Wikipedia

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Latest comment: 5 hours ago by Arnoutf in topic Graph of death toll of modern European wars
Learn more about this page

Splitting proposal

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago33 comments16 people in discussion

This topic has been touched on in the above RM but I think it would be good to have it as a dedicated discussion. Quite a few people have raised the idea of having an article about the spring 2022 invasion specifically, separate to this broader article covering the entire 2022-present period of the war, and I've started a draft of what such an article could look like: Draft:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This article is already very long and the events of Spring 2022 could be covered in more detail in a split-off article than they are in this article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could be covered as Feb-Mar 2022 invasion or Feb-Mar 2022 Russian campaign. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I thought it would get convoluted before, but after thinking more abt it, it seems like it could be really helpful to split so I support this EarthDude (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
This would help with the Belarus RfC, because Belarus' involvement was limited to the beginning of the invasion/war, so we wouldn't have to worry about debating its inclusion after their role was over. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Split made, per discussion here and above. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 05:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This has implications for the move discussion, because now there's two invasion articles covering the same topic. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Isn't this a bit premature given the RM discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
There was unanimous support for a split regardless of the article title situation, based simply on the fact that the Spring 2022 military action can be covered in more depth in its own article than it can be in this general article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 08:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
See WP:SILENCE. We now have two articles in mainspace with essentially the same title that may or may not be resolved by the RM. The draft was presented as a concept. This "split" has created a new article of 192,000 bytes that is essentially a copy of a chunk of this article. Compare that with this article at 501,000 bytes before the "split" which was only reduced to 487,000 bytes (a reduction of 14,000 bytes). If we are going to do this beyond just a concept, drafts of both articles should have been worked up for fuller scrutiny that could actually evidence some of the foreshadowed increase in detail envisaged. There is no WP:DEADLINE. What has been placed in mainspace is still a draft. It shown and does not reflect well on WP because it is something half done. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you've jumped the gun, Chessrat. Only three other editors supported making a new article on the initial invasion. I don't think you should have went ahead and made the article while the move discussion is ongoing and while your draft had only begun to be discussed. – Asarlaí (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd usually wait longer, but discussion (in this section and #Draft article on the 2022 invasion above) having all six people be in favour of a split- and with nobody suggesting that it would be premature/that the draft may have needed more development- felt like such a clear case of WP:SNOW that there was no point in waiting. Had anyone opposed a split at all, or suggested any improvements before undraftifying, I'd have left the discussion to play out for longer than three days.
If you do have any specific proposals for improving the article please say. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for splitting. Please check ALL of the in-wiki-linked references and NOTEs: some are not responding, as they are copied from another article now. 78.37.216.35 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Reverted as premature. Please do not make any changes to any of these pages before the RM above has concluded. Having a page titled 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine concurrently with another titled Russian invasion of Ukraine will only confuse readers (and editors). Furthermore, such a major change that affect many articles and incoming links (practically all incoming links would have to be mass-retargeted) would require a formal WP:SPLIT proposal and obtain an adequate level of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is/was a formal WP:SPLIT proposal - I only closed it prematurely because it seemed like there was unanimous WP:SNOW consensus in favour, but given two users have since come out against it I will reinstate the notice on the article to leave more time for discussion. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe that in the long-run, we will eventually find a very solid consensus for the kind of split you proposed. When we look at past inter-state wars, there are many examples where a separate article exists for the actions/operations/campaigns which brought the conflict into being, in addition to the larger article encompassing that conflict as a whole (and obviously many other articles about its noteworthy events/campaigns/battles). We may even find that such a split is the best solution to the ongoing discussion about what to do with the current article, its title, and the other article about the pre-2022 conflict in Donbas, I'm inclined to suggest something along those lines at least.
My personal view is that in the end there should be three separate articles:
  1. Russia-Ukraine conflict (2014-2022) or alternative title: War in Donbas (2014-2022)
  2. Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-end of hostilities)
  3. Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)
There will still be much to discuss before anything approaching consensus. Many will continue to insist that 1. and 2. should be combined, in support of which I have yet to see any compelling arguments presented. Article 3 would focus only on the immediate lead up to the invasion (as background), and the key military, political and social/cultural developments of the first month of the war, up to the Russian withdrawal from Kyiv/Chernihiv/Sumy oblasts. The discussion in the current move proposal has become extremely muddled and difficult to follow because there are so many different issues being argued about. We should reassess your split proposal in the near future, I feel it's long overdue to have a separate article about the initial invasion, but it's not clear if there's a consensus from other editors on that yet. Toadchavay (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
This split proposal is precisely for the purpose of determining such a consensus either way. I would appreciate it if anyone who doesn't think there should be a separate article for the initial 2022 invasion makes their position clear- don't want another situation where in e.g. a week's time there seems to be consensus for a split but then everyone who opposes it comes out of the woodwork as soon as the discussion is closed again. Really there are three questions here:
1) Whether to split- yes/no
2) In the event of a split, what to title the new article- "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something else
3) When to perform the split- immediately, or after the closing of the RM Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) Yes, 2) That's an OK title, 3) I'm OK both with waiting and with doing it now. FOARP (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) Also yes, 2) Agree it's ok, and I do think "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" would be best, 3) I think the move doesn't necessarily conflict with the RM. Even if the RM does decide that this whole article is one invasion of the 2014 war, it would still probably make sense to have a separate article for the initial invasion and have this article be the main, broader Invasion–Present page. As such, I don't think waiting for the RM is necessary. However, in this draft, "marking the beginning of the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian War" could have a "disputed—discuss" tag after "beginning", linking to the RM Placeholderer (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
1. I am in favor of the split you have proposed.
2. Not sure if including the year 2022 is necessary. What do other editors think?
3. No opinion
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) Yes, but split not the entire March-April section, only events in the Northern Ukraine. 2) No, inappropriate. The invasion continued after April negotiations in Donbas. More appropriate would be " 2022 Northern Ukraine campaign" or similar. 3) The discussion is a massive one, and its outcome will determine whether the split is really needed, so wait. Eagowl | talk | 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
See Northern front of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: what you are proposing is essentially already in existence. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then the move seems to be an excessive measure. The April 2022 events only relate to the northern front, so separating active fighting in the beginning and the remaining events will just add confusion. Eagowl | talk | 00:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agree with a split with title including 2022, something I brought up in the name change RM. But this split should not be done until the Russo-Ukrainian war name issue above is resolved and I think this discussion should not have even taken place until that was over. Yeoutie (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also @Yeoutie, SaintPaulOfTarsus, and Eagowl:. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is no consensus for this article to be renamed, i.e. no consensus for a change in scope. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Precisely! Splitting of this article is contingent on the title of the
Main article: Russo-Ukrainian War
As there is no consensus in the discussion on its page, as well as a clear absence of academic analysis whether the war is continuous since 2014 (@FOARP kindly added 'Historiography' subheading under the History to illustrate it), scope and status quo of this article should be kept as is. Thank you 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see no benefit in such a split. Firstly, the scope of the article (the end date) would be based on WP:ANALYSIS since we are not seeing a consensus in sources delineating the "invasion" from the ongoing conflict as opposed to the clear delineation pre and post 24 February 2022. Secondly, the proposal was base on an RM for which there is no consensus and that there would be an overarching article for all the events post February 2022. This article serves that purpose. We already have daughter articles for the campaigns in specific areas and for other issues identifiable as major sections. This article could be substantially reduced by somewhat ruthlessly removing detail best left to these daughter articles to leave a high-level summary. Such a reduction is not contingent on a split. A daughter article arising from a split would remain quite large through unnecessary duplication of material not helpful to readers. Inserting a spit into the existing hierarchy of articles (eg campaigns) would be problematic since they deal with events from February 2022 to present, not February 2022 to sometime later that year. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, let's remove the notice and close this for the moment then. I still think renaming of this article to a title including the word "war" is something that's bound to happen given the clear direction of travel in sources where "war" dominates as a descriptor of the topic over "invasion" and has done since at least 2023, and also the topic itself will grow as time goes on making a split even more justifiable. However, that's something we can discuss again. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are going to be splits, mergers, edits, rewrites once this war is over and academics write retrospectively about it. Right now the articles are written based on breaking news reports and UA propaganda, so of course they're going to be a mess. TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fully agree. The notice above the article has been annoying readers for quite long. It's hight time to remove it. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
As I stated above in the move proposal:
>[C]onsider this Reuters article. It states that "Feb. — March 2022" is when "Russia invades Ukraine", and it also states that "April — Aug. 2022" is when "Russia stalls outside Kyiv, withdraws to the east". So based on this, the "invasion" part of this war ended in March 2022. this cfr article also states that Russia's invasion "slowed in March". I'm sure if I continued searching, I would find other sources that list March 2022 as the end of the invasion. But After the invasion, Russian occupation is what happened next, followed by Ukrainian counter-attacks that led to the retaking of Kherson. So, this war began with an invasion (February 2022 - March 2022), followed by Russian occupations, Ukrainian counter-attacks, and Russian entrenchment and slow crawl expansion (April 2022 - Present).
It seems clear that reliable sources can be used to determine an endpoint for the invasion period of this war. They might not agree on the exact day, but my cursory examination shows that they agree on the month of March 2022 as being the end of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you find a divergence on this endpoint between sources, please let me know. JasonMacker (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I strongly support splitting, especially for article size reasons. However, splitting does depend on figuring out the naming situation. I think the naming will need another RfC so that some consensus can be found on how to address scope Placeholderer (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfC: Should the US and/or NATO be added to the infobox in light of new NYT article?

