Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
Q1: Questions about article title issues and changes?
A1: There have been many requests to change the title of this article. The last one resulted in a consensus to change the title to "Russian invasion of Ukraine": this link. Q2: Why is Ukraine not a part of the NATO military alliance?
A2: In 2008 Ukraine applied for membership to the NATO military alliance and was rejected from the alliance, at the same time as Georgia was rejected from the NATO military alliance. As of 2023 with Finland being added to the NATO military alliance, Ukraine is still not a member of the NATO military alliance. Q3: Why does the article show explicit images?
A3: Wikipedia is not censored, and articles may include content that some readers may find objectionable if it is relevant and adds value to the article. See the Content Disclaimer for further information. Q4: Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine? Why isn't NATO in the infobox?
A4: A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments. Q5: Can you update the losses claimed by Russia/Ukraine?
A5: This generally happens quickly after they are published. Please don't make an edit request. Q6: Why is the map in the infobox outdated/wrong?
A6: The map is only as accurate as publicly available reliable sources. Please remember that due to the operational secrecy and the disinformation efforts by all sides, as well as the fog of war, the map may not be able to meet any particular standard for completeness or accuracy until well after the conflict is over. If you believe you can offer constructive feedback which would improve the map, supported by reliable sources, please leave a comment at File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. There is no use in leaving it here. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
General sanctions are in place for this article. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not open or post to a requested move oder request for comment on this page. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The heading above is a link to the RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.
See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:
Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Merge sections "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front"?
There doesn't seem to be much reason for treating initial attacks at Chernihiv and Sumy as a separate front, as the Russian forces which did achieved breakthrough there, then proceeded to advance towards Kyiv from eastern side. So I would suggest merging "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front" sections into single "Northern front" section.--Staberinde (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The origination points for the two fronts were very different; Kyiv was attacked out of Belarus, while the 'North-eastern' front originated on the eastern Ukraine border with Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not really, Chernihiv was attacked from Belarus too.--Staberinde (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure how you are reading this geography for Oblasts which are adjacent in Ukraine. Are you talking about the main spearheads of the invasion (there were 4 of them according to the international press at the time of the initial invasion), or are you talking about the order of battle for the individual spearheads of the invasion? Do you have any reliable sources for your comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Chernihiv was attacked from Gomel, Belarus, not sure what's the confusion here about. Anyway, the question is, should western and eastern axis of Russian Kyiv offensive be actually treated in separate sections or not. It is a fairly basic editorial question. I don't see much point in separate two paragraph "North-eastern front" section. Size wise it fits fine in "Kyiv and northern front" section, and also fits logically as that section already includes general introduction:
Russian efforts to capture Kyiv included a probative spearhead on 24 February, from Belarus south along the west bank of the Dnipro River, apparently to encircle the city from the west, supported by two separate axes of attack from Russia along the east bank of the Dnipro: the western at Chernihiv, and the eastern at Sumy. These were likely intended to encircle Kyiv from the north-east and east.
--Staberinde (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Chernihiv was attacked from Gomel, Belarus, not sure what's the confusion here about. Anyway, the question is, should western and eastern axis of Russian Kyiv offensive be actually treated in separate sections or not. It is a fairly basic editorial question. I don't see much point in separate two paragraph "North-eastern front" section. Size wise it fits fine in "Kyiv and northern front" section, and also fits logically as that section already includes general introduction:
- Not sure how you are reading this geography for Oblasts which are adjacent in Ukraine. Are you talking about the main spearheads of the invasion (there were 4 of them according to the international press at the time of the initial invasion), or are you talking about the order of battle for the individual spearheads of the invasion? Do you have any reliable sources for your comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not really, Chernihiv was attacked from Belarus too.--Staberinde (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a good idea. I popped on the talk page in order to start a thread about summary style actually.
- Really, I don’t see any reason to treat them separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are both apparently opposed to the various diagrams and maps which support these 2 prongs of the invasion, along with the prose concerning the separate order of battle for each of these fronts. Are you both stating that you wish to delete and eradicate all of the reliable sources currently in the article which state that there were two fronts in the initial invasion in the north and the north-east, and that you wish to eradicate all the maps and figures which support both of those spearheads? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding NATO support for Ukraine
I propose to add NATO support for Ukraine. DitorWiki (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- See FAQ. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- As the FAQ notes, there was previously no consensus, and the lack of consensus may change over time.
