multiple reliable sources making this report. Russian diplomatic officials have made this claim, and Estonian diplomatic officials have gone on the record as denying it. Also, Ukraine has put forward diplomatic officials to deny the claim made by Russia. Just read the Wikipedia articles for [[Darya Dugina]] and [[Killing of Darya Dugina]]. Regarding the Crimean bridge incident, I'm not sure what your issue is? What are your reliable sources saying was the cause of the bridge incident? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 13:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly, it is a claim, not a fact. So we can't say it is a fact, only a claim, an allegation.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::[[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63192757]], it has not been confirmed what caused it. So we can't say it has been confirmed. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Well we can easily solve the issue using '''Alleged targeted killing''' and so on. Moreover '''War on cities''' is a fact, nobody else own Kalibr [[SLCM]] cruise missiles except Russia. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
We seem to be having confusing issues here. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:Then, check the correct section you both were editing/replying to each other before. [[User:Nicola Romani|Nicola Romani]] ([[User talk:Nicola Romani|talk]]) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
::We have two separate questions asked in the OP, then we have comments about the editing of already existing sections, and not in the creation of new articles (the OP,s question). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
:::There are two sections now for dealing with this. If Nicola would like to add further edits to the 'Russia' section such as the one about Rostov, then I'll try to support here: [https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Europe/Russian-Refinery-On-Fire-After-Kamikaze-Drone-Strike.html ]. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*I do not think that Dugina and her death are notable enough to be included on ''this'' very general page. She was just a barely notable propagandist. And a lot about her killing still remains unknown. And how she is relevant to this war? The text does not explain it. This is definitely undue on ''this'' page. As about other mentioned people (Valery Kuleshov, etc.), I do not see any sources. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::So, once again, no one knows for sure if assassination was targeting her father ("apparently" does not work here). Moreover, no one knows who was behind this assassination. An unnamed US official saying something was possibly a disinformation, especially because he/she did not provide any details. Overall, the connection of this material to the subject of the page is highly questionable at best; this is certainly undue on ''this'' page. Remember, this is main page about the war. Some other pages - yes, no problem, this can be included. You guys need [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for including this material. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:In addition, I do not understand your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1117231288&oldid=1117211968 here]. The Crimea sections are fine, I did not remove them. As about bombings in Russia, yes, there were quite a few of them. So what? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
== Add Syria to Russia's "Supported By" section of belligerents infobox ==
It has been well documented that Syrian mercenaries, and regular military units of the Syrian Army (The 25th Division to name one), have been deployed to and experienced combat in the Kherson region. Syria itself has been added to the infobox of the [[2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive|Kherson Counteroffensive]], so it would make sense to add it here similar to how Belarus has been added. [[User:DragonLegit04|DragonLegit04]] ([[User talk:DragonLegit04|talk]]) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:As long as there are verifiable sources to back this up this would seem to be a good addition to the infobox. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:If it can be shown that regular military units (not mercs) have been deployed, yes we can add them. But we need to see some RS saying it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The reports appear to be somewhat isolated in the press such as here: [https://www.memri.org/reports/jihad-and-terrorism-threat-monitor-jttm-weekly-september-24-october-1-2022 ]. Is the mainstream press covering this story about Syrian troops with RS? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Institute for the Study of War talks about this, including Syrian régime cooperation in recruiting. These reports include reference links to their sources.
:::* March 11:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-11] “The Kremlin announced plans to deploy foreign fighters, including up to 16,000 Syrian fighters, to Ukraine”
:::* March 13:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-13] “Ukrainian intelligence provided further details on Russia’s initiative to deploy existing pro-Assad units to Ukraine and recruit additional Syrian and Libyan mercenaries on March 13”
:::* March 14:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-14] “Russia continues to face difficulties replacing combat losses and increasingly seeks to leverage irregular forces including Russian PMCs and Syrian fighters”
:::* March 17:[https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-17] “The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories.”
:::* March 23:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-23] “Russian efforts to bring Syrian forces into Ukraine may be encountering challenges”
:::* March 31:[https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russia-mobilizes-reinforcements-syria-and-africa-ukraine] Plenty in this item.