edit
Latest comment: 16 days ago108 comments20 people in discussion

Should the United States and/or NATO be added to the infobox of this article after the publication of the recent NYT article: Entous, Adam (29 March 2025). "The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 March 2025. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: To be more specific, the suggestion is that the U.S. should be added to the Infobox under "Supported by" on the side of Ukraine, with the main argument being that this specific instance should be seen as an exceptional situation. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was suggested above that the question should not be "Should this or that be included in the Belligerents field?" as it opens the article to be a victim to the tyranny of the crowd. The correct question should look like "What criteria a party should meet for the inclusion into the Belligerents field?" ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Link to previous RfC: Closed on March 6, 2025 about a similar question.
Link to 'supported by' RfC: Closed on July 19, 2023 deprecating broadly the use of 'Supported by' sections in infoboxes and requiring exceptional uses to be backed by an affirmative consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No for starters the source does not call them a beligerment, and generally, we do not add supporters. 2, NATO is not a nation, and not all NATO nations have provided military aid. 3, This is one source, and it seems to be that unless other rs call them beligerant this smacks of wp:synthesis. Also there is the fact do we then have to add anyone else, Iran, China etc?, No, this will just cause bloat for no reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment – Plenty of conflict articles include supporters in the infobox, just look at any Yemen-related conflict article. Should we go to every one of those and remove the supporters? Also, are Iran or China the command-and-control of the Russian military, as the US is for the Ukrainian military? Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • Its depricated, and I will not be engaging in a too and throw. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • the command-and-control of the Russian military, as the US is for the Ukrainian military
        No false theses please. It only weakens your argumentation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
That is exactly what it indicates. Again, not a question of opinion. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"generally, we do not add supporters." Note that the infobox currently has a "supporters" field, which includes Belarus. As worded, this RfC is about including the U.S. in some form in the infobox, with the threshold for being a supporter obviously being lower than that of a belligerent. Therefore, editors should clarify whether they support/oppose just listing the U.S. as a supporter in their !votes. The 2023 RfC on the infobox does not preclude listing supporters with a consensus in exceptional cases, which in my opinion this is in light of the specific circumstances. — Goszei (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem with Belarus is the sources don't support the conclusion that there is some special category that Belarus falls in to and which no other country (e.g., Iran) occupies. They either say that Belarus is not a combatant in the present conflict, or they say that Belarus is (or has been) a belligerent (a category that Russia and North Korea also occupy).
Either (like Iran) they should not be listed, or (like Russia and North Korea) they should be listed as a belligerent. There is no third option.
Including them as a "supporter" on the basis that they are a belligerent is blatantly contradictory, and only serves to create endless discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Support – There is a reliable source, the New York Times, which clearly does link NATO and the US as being involved in this war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No (invited by the bot) (First, to clarify, I assume that the question is to list them as belligerents) The brevity of info boxes means they they should be limited to well-accepted factoids. This certainly isn't that. And it doesn't fit the common meaning of "belligerent". Finally, this would be based on deriving that term from a newspaper article. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This RfC is about listing the U.S. in the infobox in some capacity, with the threshold for being a supporter (as Belarus is currently listed) being lower than that of a belligerent. You oppose the latter, but what is your opinion on listing the U.S. as a supporter of Ukraine? — Goszei (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This isn't correct, but hardly your fault. The threshold for inclusion for the two is the same: belligerency. The distinction is that unmarked belligerents are widely accepted as being parties to the conflict; while marked belligerents are disputed parties to the conflict. There just was never any agreement on how to mark Belarus so the deprecated 'supported by' was retained by default. See the archived, unresolved RfC here. Near the whole of that discussion is about Belarus as a 'co-belligerent'. There was a suggestion to re-header Belarus away from the deprecated heading – by myself and Manyareasexpert – but it was never formalized. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Badly formatted RFC, as there is no specific suggestion it is asking people an open-ended question. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Note as well that the scope has now been changed after replies had been posted. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes, I support listing it as a supporter. The New York Times exposé reveals that the U.S. military planned everything from strategic and tactical troop movements to every individual long-range missile strike. The U.S. selected Russian targets, provided coordinates to Ukraine, and directly authorized the attacks using weapons provided by the U.S. itself ($70 billion worth of them, and without which many analysts say Ukrainian lines would have collapsed long ago; [1]). The most relevant pieces of information revealed in the article, which all editors involved in this discussion must read in full before contributing, are:
  • that "the United States was woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil".
  • that "American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv's counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field."
  • that U.S. generals at their base in Wiesbaden, Germany would "oversee each HIMARS strike" against Russian troops, with their oversight such that "the Ukrainians were supposed to only use coordinates the Americans provided. To fire a warhead, HIMARS operators needed a special electronic key card, which the Americans could deactivate anytime." These actions in particular go far beyond advice, instead resembling direct command-and-control.
  • that teams of active-duty U.S. officers were first dispatched to Kiev, and later "eventually allowed to travel to Ukrainian command posts closer to the fighting."
By the NYT's evaluation, "U.S. intelligence and artillery helped Ukraine quickly turn the tide against the Russian invasion." This level of involvement far outstrips NATO or the European powers' level of involvement. This is exactly the kind of exceptional case which the 2023 infobox RfC was talking about, so the U.S. should be listed at minimum as a supporter. However, I think the bar for belligerent is quite high, and I think I would have to see a ruling in an international court to support that. — Goszei (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support listing as a supporter
This needs a different RfC. The field name is Belligerents, and it currently lists belligerents only. There are more supporters than the US, including the US only would be taking some strange side. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
As you know, the current infobox lists Belarus as a supporter, not as a belligerent, so adding another supporter would follow that precedent. — Goszei (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It was decided to remove that confusing "Supported by", see Special:GoToComment/c-Manyareasexpert-20250402211700-Romanov_loyalist-20250402210800 . Belarus is more than a supporter, it's a belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
What is your justification for obfuscating that the US military set up a headquarters to plan and direct Ukrainian military operations (which is what command-and-control means)? Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
justification for obfuscating
No WP:STRAWMAN please, it only weakens your argument. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
So what is your position then? Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The field is "Belligerents" and that's what goes there. There are many countries which can be characterized as "supporters", not the US only. The amount or the extent of the support varies, but wiki editors are not eligible to decide which amount of support means belligerency and which is not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
How is Belarus a belligerent but the US isn't, despite having a much bigger role in the conflict? Romanov loyalist (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
per sources. Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement.
"Bigger" is the assessment of a Wikipedia editor with the corresponding consequences (irrelevant). N Korea sent its troops and is now a party, despite relatively small impact. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Technically, NK "gave" troops to Russia, as they are wearing Russian livery in combat, not North Korean uniforms. And most RS's more or less state they'll never be allowed back into NK. It's a fine point, but if these guys are part of the Russian army now ... 2603:6080:21F0:6380:B99B:629F:E051:339A (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The fact that North Korean troops are wearing Russian uniforms is neither here nor there - interviews with captured North Koreans and captured North Korean documents show them to be part of North Korean units. FOARP (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No "Supported by"s should not be included in the infobox.
A procedural note: It would be helpful to clarify precisely what the NYT article adds to the discussion that wasn't addressed in the RfC that closed a month ago.
A necessary tangent: The reason that Belarus is currently listed as "Supported by" is because Belarus is explicitly considered by multiple RS to be some form of belligerent. I don't agree with this inclusion of Belarus. There are 3 possibilities based on what sources say: 1. Belarus is (or was) belligerent; 2. Belarus is (or was) not belligerent; or 3. Sources disagree on whether or not Belarus should be considered belligerent. In none of those cases, I feel, does it make sense to include Belarus under "Supported by". I think that the current listing of Belarus is the darkest (viable) timeline.
About "Supported by": The concept is deprecated. See that discussion for extensive discussion. Listing supporters *in the infobox* should be avoided. The main reason for this general practice is that "Supported by" is so incredibly vague. There's no clear cutoff for which supporters should be included or excluded. Within the category of "Support" there are countless different *types* of support, and within each type of support there's a gradient of *what level* of that support is provided. A supporter might provide all the food, water, and wages to one party's army; a supporter might lead an international sanctions initiative—without a blockade, which is an act of war—to cripple one party's economy; a supporter might sponsor and legally cover domestic, civilian hackers who target one party's digital infrastructure—all without the supporter even having a military. And all of those things can be done to an arbitrary range of extents—what if the supporter only provides 10% of the food, or just does a few sanctions, or just pardons one partisan hacker? A supporter might send boatloads of weapons to one party—but that certainly can't be the standard for infobox inclusion because that opens the door to inclusion of huge amounts of supporters in any major conflict infobox, which is the clearest example of what the deprecation meant to stop. In this example specifically, if you include the US, what about the UK? Or France, NATO, the EU, New Zealand, Argentina, or anyone on Russia's "unfriendly" list? Where's the cutoff? Each country's support has different types of support, each type at different and hard-to-compare levels. The worst standard is to compare "overall support", since that means comparing every single war-related action that all potential "Supported by"s take.
There is, though, a cutoff that can save us for infobox inclusion. That cutoff is if RS say a country/party is belligerent. However, if people would be up for adding a mention of support in the lead, I'd support that Placeholderer (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I also support a mention in the lead, either with or without a mention in the infobox. — Goszei (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
100% agree that Belarus should not be in the infobox under "supported by". The arguments used to justify the present situation are blatantly self-contradictory.
If Belarus is a belligerent, then they should be listed as a belligerent in the infobox. If Belarus is not a belligerent, then they should not be listed in the infobox. If sources disagree as to whether Belarus is a belligerent, then they should not be listed in the infobox. In no circumstance does it make sense to list Belarus as a "supporter" because we do not include mere supporters in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No and Remove Belarus - only actual combatant states should be included. States whose status requires a nuanced discussion to explain, should not be included in the infobox. Belarus’s status as a belligerent is disputed, dependent on a specific legal theory, with reliable sources also describing them as a non-belligerent (or similar) in this conflict.
Alternatively, if the argument is that Belarus should be included because it is a belligerent, then it should be listed as a belligerent, not as a supporter. It is simply contradictory to say that Belarus needs to be included because it is a belligerent, and then to list it under “supported by”.