- I would support adding United States at a minimum.
- A citation that I have post-dating the prior non-consensus is an academic text from Routledge, China and Eurasian Powers in a Multipolar World 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy, and Cyberspace (March 31, 2023) which states, "[T]he United States and the West have supported Kyiev by offering military equipment, accommodating its financial needs, providing intelligence, and imposing sanctions against Russia." p. 29.
- The closer of that discussion noted, "Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)"
- Indeed, it is now more than a couple months, and the academic sourcing referring to US "support" in explicit terms has begun to percolate. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do we normally list where belligerents get there supplies? Moxy- 03:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not a germane question as you’ve phrased it. You’ve only noted one form of support mentioned by this RS, when there is also financial support, support in the form of sanctions, and the support via the provision of intelligence. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do we normally list financial support , intelligence sharing or sanctions in an infobox anywhere? Moxy- 03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, see for example Yemeni civil war (2014–present). JArthur1984 (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do we normally list financial support , intelligence sharing or sanctions in an infobox anywhere? Moxy- 03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not a germane question as you’ve phrased it. You’ve only noted one form of support mentioned by this RS, when there is also financial support, support in the form of sanctions, and the support via the provision of intelligence. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- You win: the USA supports Ukraine. But that’s the wrong argument because supporters still don’t belong under “Belligerents” for all
- of the same reasons articulated before. —Michael Z. 04:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- My support is not for listing US as a belligerent, but to list Ukraine as Supported by USA. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- What, you’re saying you want to add Ukraine to the infobox? The proponents of this change need to be more specific about the text changes they want if they’re not obvious. —Michael Z. 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- No. Ukraine is already in the Infobox. My view is that the infobox should include "Supported by: United States" JArthur1984 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- What, you’re saying you want to add Ukraine to the infobox? The proponents of this change need to be more specific about the text changes they want if they’re not obvious. —Michael Z. 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- My support is not for listing US as a belligerent, but to list Ukraine as Supported by USA. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which academic sourcing? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Scottish asked for a re-evaluation, and the situation of USA supporting Ukraine with blood and treasure remains the same at this time as it did in February of 2022 last year when the invasion began. Although Biden said that he will defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression with blood and treasure, Biden has significantly insisted that he will only provide treasure and supplies to Ukraine and 'no boots on the ground' to Ukraine. That's a significant contrast for Biden to make and its direct implications should be followed in the Infobox here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do we normally list where belligerents get there supplies? Moxy- 03:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Are we talking about NATO, or the USA,? Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- USA is a signatory of NATO. Same for NATO; the only appreciable change on this since last year is Finland, because if Finland is now attacked or invaded by Russia then NATO (and the USA) are open to send boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend Finland as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That is not an answer, A number of nations are part of NATO and have not sent arms, a number of nations have sent arms who are not part of NATO. So I ask again, are we discussing NATO or the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is a direct answer. NATO is a military alliance which includes the USA. Under the terms of this military alliance, the signatories decide which signatory nations will do what in response to any military challenges to that military alliance. This is foreign policy 101 in case you have not studied it in your readings on this topic. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, then it cannot invoke the conditions and responses of a military alliance which are specified by NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then we can't add it, as that implies nations who are not sending aid are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is a direct answer. NATO is a military alliance which includes the USA. Under the terms of this military alliance, the signatories decide which signatory nations will do what in response to any military challenges to that military alliance. This is foreign policy 101 in case you have not studied it in your readings on this topic. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, then it cannot invoke the conditions and responses of a military alliance which are specified by NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That is not an answer, A number of nations are part of NATO and have not sent arms, a number of nations have sent arms who are not part of NATO. So I ask again, are we discussing NATO or the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- OP suggested NATO with no analysis. My comment citing an RS was that I would support at least Supported by: United States. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- We do not discuss multiple ideas at once, it confuses matters. Discussion needs to be focused. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- USA is a signatory of NATO. Same for NATO; the only appreciable change on this since last year is Finland, because if Finland is now attacked or invaded by Russia then NATO (and the USA) are open to send boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend Finland as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is now digressing into WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I applaud everyone very much for finally coming to compromise and listing NATO as supporting Ukraine 😊. No need to ever obfuscate the truth ✌️2603:9001:2B09:9A93:342D:6555:F6AC:F09B (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ahh, those cheeky bastards seem to have taken that off. Shame on the editors, the moderators, whoever is responsible. 2603:9001:7500:3242:B4A3:53F8:5A73:F317 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are not acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, see wp:consensus. It should not have been added, as there is no consensus to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Supported by vs Supplied by
It is my opinion that the article should state that Ukraine is supported by, rather than merely “supplied by” the USA, U.K., and others.