:::** “Russia is attempting to redeploy Syrian units with experience working under Russian commanders to Ukraine to mitigate high Russian casualties”
:::** “Russia began a redeployment of Wagner units and their Syrian proxies from Africa and Syria to Ukraine in early February‚”
:::** “Russian forces are redeploying within Syria in order to recruit and mobilize additional Syrian fighters for a second wave of reinforcements [to deploy to Ukraine]”
:::** “Russia is leveraging its pre-existing relationships with multiple pro-regime units to coordinate the recruitment and select individuals from these units with combat experience”
:::** “Finally, Russia is attempting to recruit and train a wider range of pro-regime Syrian fighters”
:::* April 20:[https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-20] “Ukrainian forces reported the presence of small numbers of Syrian or Libyan mercenaries fighting in Popasna (eastern Ukraine), likely individual recruits fighting under the umbrella of the Wagner Group rather than larger units”
::: —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::When (and if) official Syrian units are deployed we can add Syria. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Boots on the ground in Ukraine appears to be the decisive factor here. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::These sources seem more than enough to justify the addition to the infobox as providing support. If boots on the ground, large military units, are sent they should then be listed as a belligerent. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:I am against this. If the NATO member countries that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, proving a decisive factor in the war thus far, are not mentioned the infobox neither should Syria for sending a handful of mercenaries that will prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::The decisive factor is if reliable secondary sources say so.
::It doesn’t matter if it’s pennies or billions. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. (“Handful”?)
::If these are really only individuals part of Wagner PMC then they are a Russian outfit. But if the Syrian government and military are part of recruiting them, then that may be something else. If it is forming up units and handing them over to Wagner’s command, that is something else too. There’s a reason Western governments are having nothing to do with Ukraine’s foreign legion. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 23:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm I'm pretty sure officially supporting], while having a plethora of your member nations freely donate hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid both counts as "participation" (look up the definition of that word), and warrants a mention in the infobox. That's the entire point of "Supported by" section. Furthermore, noncombatants are listed in the [[Vietnam War]] infobox, and is thus warranted here. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 00:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, legally that is not participation in an international conflict. States give each other military aid all the time, and that does not create a conflict, so doing it during a conflict that is not participating in one either. Look it up.
::::''143 states support Ukraine'' by condemning the Russian invasion, and five support Russia’s crime, in the UNGA (see [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4]]). But that doesn’t belong in a list of [[belligerent]]s. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 01:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I honestly believe at this point you are a case of [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. I and many others have explained to you that they would not be listed as a belligerent, but as '''supporting''' a belligerent, [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm which they (NATO) are by their own admission]. They are giving copious amounts of military hardware to a belligerent nation in an armed conflict, for the express purpose of winning said conflict. Q.E.D., they belong in the "Supported by" section of the infobox. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 03:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Sorry if I’ve been unclear. Let me spell it out in case you can’t hear me. ''Belligerent'' has a legal meaning: participant in an international conflict (a war).
::::::Belarus may belong because – although it is not a participant in the military conflict – it is guilty of the crime of aggression by providing its territory for direct attacks against Ukraine by Russian land forces and Russian missile attacks. It literally and directly supported aggression by criminal acts defined in the UN’s definition of aggression.
::::::“Supporters” on the surface means states that support Ukraine. Going by UN resolutions that could mean 143 states that have condemned Russian aggression. Supporters in this sense are not belligerents. “Supporters” should not be presented as a subcategory of “Belligerents” if it used to mean states that support Ukraine.
::::::Providers of military training, equipment, weapons, and ammunition are not belligerents either. Military provisions are traded and donated all the time, without creating a state of international conflict or war, and so such provisioning does not make a state a belligerent in a conflict. “Supporters” in this sense are not belligerents and the label should not be presented in such a way as to imply that they are. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::The huge help Western weapons have given Ukraine against Russia is undeniable. We will have that arms supplies discussion over and over again until they're added to the infobox. {{tq|Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict.}} indeed. Adding those countries at the same level as Ukraine would be a mistake. But the proposal was to make a "Supported by" section or similar. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::If your feelings are drawing you towards looking at this issue, why do you not create an infobox for placement within the section for "Foreign military sales and aid" to list the nations providing such support. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::This is an interesting idea but it begs the question of why we wouldn't simply list the supporting countries in the original infobox again as many other wikipedia articles do without controversy. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::It seems that the sub-infobox in the "Foreign military sales and aid" section would be needed first, in order to attract any serious consideration for the possible later inclusion in the main infobox. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::This is a very bizarre argument. In what other article on wikipedia has a sub-infobox been required for data to be amended in the main info box (much less even for consideration of it as you have written)? That said if you would like to make a sub-infobox as you have proposed and post it here for discussion at the very least I suppose that might move things from a dead stand still and open the way to moving towards a future consensus. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 23:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Not completely clear how you have moved from your statement "This is an interesting idea" to your statement "very bizarre" comment. It seems like it would be easier to get your edit into that infobox information in the subsection, before you try to make arguments for getting it into the main infobox. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Your first comment was about the creation of a an infobox for the section for "foreign military sales and aid". While not the outcome I think is best for the article, I do think its an interesting idea and it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to discuss it. Your following comment that it would be required for discussion of further points is what is bizarre to me. We have already been discussing in depth changes to the infobox, why would a sub-infobox be required for infobox changes much less continued discussion?