I was honestly amazed that some of the people who so vehemently opposed including North Korea as a combatant (because they disputed the immense amount of evidence in favour of doing so, virtually requiring Russian/North Korean confirmation of North Korean involvement in the war) support including Belarus on the basis that Belarus is a "belligerent" when the evidence for including Belarus is so much more dubious and dependent on WP:OR interpretation of what the sources say. I also note that no-one is seriously questioning North Korea being included now.
PS - a minor point, but since the previous template has now been replaced with the standard infobox, arguments that the consensus deprecating "supporter" for conflict infoboxes doesn't apply here because we were using a different template no longer apply. FOARP (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No per the comments in the last RFC, it's only been a month, and the deprecation of 'Supported by'. Infoboxes should be for information that doesn't require any clarification, 'Supported by' is something that obviously needs clarification. I would also support removing Belarus (per FOARP), as it's participation in the conflict isn't easily reduced to simple terms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment A People need to understand how RfCs work. You are asked to comment on a very specific proposal by an editor. That's it. OP is not asking about Belarus, yet this is still being brought up by people. This will only cause confusion for the closer. JDiala (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment B The RfC is bad because the OP is not clarifying whether it should be added as a belligerent or a supporter or something else. This distinction is crucial for this and is causing confusion. JDiala (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Belarus is being used as an example of why other entries should be added, so discussing it's inclusion is appropriate. The OP added a comment early clarifying that the question is whether the US should be added under 'Supported by'[2] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @JDiala - "how RfCs work" is that people provide comments. They don't have to limit their comments to the specific question asked. This is particulary when the prescence of Belarus in the infobox is ultimately why the topic of adding the US comes up again and again and again (and again). This is another reason I support limiting to those countries that are unambiguously involved in this war as combatants - and that is Russia and North Korea on one side, and Ukraine on the other. FOARP (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I did add a note to clarify as the original RfC wording was described as not specific enough: the U.S. should be added as a supporter of Ukraine to the "belligerents" section of the infobox in light of the recent NYT article. It has been pointed out that it was previously decided in other discussions not to include supporters in the infobox unless there is an exceptional situation. As the user Mr rnddude noted above, belligerency has been the threshold for a country to be listed in the belligerent section either as a supporter or otherwise, with supporters being those countries whose belligerency is disputed.
    There have been two main arguments going on: (1) whether or not the recent NYT article is enough evidence of belligerency to add the U.S. to the infobox as a supporter of Ukraine, as an exceptional situation; and (2) whether or not supporters should be included in the infobox at all, no matter what the situation is. The first argument has more to do with the RfC.
    So, to simplify the main issue of the RfC – the question is whether or not the U.S. should be added to the infobox as a supporter. Romanov loyalist (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "the question is whether or not the U.S. should be added to the infobox as a supporter" - which, to be clear, is a question that has been asked and answered repeatedly. The fact that the answer to this is already clear from previous discussion is why the discussion has turned to other topics.
    "belligerency has been the threshold for a country to be listed in the belligerent section either as a supporter or otherwise, with supporters being those countries whose belligerency is disputed" - The fact that this is a highly problematic, self-contradictory approach, is the entire reason why the discussion has swung around to removing Belarus so as to end the thing that is driving these continuous "what about the US?" discussions. FOARP (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have read some of the previous discussions regarding supporters in infoboxes, and there is not a consistent explanation on what qualifies as an exemption to be listed as a supporter. The conclusion of that RfC says the use of "supported by" in certain instances is to be decided on specific article talk pages. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The conclusion of that RfC says the use of "supported by" in certain instances is to be decided on specific article talk pages.
    Precisely. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. We have recently had an RFC on this. While it was closed as "no consensus", I don't think editors will say there have been any changes to warrant inclusion. There is a lot of WP:SQS going on in this whole topic area.
I am writing this so that editors don't waste their time with another fruitless RFC. Ping for @Romanov loyalist, might be useful as this RFC is pretty much exactly the same as the previous one.
This is not a pro-UA vs pro-RUS issue either, it as a pro-narrative vs pro-WikiPolicy issue. Per WP:RS and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the inclusions seem like a no-brainer. Those arguing against inclusion have the argument: "Supported by has been deprecated from the infobox" and if you claim there are exceptional circumstances per WP:RS, they will simply repeat that supported by is deprecated and that they are not convinced that the US has been done enough to be called a belligerent.
Two issues are immediately evident. 1) Disputed decisions on Wikipedia are decided by a consensus among WP:RS and strength of arguments in RFCs, not majority opinion; 2) editors conflate "belligerent" and "supporter", citing the deprecation RFC, while that RFC did not deprecate supporters in all cases, thus "belligerent" and "supporter" are still separate categories with separate criteria.
This whole quagmire started with an RFC over on the template talk page for the military conflict infobox on the deprecation of the Supported by parameter. The RFC was closed as "deprecate" but with a caveat: "However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes ... these circumstances would be rare ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article." diff
Some editors have understood "consensus" to mean "consensus of opinion", but it doesn't mean that, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: "editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". I have tried getting this clarified on the template talk page, but that went nowhere.
Before any RFC of this nature can proceed "the infobox supporter problem" has to be solved. Either the language in the close of the template RFC is clarified or another discussion/RFC on the issue is done, as there seems to be clear friction/confusion among editors as to the consequences of that RFC.
The military conflict infobox appears on some ~25000 Wikipedia articles. A decision that potentially affects over 25000 articles was made based on ~13 !votes. Those 13 votes are overriding everyone on this talk page arguing for inclusion, WP:CONLEVEL problem.
At least one editor was motivated by concerns about how it might reflect on Ukraine in regards to the current conflict: "This is all the more problematic in articles about active wars in progress, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, where a major point of one side’s propaganda is the characterization of non-combatants as involved." link Not surprisingly, that same editor had no problems with leaving Belarus in as a supporter, making the argument we have all heard dozens of times here before, Belarus is left in for "providing its territory for invasion and attacks". link
This begs the question: Who drew this arbitrary line in the sand for what warrants inclusion as a supporter and what doesn't? No WP:RS say it, it is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
I have made a comment in the previous RFC I have listed many WP:RS ( 1, 2) where a clear consensus among them can be seen:
  • The military and financial aid provided to Ukraine by the US and EU is "crucial", "unprecedented", "significant", "extraordinary" and Ukraine would not be able to continue fighting the war without that support.
  • Ukraine and US, EU are consistently referred to as "allies" and "partners".
  • US and EU have both taken active and unprecedented measures to hurt Ukraine's adversary in the conflict with the stated goal of hurting Russia's ability to wage war.
It can be seen from an airplane that the infobox needs updating. But, the magic line set by editors of "using a country's territory for attacks" has not been crossed, and therefore they argue against inclusion. Clear violation of WP:NPOV, as that criteria just so happens to include Belarus (Russia's ally) and no one else.
It also means that "support" has been limited by geography, so even in clear cases such as these where a country is literally (in the true sense of the word) completely propped up and armed by foreign powers to continue waging a war against a common adversary, those foreign powers cannot be included as supporters.
In any other case all these discussions wouldn't be needed, let alone all these RFCs. Of course, all this bureaucracy and litigation suit the exclusion side, because as long as we're "discussing" and "RFCing" the status quo remains.
This RFC is a waste of time. Nothing will change on this talk page, the changes have to be made and come from elsewhere. There are a lot of things wrong and litigating it all would be a nightmare (another convenience for the exclusionists).
Re: Belarus. There are enough WP:RS to justify having Belarus as an ally of Russia (or belligerent) in the infobox; and in that way US (and others) can be added as supporters. This is a clear, categorical separation between Belarus and the US (and others) that reflects the differences in their involvement. Problem solved.
With all that said, I have no desire to keep repeating the same arguments with the same editors. Nor do I have the Wikipedia experience and know-how to know where and how to fix the issues I have identified. I wrote the above so that other editors can see what has already been tried and not waste their time coming to the same result. I hope that I have helped some editors by articulating issues they themselves have recognised, and in that way gave them ideas for more productive ways forward.
Happy debating and editing! TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a severe wall of text (it's ~ 7,500 bytes | ~ 1,000 words [that's middle school essay length]). You can use {{pb}} to paragraph text without having to create a new line rather than returning twice and re-indenting. You probably don't need a new paragraph every few lines. You may want to consider displacing some of this information either into footnotes or collapsed sections to reduce the visual space occupied within the discussion, but without completely omitting it. I'd personally copy-edit it down by more than half, as at this length it won't be impactful. Or, alternatively, you could just section it off under a sub-heading with a hidden note to insert !votes above the header. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining all of this and getting the entire series of issues to the point. The U.S. needs to be added as a supporter to the infobox because the burden of proof for doing so has been met, in accordance with existing Wikipedia policies and the conclusion of the past RfC that leaves an exemption for exactly this kind of situation. The arguments against doing so are absurd. But, I also do not know enough about Wikipedia's administration to know how to get this taken to the next level for implementation. Romanov loyalist (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Those arguing against inclusion have the argument: "Supported by has been deprecated from the infobox" and if you claim there are exceptional circumstances per WP:RS, they will simply repeat that supported by is deprecated and that they are not convinced that the US has been done enough to be called a belligerent. My own argument, at least, is that "Supported by" is deprecated mostly because there's no way to rigorously include it. I'm not saying "Don't include because it's deprecated", I'm saying "Don't include because of this major problem, which was recognized over a year ago in the deprecation". As for whether the US has done enough to be called belligerent, we need RS that say that, not OR interpretations or SYNTH combinations of misc sources—editors aren't the ones who need to be convinced Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The "supported by" RfC does not say that an exemption to list a country as a supporter requires the use of legalistic terms, so that is WP:OR. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand your point, or how it relates to my comment Placeholderer (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
My point is that the previous RfC concluded that a country can be listed as a supporter in exceptional circumstances, and the conclusion does not say that RS need to explicitly call the country a "belligerent" for it to be an exceptional circumstance. So if a country is providing support and RS are describing that support in terms indicating it is exceptional, then it can be listed. Romanov loyalist (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, including parties as belligerent is separate from including parties under "Supported by".
As for including support, it's my position that I don't think that it's best to include *in the infobox* even in cases where the support is super significant for the war. This discussion includes some of my reasoning—for one thing, US support is exceptional here in its (nominal) size more than in its effect on the war. I'm more sympathetic to the argument that the types of support offered are a difference in kind from other types of support, but even then there's the problem of defining exactly what types of support would be worth including—and to come up with a nuanced and thought-out distinction between inclusion-worthy and not-inclusion-worthy support would make the support field inappropriately nuanced for infobox inclusion Placeholderer (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I honestly don't get how @TurboSuperA+ can state that "Who drew this arbitrary line in the sand for what warrants inclusion as a supporter and what doesn't? No WP:RS say it, it is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." and then conclude, regardless of this, that we should keep this standard and add the US under it, rather than simply abandoning this editor-generated standard and removing Belarus. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is not an editor-generated standard. It is the same standard applied across wikipedia. I simply don't understand how everyone just forgot about WP:RS in this topic area.