The first reason for this is that the level of support provided to Ukraine demonstratively extends well beyond supplying of weaponry. It also includes sharing of intelligence including satellite data revealing positions of the Russian military, which has allowed Ukraine to hit targets with precision it would otherwise not be capable of. See https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-usa-intelligence-idUSL2N2V62MD https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/05/politics/us-intelligence-russian-moskva-warship-ukraine-target/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/ukraine-zelensky-biden-congress-washington-trip-russia/card/u-s-has-eased-intelligence-sharing-rules-to-help-ukraine-target-russians-6pgEkPNCQRX8z4KBu4V4
The US and U.K. have also provided training to Ukrainian troops. See, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/16/1149372572/expanded-us-training-for-ukraine-forces-begins-in-germany https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-training-ukrainians-fight-western-way-with-less-ammunition-minister-2023-02-15/
It has also been reported that the US has helped Ukraine plan counter-offensives https://www.businessinsider.com/us-helped-ukraine-plan-counteroffensive-against-russia-cnn-2022-9?amp https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/ukraine-war-plan-russia.html
Finally, imposition of sanctions against Russia is a form of support for Ukraine.
So not only have western countries provided support for Ukraine in ways exceeding material supply of aid - I would also question why supplies of massive military aid, including state of the art tanks, artillery and air defense systems etc does not constitute “support”. If arming a party to a conflict does not constitute support I frankly cannot imagine what support could be, minus active participation. I question also whether this distinction exists in other Wikipedia articles on conflicts or if it has been invented specifically for this article - in which case it would be disingenuous and indicative of bias.
To summarise, I ask why provision of training, intelligence, military aid, and strategic advice does not constitute “support” in the eyes of the editors of this article. Osraige (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- see talk page section above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I have looked at the talk page, what I cannot find is any explanation for why America does not meet the criteria for supporting Ukraine. I am hoping someone could clarify this Osraige (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Read the FAQ, it has a link to the discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Such matters are covered at Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has been split from this article. The answer remains the same (see FAQ) since the linked discussions relate to "supported by" and not "supplied by". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I have looked at the talk page, what I cannot find is any explanation for why America does not meet the criteria for supporting Ukraine. I am hoping someone could clarify this Osraige (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Russian spelling
Sources overwhelmingly spell the Russian name Artemovsk,[1] by a majority of 75% or more.[2] The article text should reflect that. Any objections? —Michael Z. 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- If its in Ukraine we use the Ukrainian spelling. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- We name the Russian name several times, but with the quirky spelling Artyomovsk. —Michael Z. 14:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- We do, I can't find it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Eep, I somehow posted this at the wrong article. Please ignore. —Michael Z. 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Or see Talk:Bakhmut#Russian spelling. —Michael Z. 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- We do, I can't find it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- We name the Russian name several times, but with the quirky spelling Artyomovsk. —Michael Z. 14:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Spelling error
Will a person with editing rights please change “slaugher-fest” to “slaughter-fest”? Thanks! Thomas B. Higgins Thomasbhiggins (talk 15:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why are we using tabloid level language such as 'slaughter-fest' in this article at all? This is poor tone in the best of circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- See:
By 29 March, in spite of modest progress by Wagner troops in reaching the center of Bakhmut, US officials were speaking of the "progress" as minimal and that Russians were facing a "slaughter-fest" of twenty to thirty thousand casualties during the last 20 days in the battle for Bakhmut.
citing this. General Milley does actually say "slaughter fest" (see here at about 50 seconds). Even as a direct quote, I would agree about tone. Why is progress in quotes?US officials were speaking
? It was only Milley doing the speaking. This isn't how attribution works. I think somebody thinks that if you use the plural, it sounds more authoritative if more than one person has said it? I am thinking we should nuke the sentence and start over. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)- It's a quotation. The word was in fact used. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth.