:::::::::That said again, I don't think the original idea you came up with is a bad one by any means, if this is a serious idea on your part why not make an infobox model for the subsection to be discussed further? [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Sticking to the original idea then, my concern is to indicate the difficulty factor of doing this. For any editor who wishes to do this, there will be the initial difficulty of getting it first into the 'Foreign military sales and aid" section, then there would be the even more difficult task of trying to transfer it to the main Infobox. Each of these represents added difficulties. [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you for this reply, I can understand what you mean more clearly now. It wouldn't be my preferred solution but you are correct any change at this point would probably require a great deal of determination and effort by those editors. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You should absolutely add Syria, Iran, NATO, Transinistra, whatever have been cited to have given any sort of support to any of the sides, these are things that we know by living at this era and time, but in the following years people will open this page and not know which country supported the war. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/179.108.243.210|179.108.243.210]] ([[User talk:179.108.243.210#top|talk]]) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::"supported the war" and aiding a victim of the Putin regime's aggression are not the same thing
:[[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23|talk]]) 10:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:We do say it, just not in the infobox, we do expect people to read the article. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:Transnistria has no role in this conflict. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::There are a large number of Russian troops still stationed there from before the Ukraine military operation? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::That is unrelated to the russo-Ukrainian War. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
*I am not sure. If Russia just recruited a number of individuals from Syria (I thought that was the case), that would not justify inclusion. However, if these guys came as a unit of Syrian army and fought as such, that would be different. What sources say? According to ISW [https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russia-mobilizes-reinforcements-syria-and-africa-ukraine], "Russia’s attempt to generate Syrian recruits appears to focus on individual replacements for Russian fighters rather than the redeployment of existing Syrian militias as coherent units." Based on that, I would say no. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
== Iran should be added as “Supporting Russia” ==
Not only because of the various mainstream news reports of Russian usage of Iranian suicide drones, but the additional reports of Russia [https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-iran-agrees-ship-missiles-more-drones-russia-defying-west-sources-2022-10-18/ purchasing Iranian ballistic missiles] as well as the Institute for the Study of War reporting on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members present in occupied Ukraine [https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-18 training Russia on how to use the drones mentioned earlier]. The arms sales, training, and [https://www.iranintl.com/en/202202241958 diplomatic support] (“The Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations.”, Iranian Foreign Minister, largely echoing Russian messaging) justify the addition of Iran to the “supporting Russia” list in my opinion. [[User:Deepblueazure|DBA78]] ([[User talk:Deepblueazure|talk]]) 02:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:I would agree. [[User:Teammm|<font style="color:black;font-family:fantasy">'''''Teammm'''''</font>]] {{su|p= [[User talk:Teammm|<font color="green">'''''talk'''''</font>]] |b= [[Special:EmailUser/Teammm|<font color="black">'''''email'''''</font>]]}} 05:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Absolutely not. If NATO and its member countries, which have given hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid to Ukraine, is not listed as "Supporting Ukraine", then Iran definitely should not for giving Russia some missiles and drones. To do so would be an egregious double standard and violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Iran sold them weapons, they didn't "give them." Just to be correct. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.48.23|50.111.48.23]] ([[User talk:50.111.48.23#top|talk]]) 10:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Agreed. Adding Iran would be a serious double standard.
::We should maintain a high bar for addition (provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public) for "Supported by".
::A lower bar, if applied, should be applied evenly!