"Supported by" is deprecated except in rare circumstances -> consensus among WP:RS that support given to Ukraine is "vital", "crucial", "unprecedented", "extraordinary" (all direct quotes btw) -> this justifies inclusion as a rare case.
It's very straightforward. Nobody is disputing the WP:RS consensus. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Providing “vital” support does not make a country a belligerent and nobody seriously believes it does. The United States was not a belligerent against Germany in 1940, but it did provide “vital” support to the UK. The USSR was not a belligerent against Israel in 1973, but its support to the Arab countries was “vital”.
Moreover the RS sources saying that the US is a belligerent just aren’t there.
This entire argument is just a classic case of why deprecating “supported by” was the right idea. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
But we're not talking about belligerency, we're talking about support. In another comment you wrote: "I simply don't understand the arguments that argue that Belarus should be listed as a supporter because it is a belligerent. This simply seems contradictory to me."
But now you say a country needs to be a belligerent to be included as a supporter: "Providing “vital” support does not make a country a belligerent and nobody seriously believes it does."
"Supported by" and "Belligerent" are two different categories with different criteria.
"This entire argument is just a classic case of why deprecating “supported by” was the right idea."
It was not deprecated in all cases. The close of the RfC is very clear on this point. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"now you say a country needs to be a belligerent to be included as a supporter" - I said absolute nothing of the kind. I have consistently oppose the inclusion of "supporters" in any form: I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox. Is that clear enough for you? Only actual belligerents should be included. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox."
Why is it your decision? WP:OWN. edit: wrong policy, it is more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
There was an RfC on the issue of deprecation. The closer wrote: "However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes ... these circumstances would be rare ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article."
SInce there is disagreement on the interpretation of the close, should we take this to WP:AN for close review? Or should it be discussed at WP:Village pump? I would be perfectly fine with removing the exception, just as I would be fine with removing the deprecation. I just want us to get out of this limbo. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Why is it your decision?" - This is an RFC, and I am commenting. I have explained in great detail why there should be no "supported by" section here: the facts are such that there is no standard that won't lead to overly-long lists or dubious groupings such as "NATO" (which includes Hungary) and "the EU" (which includes Austria and Ireland). It's also an NPOV issue to include "NATO" since this is unambigously the Russian framing of this conflict.
As for what the closer said in the RFC on "supporters" in general, it's essentially saying that WP:IAR is still policy on Wikipedia, but there's just no good reason to IAR in this case. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"I don't think that it's best to include *in the infobox* even in cases where the support is super significant for the war."
But that's like your opinion man. If you want the exception clause removed, you can start a new RFC on the issue. But as it stands now, exceptions are allowed. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is no "exception clause" that says supporters must be listed whenever a source says support is exceptional. Consensus is needed to add supporters Placeholderer (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Consensus is needed to add supporters"
And what is consensus on Wikipedia?
WP:DCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"
WP:DISCARD: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."
Consensus on Wikipedia has never been about consensus of opinion; editors' feelings and opinions on a topic do not trump WP:RS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think there's some miscommunication. I absolutely accept that RS call US support for Ukraine unprecedented/crucial/etc. What I do not accept is that we must put everything that RS say in the infobox—this view is consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Further, it is impossible to have a rigorous standard of where to draw the line of which "Supporters" to include in the infobox.
It's not my opinion that the US is below some "support threshold" for inclusion as a supporter.
It is my opinion that, because it is impossible to rigorously include "Supporters" in the infobox, they should not be included in the infobox. It is my opinion that it's inappropriate to stamp an arbitrary binary cutoff between countries being "Supporters" and being, by comparison, nothing at all.
An RfC is literally a forum for opinion collecting. If we could "just go by what RS say" all the time, we wouldn't need talk pages Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Courtesy ping since I for one didn't notice your reply at first @TurboSuperA+ Placeholderer (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd agree with you had that been the consensus from the beginning. For some three years nobody had a problem with Belarus as a supporter. When editors started asking for US et al. to be included then the response was "Well... how about we get rid of the parameter?" TurboSuperA+(connect) 03:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, there have been two major changes since the start of the war—Belarus has become a much smaller part comparatively, and there was the deprecation RfC.
In the first completed RfC on Ukraine support in this infobox, only one !vote explicitly said Belarus should be removed if Ukraine's suppliers weren't added. I think this point didn't go very far because Belarus's support was understood to be a difference in kind from arms supply. This understanding also needs to be taken in context—when shading in a map of the war, it made sense that Belarus not be shaded in as neutral, because the zone of conflict only made sense with the understanding that the Belarus–Ukraine border was a hostile front. In the initial invasion—which this article has expanded far beyond—it made more sense to include Belarus in the infobox. If "Supported by" had already been deprecated, maybe it would have been included as a full belligerent instead of as a supporter.
In later RfCs, Belarus's listing as a supporter was justified through RS describing it as a special kind of belligerent, though this reasoning was problematic, as has been discussed Placeholderer (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"a difference in kind from arms supply."
That's a mischaracterisation of the support given to Ukraine, it is not just "arms supplies". The foreign support also pays the Ukrainian government's salaries, pays the pensions, healthcare, social and any other costs a country has, as Ukraine has virtually no income of its own.
In addition to that, it has now been confirmed that US has also been sharing intelligence with Ukraine, intelligence which directly helped Ukraine find targets to strike and put together combat missions. "A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field." NYT/archive TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't mean to try to express support for keeping Belarus as a supporter, I just mean to rationalize why it was included as a supporter to begin with Placeholderer (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know, but then as soon as that criteria could apply to supporters of Ukraine the parameter was removed. Now it's back.
That's why I wanted to revisit the deprecation RfC, to either remove the exception, to revoke the deprecation, or make it more clear which kind of exceptions are allowed. I don't really care which it is, I just want us all to stop wasting time having the same discussions over and over. In my opinion that RfC is responsible for the mess we're in now. If "Supported by:" had never been deprecated we wouldn't be having these discussions. TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
If "Supported by:" had never been deprecated we wouldn't be having these discussions. This just isn't borne out by the facts. There were four RfCs to include Ukraine's supporters in the infobox before the deprecation of the sub-heading. There were at least a dozen discussions (whether edit-requests or random talk page threads) to do so as well. There have been a further two RfCs about the same thing since that deprecation, and probably another at least a dozen discussions outside RfCs. There have only really been two changes in this time: the usernames of those participating and the number of users participating. The second RfC was attended by over 60 editors, the sixth by about 12. Even the arguments are pretty much the same. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
And yet the deprecation is repeatedly cited as a reason why the US shouldn't be added.
"The deprecation of 'Supported by' was meant to stop this, I don't see why it should be resurrected here." link
"Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs." link
"Please read the FAQ on this page. "Supported by" is deprecated." link
"Supporter is deprecated for a reason." link
And so on and so on... TurboSuperA+(connect) 18:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The more important issue is whether it's better or worse to have groups listed as supporters in the infobox. It shouldn't matter if the arguments around this have shifted over time, except as those arguments get more or less compelling.
"the exception" is that supporters can be listed in the infobox if editors think it's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate, for the reasons I've given.
I strongly oppose the re-addition of Belarus under supported by, and at this point I can't imagine that an RfC would uphold its supported by status Placeholderer (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"if editors think it's appropriate."
This is what confuses me. First of all, the RfC close said if there is consensus to add. Second of all, since when does consensus mean consensus of opinions?
If the consensus is based on what editors think, rather than WP:RS or Wikipedia policy, then that goes against WP:DCON, WP:NHC and other policies. TurboSuperA+(connect) 19:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Editors interpret policy, such as with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is no policy that says "one must include invent a field in the infobox for supporters when RS use strong words to describe support" Placeholderer (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is no policy that says "one must include invent a field in the infobox for supporters when RS use strong words to describe support"
We're not "inventing" anything. The parameter exists and while it has been deprecated there are exceptions. You cannot say that the parameter is deprecated to argue against an exception to the deprecation. You see that, right? TurboSuperA+(connect) 19:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Editors are to decide on exceptions. Your opinion is that the US (and maybe other powers) warrant an exception in this case. My opinion is that they do not. Placeholderer (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not my opinion, it is WP:RS consensus that support given to Ukraine by the US (and others) is unlike any support given to one country by another and both the nature and amount of support exceeds/surpasses any support given in history. It even surpases the Lend-Lease given to the Soviet Union during WWII (again, this is what WP:RS say). TurboSuperA+(connect) 20:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't dispute that sources describe the support in strong words. I do dispute that the sources warrant a "Supported by" field Placeholderer (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
These are not "descriptions in strong words", these are facts.
Saying "strong support" is a description, but saying "support given to Ukraine surpasses Lend-Lease given to SU during WWII" is a fact.
Saying "big support" is a description, but saying "Ukraine could not keep on fighting without US/EU support" is a fact. TurboSuperA+(connect) 20:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let me rephrase: I don't dispute that the US has, factually, been providing vital support. I do dispute that provision of vital support warrants inclusion under "Supported by" Placeholderer (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
In your opinion, what kind of support would warrant an exception to the deprecated parameter? TurboSuperA+(connect) 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The one time I did argue in favor of a "Supported by" field was on The Troubles. The situation was that there were three separate "sides" to the conflict, with the government and the loyalists as separate parties. I argued in favor of including alleged government support for the loyalists, under a "Supported by" field, because allegations of government support for loyalists was a major point of contention. I thought that having them in the infobox as explicitly separate parties might be a NPOV concern—it was the government's perspective that they were a neutral third party, but republicans alleged that they weren't. But I withdrew my argument because I was very new and still learning policy and because I wasn't confident enough in the strength of my argument Placeholderer (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't answer the question. We've been talking about this article and in the context of the Ukraine war.
In your opinion, what kind of support would have to be given to Ukraine by the US and/or others to warrant an exception to the deprecated parameter? TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I explicitly did answer your question.