- While we are parsing language, the attack on civilians should be characterized as "Democide". I added: The Russian attacks on civilians, causing mass civilian casualties and displacement, have been characterized as "genocide" and "democide"[1] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- See:
- Why are we using tabloid level language such as 'slaughter-fest' in this article at all? This is poor tone in the best of circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Etkind, Alexander (2022). "Ukraine, Russia, and Genocide of Minor Differences". Journal of Genocide Research. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2082911.
Rename
The Russian invasion of Ukraine began in the winter of 2014, in the same article there is an exclusively large-scale invasion of Ukraine that began in the winter of 2022. Therefore, my proposal to rename the article to:
- "Large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 – )"--Yasnodark (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please see the various RMs in the past, including the most recent one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Building bridges between the two main sibling articles
It has occurred to me that it might be worth some effort on the part of editors to increase the relation between the two main sibling pages for the Ukrainian war and the Russian invasion articles. One possible path might be to add sections to each article about the relevance of the Russian plans since 2014 to build a 'land-bridge' to Crimea, after Russia had occupied Crimea in 2014. There are significant numbers of RS for Russia's early plans to want to do this since 2014, and it appears that the current Russian invasion has accomplished some measure of those goals to establish a land bridge to Crimea. Support/oppose comments from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
US/UK special forces in Ukraine
I will preface this by saying that I have read the RfC about support for Ukraine, although I do disagree with it. Please do not refer me to it. However, with the recent leaks from the Pentagon, several reliable sources have stated that American and British special forces are present in Ukraine. I think that this is an extraordinary circumstance that would allow this to be changed, and to put the US and UK in the infobox. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Based on previous such discussions, if it turned out half the British army was deployed in Ukraine there'd still be no consensus on adding anything more than "Supplied by: UK".
- For whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page or that for the wider Russia-Ukraine conflict. It's unlikely that anything short of an outright declaration of war by a party involved is going to shift that, I'm afraid. TheGlaswegian (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Technically Russia had not made a formal declaration of war, so Russia should be removed from the Infobox. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lesen wp:agf a,nd wep:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anyone opposed to such a change is acting in bad faith; far from it, many are rightfully concerned about the integrity of a highly disputed page about a major current event. However, what I mean to point out is that the endlessly repeating debates on this matter will continue to be totally paralysed by lack of consensus until something of extreme, unavoidable significance occurs. Until then, it's barely worth the effort of bringing up new evidence every time it crops up. TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This I believe is a fundamental piece of information that should modify the wikibox. Mehrashehra (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The first source states
The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing.
The second source states:It is unclear what activities the special forces may have been engaged in or whether the numbers of personnel have been maintained at this level.
While I doubt they are/were there for a holiday (though some chicken stranglers and snake eaters might consider a trip to Ukraine a holiday) the two reports tell us nothing of substance. One could reasonably speculate that they might be there for close protection since this is one role of the SASR particularly. What makes these reports particularly extrodinary? But, but, but ... they were top-secret reports, I didn't hear somebody say. Well dip me in green paint and call me a soldier, isn't that what secret squirrel military types do - keep secrets, particularly if they were/are protecting a high profile person (or is that Animal House). There are sections in the articles (and sub-articles) for foreign involvement (see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement). So, while the secion may not be called "supported by" (not a particularly good heading for an article section) that is quite clearly what it is about. To that extent, it is factually incorrect to stateFor whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page ...
- or is it just that we don't want to call the section "supported by". There are more important issues with this article than whether or not to titivate the infobox with bunting from the flags of all nations. If Zelenskyy bought a corset, I swear somebody would want to add this flag too. (on spec that it might have whale bone stiffening. One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- "One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter." And yet, look at the pages for other wars. Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq War, Yemeni civil war, Syrian civil war, all these pages have to some degree or another included a reference to "support" in the infobox by nations not involved as co-belligerents. Is the involvement of the UK in the Vietnam War, to give an example, so dramatically greater than the UK's existing political, economic and military activities supporting Ukraine's war effort? If no country supports Ukraine strongly enough to be listed here, then do all these pages need revision to meet the same standard? TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The first source states
- PS, why is it I am not surprised that the editors pushing this particular barrow are not ECP confirmed? Cinderella157 (talk)
- Support for Cinderella on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- PS, why is it I am not surprised that the editors pushing this particular barrow are not ECP confirmed? Cinderella157 (talk)
- Agreed, 50 men (the largest contingent) could just be embassy security, the simple fact is we do not know. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)