::That would mean Iran, Syria and China for the invading forces, and USA, UK, Poland, France, Germany, Canada, see: https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ [[User:XVI Chancer|XVI Chancer]] ([[User talk:XVI Chancer|talk]]) 08:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::By this standard, provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public, Belarus would have to be removed. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 09:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Belarus is here because of the military access it provided to russia. But yes, Iran and several Western countries should be listed. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::From a neutral point of view, the Iranians should absolutely count as supporting the war just from the drone training alone. It counts as support when NATO had troops in Ukraine ([https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/europe/ukraine-recruits-england-russia.html and now currently have Ukrainian troops on NATO soil for training]) on training missions while showing how to use Western arms and suppling. It's a double standard for Iran not to count when they are doing the same thing: deploying troops on a training mission and supplying Russia with arms. It is not violating [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Deepblueazure|DBA78]] ([[User talk:Deepblueazure|talk]]) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Boots on the ground: “[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/us/politics/iran-drones-russia-ukraine.html Iran Sends Drone Trainers to Crimea to Aid Russian Military],” ''NYT''. And they are designated terrorist boots of the [[Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps]]. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, I totally agree: boots on the ground. According to publications, the military personnel of Iran directly guided at least some of the drones from Crimea (an occupied Ukrainian territory). Importantly, these guys remained the military personnel of Iran while performing their duties in another country, just like Soviet "advisors" in old times. If USA were to provide F-16 manned by US Army pilots, that would justify inclusion of USA to the box. However, if they just were to provide F-16 for Ukrainian pilots, then presumably "no". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::I’m not sure how “designated terrorist” is in any way relevant to this question. '''''[[User:Serafart|Serafart]]''''' ([[User_talk:Serafart|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Serafart|contributions]]) 18:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*I think that the time has come to add all those countries who are providing weapons under "support". According to the archives, {{U|LouisAragon}} proposed it back in February 2022[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox?] but the proposal clearly suffered a degree of railroading by those who had no sensible policy based reasoning to oppose the proposal. The only known allegation at this moment is that Iran supplied drones to Russia. But right now it does not deserves to be on infobox unless the aforementioned proposal has been accepted. [[User:Segaton|Segaton]] ([[User talk:Segaton|talk]]) 04:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I am in agreement. My opposition to Iran added being to "Supporting Russia" is contingent only on the on the plethora of western nations providing copious amounts of aid to Ukraine, and any other relevant party, being added as well. I suspect there will be some sort of RfC regarding this soon. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 14:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, let's stick to the subject of this thread. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am. I only support adding Iran to the "Supported by" section of the infobox if the basis by which it is is enforced consistently. I.e., if Iran is to be added, so too should all the states sending hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and military hardware to Ukraine. To say you are against the equal implementation of article criteria is essentially an admission of bad faith. [[User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|BUZZLIGHTYEAR99]] ([[User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99|talk]]) 19:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced that equipment and training for said equipment is quite the same "boots on the ground" discussed in previous requests for this type of change. It's one thing to send a drone and the guys who can teach you to control it, and another entirely to send battalions of soldiers in to fight under orders of the supporting government. [[User:King keudo|King keudo]] ([[User talk:King keudo|talk]]) 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::There was a large distinction in Vietnam between the USA first sending special forces advisors to provide advice to them, as opposed to when USA later started sending combat troops to do battle in Vietnam. Does this distinction apply to this discussion of Russia's invasion; is the support advisory or is it participation in combat? [[User:ErnestKrause|ErnestKrause]] ([[User talk:ErnestKrause|talk]]) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm for using that type of distinction when it comes to personnel support. Generally advisors and training staff are labelled as non-combatants, correct? If so, these trainers for using the drones would count not as "boots on the ground". [[User:King keudo|King keudo]] ([[User talk:King keudo|talk]]) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, special forces would be boots on the ground. According to publications, these Iranians personnel were not just advisors, but actually guided the drones. And even if they did only training ''on the occupied Ukrainian territory'' (such as Crimea), they would still qualify. If they did such training in Iran, then probably "no", that would be just training. That's why NATO countries do not do training on the Ukrainian territory. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::If supplying weapons as well as military personal to conduct on the ground training and possibility also combat missions does not qualify as "supporting", I'm not sure what does. Iran should certainly be added. [[User:JLKlein12|JLKlein12]] ([[User talk:JLKlein12|talk]]) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
* If Iran is to be added due to selling weapons to Russia, then states which ''give'' weapons to Ukraine, e.g. the US, Germany, and a plethora of other states, should absolutely be added as supporting Ukraine. If they are not, then I oppose this. If they are, then I would support adding Iran to a list of supporters. '''''[[User:Serafart|Serafart]]''''' ([[User_talk:Serafart|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Serafart|contributions]]) 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:*This is not about selling weapons, but about Iranian military ''servicemen'' taking part in hostilities ''at the Ukrainian territory''. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:I would agree adding them as "supporting Russia", especially considering the revelations of [https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-8b085070758120c31d421f68a65e4b14?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_05 Iranian troops being stationed in Crimea to support the attacks on Ukraine with their drones]. ~~~~' |