As said previously, It's not my opinion that the US is below some "support threshold" for inclusion as a supporter. Placeholderer (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
If it's not your opinion that the US is below a "support treshold", does that mean your opinion is that they are above a "support treshold" for inclusion as a supporter? TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
No. Placeholderer (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, basically. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well enough. When I say It's not my opinion that the US is below some "support threshold" for inclusion as a supporter, I mean to say it is not my opinion that the US just needs to "support more" in order to merit being listed as a supporter. My issue with US inclusion is not about the quantity of support Placeholderer (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"My issue with US inclusion is not about the quantity of support"
Noted. Even more reason to re-examine the deprecation RfC close, because the closer never said what kind of exception it should be: is it quantity or nature of support? The close only said "rare cases". As long as editors interpret what a "rare case" is differently, we'll be going in circles and every RfC on this will end up being decided by a head count. TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The deprecation was a way to answer the question of "Should we include supporters, in general?" with a "Probably not", while leaving specifics up to editor discretion. I think there's a case to be made for revisiting the RfC to get a more conclusive answer in some areas, but it is already pretty strong by saying it's the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. In other words, even if there's big disagreement and an RfC is No Consensus, "Supported by" should be avoided. Now, if this discussion truly were a small number of policy-citing editors in favor of "Supported by" and a large number of IJDLI editors opposing "Supported by" with no argument, then this conceivably could be closed in favor of listing the US under "Supported by". However, I think (from my own perspective, ofc) that the arguments against "Supported by" here are not without value/worth discarding.
The current deprecation close gives flexibility to editors by being vague. I do generally support more flexibility being given to editors (such as with appropriately using controversial sources), so I don't think I'd actively support the idea of revisiting the deprecation RfC, but if that's something you or others would like to pursue that's your prerogative. At the very least, it could be helpful to include more voices in that discussion Placeholderer (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just for the record, the "supported by" RfC was quite widely notified, including this TP, at Russo-Ukraine War and MilHist. I see that the close is reasonably clear and sound. In essence, "supported by" is generally deprecated but may be used if there is an exceptional case for doing so as determined through an RfC - and that is exactly what is supposed to be happening here. The RfC concluded that there were issues with using "supported by" because what constituted "support" was ill defined (among other reasons). A new RfC that mirrors the original question is unlikely to resolve the question as to when using "supported by" is appropriate, nor is an RfC that specifically asks this question in a general sense. The problem/issue is that each situation is different and any answer will be context specific. There is no "one size fits all" answer to this question, no matter how one might try to phrase it. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Support. USA, UK, France, Poland etc. who are actively involved in funding, logistics, training, media support, weapons supply, target acquisition, diplomatic support, treatment of injured soldiers etc. and actual presence of their personnel in Ukraine, should be included in the list of belligerents. (My basis is the precedent established for Vietnam War where USSR is included in the list of belligerents for similar role). Further the list should also include other proxies such as Russian Volunteer Corps, Freedom of Russia Legion etc. since they are actively involved in action on behalf of Ukraine. Unfortunately for reasons beyond my comprehension some editors are refusing to see the logic in facts being presented here. This reminds me of an old saying "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". That might be the reason that some editors here are refusing to see the reason in the facts being presented here. (i.e. they very well know the facts are undeniable but due to reasons beyond my understanding they have decided to stonewall every proposal and have arbitrarily decided who are supposed to be "Supporters" and who are supposed to be "belligerents") Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The USSR is included in the Vietnam war article because "Soviet crews fired Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles at US aircraft in 1965. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian officials acknowledged that the USSR had stationed up to 3,000 troops in Vietnam.", which is to say, since there is no de minimis rule for war, even this single incident of missile-firing is enough to make it a combatant. Actually Soviet involvement directly in combat extended far beyond this single incident. According to Russian sources Soviet pilots flew missions against US bomber claiming kills, and research by historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan shows that the USSR suffered 16 KIA and numerous more wounded in the war.
    There hasn't been a single incident record of US military personnel actively, directly participating in this war. There also hasn't be an instance of Belrusian personnel doing this either, and for this reason neither should be listed in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Let us maintain some consistency, in Wikipedia attributing quotes to Russian officials are usually frowned upon. Either you accept Russian information sources as reliable or you don't. These historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan have attributed their sources to "Russia Beyond" website. Which I dont think has made it it to reliable sources of information as per Wikipedia. Further you have selectively quoted from that link. Presumably you might have not read the entire article, therefore I have brought what was quotedhin that web page (i.e. as per the link you have provided):
    "Unlike the American involvement, the Soviet Union’s engagement in the Vietnam War was highly secretive. However, what can be gathered is that they gave direct and indirect aid to the North Vietnamese on a vast scale, but stopped short of putting actual Soviet combat troops onto the front lines … Moreover, around 2,000 Soviet advisors were stationed in Vietnam assisting with radar and antiaircraft installations.
    • I hope the above information clarifies any doubt you might be having. In case you still not convinced, I am providing some more information (source BBC):
    The UK is among a number of countries with military special forces operating inside Ukraine, according to one of dozens of documents leaked online.
    It confirms what has been the subject of quiet speculation for over a year.
    ...................
    According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1).
    The source for above quotes is BBC (dated 12 April 2023)
    • You have quoted "USSR suffered 16 KIA and numerous more wounded in the war", if this was the criteria to declare them as belligerents then we should also count the number of Americans, Britishers, Poles etc. killed in this war. (especially those who conveniently took early retirement from Army) Such deaths already might be in their hundreds.
    • It seems the goalpost are being constantly shifted. I remember earlier the discussion was about who are supporting whom, then gradually when those arguments regarding role of USA, UK, France, Poland etc. in supporting Ukraine became ridiculously untenable, a new role was introduced - "List of belligerents". Tomorrow once the excuses again becomes ridiculously bizarre a new term will be coined. (Maybe "List of belligerents located in east of Ukraine")
    • Again as the saying goes "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". In case you are still not convinced then there is no point in carrying this discussion forward.
    Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Firstly, WP:AGF is a pretty firm rule here on Wikipedia. Repeatedly casting aspersions in this fashion is disruptive behaviour. This is particularly the case on pages designated controversial topics, such as this one.
    "These historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan have attributed their sources to "Russia Beyond" website" - Nope. That is literally not what the source says. Nofi and Dunnigan wrote a book, in which the 16 KIA figure is cited to official Russian sources. The website "Russia Beyond" has nothing to do with the citing of that figure - it is instead cited for Soviet claims of US aircraft shot down during the war.
    The section from the National Interest article that you've quoted does not contradict this: it merely states that Soviet troops weren't fighting "on the front line", which is not the same as never fighting at all.
    "if this was the criteria to declare them as belligerents then we should also count the number of Americans, Britishers, Poles etc. killed in this war" - if you can find figures showing troops serving in the military of these countries, and not simply volunteers fighting in the Ukrainian International Legion and similar formations, who were killed in action in the present war in Ukraine, then please go ahead and cite them.
    Regarding the BBC article - you're omitting that this was from a leaked cache of documents that according to the same source was partially doctored (i.e., fabricated). This is not a reliable source. This is also something that's been discussed at great length in the past and it would be a good idea to review those discussions and why this claim has not been included in the article.
    PS -for the total avoidance of doubt, I don't support adding China either, despite the news that has broken in the past hour that Chinese citizens were captured fighting in Russian units: this is not evidence of the involvement of the Chinese military in this conflict as these men are likely volunteers/mercenaries. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It seems the goalpost are being constantly shifted. I remember earlier the discussion was about who are supporting whom, then gradually when those arguments regarding role of USA, UK, France, Poland etc. in supporting Ukraine became ridiculously untenable, a new role was introduced - "List of belligerents". Tomorrow once the excuses again becomes ridiculously bizarre a new term will be coined. (Maybe "List of belligerents located in east of Ukraine")
    Again as the saying goes "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". In case you are still not convinced then there is no point in carrying this discussion forward.
    I don't remember ever, in any of my comments on this page, advocating in favor of keeping a "Supported by" field. I object to this generalization of everyone that everyone who opposes a "Supported by" field is acting in bad faith.
    I will say, I was very frustrated when it took seemingly forever to add North Korea as a belligerent, so I can sympathize. In those discussions I didn't do a good job with AGF. I sincerely suggest you don't make the same mistake, and that you AGF Placeholderer (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    TBH I think some level of frustration around the North Korea discussion was reasonable, since the consensus in the discussion was very clear for some months before the it was accepted. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note the deprecation of Supporter was not in response to this article but to unrelated ones. Many people had no issue with the idea of adding supporters until it was pointed it was (NOW) depripcated (and then reasons why). In fact we did use to list a lot of supporters, but it became unwielding and there was too much dispute over what counted as support. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can users please read wp:bludgeon, and let others have a say? Some poor sod has to read all of those and come to a conclusion as to who has POLICY based consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just my view obviously @Slatersteven, but I don't think a formal close would be needed for the above anyway - the consensus is very clearly against the proposal and it's just turned in to one "pro" arguing with all the "antis". You can request a formal close at CR if you want.
Personally I'm beginning to think we should just moratorium any further discussion on this topic (barring any big events which would be IAR anyway) for at least 6 months. It's just turned in to something we return to again, and again, (and again) without any chance of productive discussion. Even in the words of the most prominent support !voter "This RFC is a waste of time". FOARP (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the record, I did not !vote in this RfC, I commented calling it a waste of time (and explained why I think so). This kind of RfC cannot move forward unless everyone agrees what the outcome of the Supporter deprecation RfC was: some think the parameter is deprecated in all cases, while others think there can be exceptions.
Looking at other articles, such as Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present), the infobox has both "Supported by:" and "Alleged support:". Afghanistan–Pakistan_border_conflicts and Islamic_State–Taliban_conflict also have a "Supported by:" parameter, while Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict has both a "Proxies:" and "Supported by:" parameter.
My posts in this discussion were really about the military conflict infobox policy, rather than the RfC question. That is my bad for taking the thread off-topic. I simply don't know whether I should take this discussion to WP:AN for a close review of the deprecation RfC or should I take it to WP:Village pump (policy) since it is a policy question? Please help! TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's a tension between WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AGF. Discussion should, ideally, mean thoroughly explore the different viewpoints rather than throwing up one's hands and walking away, though of course there are limits Placeholderer (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

North Korean troops are no longer involved

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago36 comments9 people in discussion

Title. Also, they were only in Kursk, so the footnote saying "the war" is misleading and inaccurate.

@FOARP

All of these sources say that they were pulled back:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/world/europe/north-korea-troops-ukraine-russia.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/north-korean-troops-reportedly-pulled-back-from-russia-ukraine-front

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/01/31/world/north-korean-troops-ukraine/

https://www.politico.eu/article/north-korea-troops-removed-from-russia-ukraine-combat-seoul-spy-agency-nis-says/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjder8zgk48o

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/07/russia-withdraws-north-korea-troops-kursk-deaths-ukraine-war

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-north-korea-soldiers-front-line-krusk-2024321

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/02/04/north-korean-troops-in-russia-not-seen-fighting-since-mid-january-south-korea-says-a87849

https://kyivindependent.com/north-korean-troops-not-seen-for-3-weeks-in-parts-of-kursk-oblast-ukraines-special-forces-say/

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-north-korea-retreat-casualties-russia/33298570.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/31/europe/ukraine-russia-kursk-north-korean-troops-intl/index.html

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3297773/ukraine-war-north-korean-troops-no-show-down-fears-capture-intelligence-leak

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-war-casualties-b2693939.html TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, if I've understood you correct, Ukrainian, South Korean, and US intelligence assessments from January 2025 saying the North Koreans had pulled back are reliable and should be followed, but the same agencies and sources saying they had returned in February 2025 aren't reliable and shouldn't be followed:
None of the sources you've cited is saying that North Korean troops had pulled back for good. We shouldn't be stating in the voice of Wikipedia that North Korean troops stopped fighting in this war in January 2025 when this is not, at all, what reliable sources are telling us. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • First link: "Zelensky says". Is the leader of an involved country a reliable source? Do we write everything Putin says as fact?
  • Second link: "The National Intelligence Service, South Korea’s main spy agency, said it was still trying to assess the size of the new deployment. But its brief statement followed a report in a South Korean newspaper, JoongAng, citing anonymous sources" WP:RSBREAKING: "These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media"
  • Third link: Seems acceptable, might be WP:RSPRIMARY: "Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
Is one primary source enough to overturn an overwhelming consensus among WP:RS? TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @Slatersteven as they've decided to involve themselves in this.
Do you have any sources that suggest NK troops are still fighting against Ukraine? TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
They seem to be above. do you have any sources that say it was a permanent withdrawal? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
One source is not enough to overturn 13 that I posted.
"do you have any sources that say it was a permanent withdrawal?"
Scroll up to the start of this topic, there are 13 WP:RS links there. TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are seconded. Burden of proof, in Wikipedia, seems to be with the status quo challenger. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
And which ones say this is a permanent withdrawal? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why do they have to say it is a permanent withdrawal? TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Because only a permanent withdrawal would mean that North Korea had stopped being involved as a belligerent in this war.
And sourcing just as reliable as the sources you just posted says they returned in February.
And to the IP's point: the status quo is the original version of the footnote that Turbo replaced with something claiming that North Korea is no longer in this war. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"And sourcing just as reliable as the sources you just posted says they returned in February."
And here is a March 21 article calling the news unconfirmed: As per an article published by the BBC on 7 February, the North Korean contingent has since returned to combat, however the news remains to be confirmed. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fresh eyes here, none of your sources support the claim that North Korean troops permanently withdrew from the conflict.
Also, North Korean troops being involved at all means they were involved in the war. It doesn't matter if they were only in Kursk or not, they were fighting as part of the war so they are involved in the war.
Temporary withdraws from the front line for replenishment ≠ Total withdrawal from the conflict.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
«ΤΞΔ» (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstood the issue (which is partly my fault). I don't want to remove North Korea from the infobox, I wish to amend the footnote to reflect WP:RS, like so. TurboSuperA+(connect) 04:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am still inclined to believe that the current state of the infobox is fine. While you are correct that reliable sources only support the claim that North Koreans are operating only Kursk and that North Koreans do not appear to be operating in internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, that still makes them a party to this conflict.
Russia and their allies are known to rotate units and pull troops away from the frontline for resupply and rest, especially after major movements and your sources suggest that this is what is happening to the North Korean troops. There is no indication that North Korea completely withdrew from the conflict in January of 2025.
Pulling back from the front line ≠ Total withdrawal from the conflict. I can also see there are reliable sources indicating they returned to the front line in February.
«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"I am still inclined to believe that the current state of the infobox is fine."
This is not about the infobox, but about the footnote at the bottom of the article. Currently it says North Korean troops have widely been reported as fighting in Kursk since October 2024.[1][2] but I wish to change it to say North Korean troops have widely been reported as fighting in Kursk from October 2024[1][2] until January 2025[3][4]. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, the mention of the infobox in your first reply threw me off.
I would be more on board with your suggested change to the footnote if there was a reliable source to suggest this was a permanent withdrawal. However everything im seeing seems to suggest this is more of a tempoary rotation away from the front lines.
«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
everything im seeing seems to suggest this is more of a tempoary rotation away from the front lines.
Do you have a WP:RS that says this? TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have RS that says they returned, we don't need a source stating that the withdrawal was temporary, because it clearly was based on them returning shortly after withdrawing. However, that the withdrawal was apparently temporary is exactly what analysts quoted in the sources you just posted say:
"Separately, the New York Times also reported that the North Koreans had been pulled off the front lines. The newspaper quoted US officials as saying the withdrawal may not be a permanent one, and the soldiers could return after receiving additional training or after the Russians come up with new ways of deploying them to avoid such heavy casualties.
Can you just drop the stick on this one and stop bludgeoning this issue? FOARP (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"We have RS that says they returned"
No, we have Zelenskyy saying they returned. He is not a reliable source on the war, just like Putin isn't.
"may not be a permanent one" and "the soldiers could return"
Doesn't seem very certain to me. Anything could happen, WP:CRYSTAL.
"stop bludgeoning this issue"
Asking for sources is not "bludgeoning". TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is probably a little disingenuous to say: This is not about the infobox, but about the footnote at the bottom of the article, since the footnote is placed in the infobox. Whether we need a footnote there at all is debatable since it is detail for which the infobox is unsuited - North Korea has engaged as a belligerent, end of story. Where have they withdrawn to? I find it ironic that there was a great rush to add NK to the infobox on the substance that they were providing troops to support Russia, even when this support was unclear as to whether they would engage with Ukraine and again, when they moved to Kursk but far from the front. The fact that they have withdrawn from the front (at least for the moment) belongs in the body of an article. Whether it belongs in this article or the article on the Kursk fighting is another issue but I believe it to be the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Good point. I wanted to update the footnote, but removing it altogether works too. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply


If you are going to ask for fresh eyes, maybe allow them to have a say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, fresh eyes here, what sources, exactly, suggest North Korea has returned to the fight? Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
[[3]] . Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. So TurboSuperA+ is correct that this source is very clear to attribute the statement to Zelensky I found another source that attributes the claim to the Ukranian military. We should do likewise and attribute any such statement. We should not treat-as-true whatever is said by any participant in a war. We absolutely should attribute unless we have third-party verification. But we, likewise, should not ignore sources simply because they complicate an infobox.
As for the footnote: I might suggest that we describe that they were part of the Kursk offensive between October 2024 and January 2025 with unconfirmed reports from the Ukranian military that they returned in February 2025 after being rotated off. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The sourcing saying they temporarily withdrew is of the same nature as that saying they rejoined - statements of Ukrainian officials, South Korean intelligence assessments. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
This actually satisfies my concern about making wiki-voice statements attributed to parties active in the war as RoK is not a co-belligerent to either side. So, yeah, I'd say it's safe to leave the footnote as-is based on this evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The statement is attributed to an anonymous source, btw: The National Intelligence Service, South Korea’s main spy agency, said it was still trying to assess the size of the new deployment. But its brief statement followed a report in a South Korean newspaper, JoongAng, citing anonymous sources, that North Korea has sent up to 3,000 additional troops since January by ship and military cargo planes. NYT
AlJazeera only quotes "Yonhap news agency" but the NYT article points out their source is anonymous. WP:RSPRIMARY urges caution when dealing with anonymous sources of information. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
While I generally prefer attributed statements to wiki-voice this isn't the only data point. What it confirms is that a third-party that is not a co-beligerent in the war is confirming Ukr intel. That seems to be a satisfactory standard. As has been pointed out, many of the articles about the Jan 2025 withdrawal are derived from Ukr military intelligence too. We should maintain a consistent reliability standard. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's also this assessment published yesterday by Reuters which states generally that: " North Korean soldiers and munitions continue to play a crucial role" in the war. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a great article but it does not provide any claims about the disposition of DPRK troops in 2025 although it does dispassionately confirm that DPRK continues to supply Russia with munitions. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Standing seconding you. The depth of analysis provided unambiguously proves troops' unchanged status quo (whether dispositioned, either confirmed or not, etc.) No amendment. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to boldly remove the footnote from the infobox, since North Korea has straightforwardly (if somewhat covertly) acted as a belligerent within the scope of the events in this article, and details should be in the body Placeholderer (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I support that edit. It solves my complaint. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

gennady Zhidko should be listed as dead

edit
Latest comment: 18 hours ago10 comments3 people in discussion

he died due to a heart attack at 58 2600:8801:3809:6E00:C5C4:C53B:40B0:7566 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info, but the  † symbol is only for people who were killed in action Placeholderer (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Placeholderer there is the  # symbol for this situation, if that's better? It does seem strange to list Zhidko in the IB as if they are an active commander. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know about that one! That seems appropriate; will add Placeholderer (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wait upon reflection it's probably a bad idea to assume that deaths of high-profile Russians due to unspecified illness is "natural causes" Placeholderer (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The sources in Zhidko's article are now two years old, and the IP mentions that his death was from a heart attack. I'll check for more recent sources when I have the time; I have my own projects to work on. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see sources saying he died from a heart attack specifically; sources reported that the government said he died after a "long illness", and some sources understandably called that out as questionable. Is there a neutral symbol that just says someone died without implying a certain cause? Placeholderer (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
None that I'm aware of, unfortunately. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I take it that 💀 is probably not the answer Placeholderer (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
😂🤣💀 Mr rnddude (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"sending weaponry to Russia" map

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In the caption of the map for weapon suppliers to Russia, in the Support for Russia section, there's a "needs update" tag that says:

Is at least missing China (weaponry, components, ammunition, and propellants), Myanmar (mortar shells and arms buyback), and India (arms buyback, components, defense equipment); but also potentially UAE (light weaponry) for lethal, and Maldives (semi-conductors), and Turkey (military materials (not materiels)) for non-lethal. The image page also mentions Brazil as missing.

A tag on the image's page from 2024 says:

Outdated map: Suppliers of Russia also include China, India and Brazil. Also: This map have been accurate when counting direct supply back in 2022, but there is also indirect supply (like the US, UK, France, Germany...) and non-boycotting countries that their supply is routed through.

It would be helpful to clarify which countries are or are not sending weapons to Russia. I don't believe that all the countries listed on these tags should be colored in as sending weapons. It would also be good to clarify exactly what is worth coloring in. The caption currently says "Countries sending weaponry to Russia", which implies state-sponsored provision of weapons, but the tags seem to call for including supply of dual-use goods (which I, for one, don't think should be included on the map).

Should those tags be removed—and the map stay the same—or should the map be changed/updated to some extent? I'm not sure what previous discussions have been had on this Placeholderer (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the "needs update" tag pending discussion, since it seemed to be unsourced Placeholderer (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Article length (cont.)

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion

At around 18,000 words, the article "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". These are distinct solutions. We can split this, for instance to give the initial invasion its own article, or we can delete a heck of a lot of sourced content (though much content may already be in other articles, too).

How should we address the size? My personal preference is for splitting over trimming, though splitting is much harder procedurally. One way or another, though, the visual editor takes painfully long to load, and I'm not happy with the "Wait ??? years for the war to end before fixing any problems" answer Placeholderer (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are sub articles relevant to fighting in every area at campaign level and for every major topic herein. The solution is to ruthlessly take an axe to the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Upon reflection, I will turn a 180 and say I support a bigger focus on trimming, since yeah all these sub-articles exist already Placeholderer (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is quite a bit that can be trimmed in the "Events" section: for example, something like On 26 March, Wagner Group forces claimed to have fully captured the tactically significant Azom factory in Bakhmut is far too granular of a detail to include in an article of this scope. I will get to work on this part of the article shortly. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Because of WP:RECENTISM there are contradictions. For example:
Russia said on 26 February that US drones had supplied intelligence to the Ukrainian navy to help it target Russian warships in the Black Sea. The US denied this.[434] then two paragraphs later On 5 May, a US official confirmed that the US gave "a range of intelligence" (including real-time battlefield targeting intelligence)[446] to assist in the sinking of the Moskva.[447]
That can be rewritten as: The United States supplied intelligence that assisted Ukraine in targeting Russian warships in the Black Sea, including the Moskva. TurboSuperA+(connect) 17:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
About the Peace efforts section: I'm not convinced that the section should exist at all in this article. If the section is to be included, does it really benefit from going beyond the skeletal basics to include comments by Western analysts? @TylerBurden Placeholderer (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The peace efforts are rather notable in this instance, which has ramped up more I would say with President "end the war in one day" taking office and failing miserably at obtaining peace, so in some form I do think it should be present on the article. I mostly restored the content since from the edit summary it more seemed you took issue with the "analysts" wording, I am personally not against brief analysys as long as we maintain WP:DUE, though obviously more in depth content should be in the main ″peace article″. TylerBurden (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The splitting proposal above would solve this issue of too many words. JasonMacker (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Edit: I see you have already expressed support for the splitting proposal. JasonMacker (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2025

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

roughly 11,000 troops North Korea has sent to Russia so far, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said. About 4,000 of them have been killed or injured in combat, according to Seoul.https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/europe/north-korea-russia-ukraine-soldiers-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=The%20reinforcements%2C%20sent%20in%20January,in%20combat%2C%20according%20to%20Seoul. CipherChronicle (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

We mention NK aLREADY. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done Lova Falk (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Graph of death toll of modern European wars

edit
Latest comment: 5 hours ago14 comments8 people in discussion
 


Ignoring the spelling mistake, this graph is problematic for a few reasons:

  • Some of these arguably aren't "wars" (e.g., the invasion of Czechoslovakia).
  • Some conflicts that should be included here are missing (Donbas War, the first Chechen war, Russo-Georgian war).
  • "Modern" history is typically understood as including the years 1914-18 and 1939-45. If we mean "post-WW2" we should just say that.
  • The Russo-Ukrainian war that began in 2022 is still ongoing, the graph should be clear that this is an incomplete figure (for example, by saying "2022-2024").
  • Worst of all, this is basically a collection of different estimates from different sources measuring different things to different degrees of certainty, and as such a WP:SYNTH and raises questions about whether it is WP:DUE. For this to be a defensible graph, the same source (or at least the same methodology) needs to be used for the deaths in each conflict. For example, the Uppsala Conflict dataset could be used, but is only up to date to 2023.

For the above reasons I am removing this graph. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I saw the image, squinted real hard at it, but didn't bother further about it. I agree with removal. An additional issue is using single years for all the conflicts when several were multi-year conflicts. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree the graph should be removed for all the reasons above. To add to FOARP take on modern wars - modernity ie the era of modern wars is generally defined as (in the broadest definition) the era from about 1500 to 1990 (so any wars after that would be postmodern wars I guess?). In any case the modern era definitely includes both world wars, but also Napoleonic wars and much older conflicts. Unless of course wars using modern weapon systems is meant (which would exclude Napoleon but would still include the world wars but that is not what the figure states). I also agree the claim "deadliest" is synthesis even if sources would be used using the same estimation methodology, as we would need a reliable claim that (a) all of these are wars (b) no war with more death than 300 occurred in Europe in the given time frame (listing all the sources that you have is not sufficient evidence there are no deadlier wars for which no source was found for hence the need for a reliable claim there are none). (PS I do however praise the effort of the figure creator to list the sources as images are also often abused to bring in new facts trying the dodge the reliable sourcing altogether). Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apart from all of the other reasons (I do not disagree) we already have too many images (in this part of the article at lease) such that it appears way too far from where it would have any MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
All these are minor issues that could easily be corrected. The question is only − once corrected, would you all allow the graph to return to the article page?
Some of these arguably aren't "wars" (e.g., the invasion of Czechoslovakia) − I can remove the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia from the graph.
Some conflicts that should be included here are missing (Donbas War, the first Chechen war, Russo-Georgian war) − This is just a sample of conflicts, not a definitive list. There just would not be enough room on the graph to include so many conflicts at once. Also, Donbas War is already included in Wikipedia as part of Russo-Ukrainian War.
"Modern" history is typically understood as including the years 1914-18 and 1939-45. If we mean "post-WW2" we should just say that. − Debatable. But just to cut to the chase, I can change it to "Deadliest European conflicts from 1950 to present".
The Russo-Ukrainian war that began in 2022 is still ongoing, the graph should be clear that this is an incomplete figure − I can do that.
Worst of all, this is basically a collection of different estimates from different sources measuring different things to different degrees of certainty, and as such a WP:SYNTH and raises questions about whether it is WP:DUE. For this to be a defensible graph, the same source (or at least the same methodology) needs to be used for the deaths in each conflict. For example, the Uppsala Conflict dataset could be used, but is only up to date to 2023. − This is basically the most unreasonable complaint. Different sources mention different conflicts and their respective death tolls. Therefore, several different sources simply have to be used to create the graph. If you have one that mentions all these wars, feel free to post it. Uppsala database, which you mentioned, was already eliminated by yourself since it is incomplete and still not up to date. The methodology is the same − a reliable source mentioning a death toll of certain war. All is mentioned in the graph description.
An additional issue is using single years for all the conflicts when several were multi-year conflicts − I can correct that.
(a) all of these are wars (b) no war with more death than 300 occurred in Europe in the given time frame (listing all the sources that you have is not sufficient evidence there are no deadlier wars for which no source was found for hence the need for a reliable claim there are none) − a) I can change it simply from "wars" to "conflicts". b) Incomprehensible, I already explained that this is not a definitive list, since one graph alone cannot include all 20-something conflicts in Europe from the 1950s to today (for instance, the Ten-Day War isn't that notable). But I gave a sample of some of the deadliest conflicts in recent time. I can include the First Chechen War or any other conflict that you would suggest.
I can correct all these omissions. But I need a guarantee from you that the graph will then be included in the article. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry but I have to disappoint you here. As Wikipedia depends on consensus no a-priori guarantees can be given that any edit/figure will be accepted (other editors may get involved, additional issues and objections may emerge, people may disagree with how the raised issues are dealt with). Arnoutf (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The start date does seem rather arbitrary, and I am unsure is supported by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
As does general inclusion, where are the troubles? The Turkish invasion of Cyprus? Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
As already explained, I cannot include every European conflict since 1950 in only one graph. I can include The Troubles, if you will support including the graph in the article. Cyprus is in the Middle East, though.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you make such selection you need an extremely reliable source that explicitly makes that selection. You cannot do that yourself. Otherwise the selection itself might be original research (and in this case likely to be biased). Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the best selection is to just include the top n "wars"/"conflicts"/etc by deaths. There must be some source that gives a convenient list—maybe one that also includes upper and lower bounds.
In principle the graph makes total sense to include in the Casualties section. Given that that section shows a lot of variance in the estimates, having bounds might be a good addition, but I'm not the one doing the work for this Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the best selection is to just include the top n "wars"/"conflicts"/etc by deaths. There must be some source that gives a convenient list—maybe one that also includes upper and lower bounds. − Unfortunately, no, I haven't found one. At best, there is one from 2022, but it's now outdated considering the high fatalities of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The best I can do is to give reliable sources for each war and compile them on a graph. I have implemented the suggestions and uploaded a new graph in the meantime, with some bars showing a range for two estimates of casualties in specific conflicts.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Isn't "every European conflict since September 3, 1945" is more used by historians than "1950" though?213.230.93.2 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would already help to start form the 2022 source and than add the current war against that backdrop. At least you might have (if it is a reliable source) a good benchmark that is not original research. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Turkey suppliers to Russia

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Now Erdoğan support for Russia to stop Zelensky. Yes it. 2001:1C01:40C2:7700:DEE8:6C70:C3B5:E85E (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

While Turkey not support Ukraine. 2001:1C01:40C2:7700:DEE8:6C70:C3B5:E85E (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes. 2001:1C01:40C2:7700:DEE8:6C70:C3B5:E85E (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then provide it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you want Turkey to be added to this map, you should provide sources that specifically say Turkey is sending weapons to Russia Placeholderer (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
What garbage. There is no reliable source that says Turkey supports Russia with weapons. Just say one, just one, and also with Turkey having closer relations with Ukraine, yeah that won’t happen anytime soon. Datawikiperson (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Russian civilian casualties

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, looking at the table with casualties Russian civilians are not dying at all, which is surely not the case. May be you are not interested. But don't you think the article could benefit from this data and become more informative and acedemic? 2A02:908:F68:8A40:2C9B:854D:66AA:F61D (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

By all means, add a reliable sourced number. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Against" Ukraine

edit
Latest comment: 19 hours ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Not done: Not a good faith edit request. OP concerned with a discussion on another wiki with different standards and a differently-written article Placeholderer (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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.

Would it be okay, to put in the article, the following:

U.S. president Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Elon Musk (from U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)) are against Ukraine.[1][2][3][4][5]

Sources

edit
  1. ^ "Why Donald Trump 'hates Ukraine'". POLITICO. 2024-04-18. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
  2. ^ Motyl, Alexander (2024-09-27). "The real reason Trump hates Zelensky". The Hill. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
  3. ^ Chait, Jonathan (2025-03-05). "The Simple Explanation for Why Trump Turned Against Ukraine". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
  4. ^ "Fact-checking Donald Trump's claims about war in Ukraine". www.bbc.com. 2025-02-19. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
  5. ^ "Trump's sudden turn against Zelensky came as a shock to many Americans. It shouldn't have". Meduza. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
2001:2020:C305:834B:5C84:C4C2:F47:B770 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Probably too vague to be useful in an encyclopedia article. Also, Trump is far from the focus of this article—he's only mentioned once, and in a section that I'm not convinced should exist (Biden is also mentioned once) Placeholderer (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hey, sorry if this sounds weird but this is actually from a conflict in the Simple English Wikipedia. This user above started an edit war after removing that part from the article, in which, in the simple english article, first perfectly fine in. After the consensus was to keep it in the article, they still kept reverting and now came here out of the wiki to try to get solutions to their already solved (in a way they didn't want) question Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
You have got things wrong.--The post here, is entirely about what can be put into article at English-wiki.--So, sorry that your text, did not make the cut here. 2001:2020:C305:834B:280D:55CF:F01C:1590 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1288597894"