Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

source needs home[edit]

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.


I accidentally overwrote it and am putting it here because I don't think it is a very good source anyway for Russian involvement in Donbas. I looked quickly but the gist seemed to be that the US should not provide military aid to Ukrain in 2022. But maybe I am wrong, or maybe some other point in the article could use some support from the US defense contractor point of view. Russian troops were deeply involved in the conflict.[1]


References

  1. ^ Charap, Samuel; Boston, Scott (21 January 2022). "U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine: A Silver Bullet?". RAND Corporation.
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.

European arms initiative[edit]

This is my last attempt, but I will try it. There should be article about Czech-initiated European arms initiative to supplying Ukrainian Armed Forces during current shortages. Is there anyone, who will create article about this?--178.255.168.45 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this more significant than any other aid? Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because problems in the USA and it was already favoured by Dmitro Kuleba, so it have significance at current critical situation. 78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@178.255.168.45 If you really want stuff added, you can make some edit requests to Talk:Ukraine Defense Contact Group.
As Slatersteven said, there is as yet no indication in RS that this is more significant than the supplies of Patriot, HIMARS, F-16s, Bradleys, Javelins etc.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On wiki are far less significant articles (in case of this war, various local skirmishes articles etc. and no one will delete them). Thus, not sure if thats valid argument.--78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something gets added to Wikipedia if it is notable, not if it is significant. Something is notable if it is mentioned in secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable, than in that case, this article should be there much earliers, as already even WSJ mention this initiative. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania also joined initiative with 35 million Euros.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zelensky thanked for initiative.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another sources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/19/czech-republic-to-deliver-thousands-of-extra-artillery-shells-to-ukraine and https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/a-small-ex-soviet-satellite-state-goes-hunting-for-arms-for-ukraine-35255577 or https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-debate/20240321-ukraine-and-arms-supply-can-the-eu-bridge-the-gap --178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well more of the articles you speak of are gonna get deleted by consesnsus pretty soon, almost certainly… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Battle of Balakliia is unnecessary in comparison to this initiative. Would someone delete that article? It can be merged to Kharkhiv counteroffensive without any problem.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an article about a battle, not aid. They are not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, you are right. Battle of Balakliia is much less notable than military aid. Thank you! Will you write that European arms initiative article? I do not have much time for creating article. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source to help you with creating article: https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/swiat/news-sikorski-zapowiada-polska-podwoi-swoj-wklad-w-czeska-inicjat,nId,7415776#crp_state=1 --178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related article needs expansion and cleanup[edit]

Hey all,

Fortifications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a messy start-class article that could use a lot of improvement. Attention from more editors would be helpful.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the map[edit]

The war map at the top only focuses on the situation inside ukraine.but thats just not how this war is working. there have been some rather sizable incursions in the belograd, kursk, and voronzenh regions. I think that these should be shown somewhere, since, even if the ukrainian government is not taking part in them, they are direct response to the invasion and are mainly used to divert rusisna resources from ukraine. i dont this would to hard to do. I also think the detailed map should be updated and maybe the tterritorial control during the war as well. Definetly the list of engagements 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a better fit for Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this article which specifically focuses on the Russian invasion. TylerBurden (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Template:Russian internal conflict detailed map/ Lukt64 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I see the value of this information, I am not convinced this should be on a map. The current map gives an overview of territory that is controlled or being fought over. Small scale incursions that were never intended for lasting control are not on that map, nor are airstrikes etc. If we would include those for Ukraine the map would probably unwieldly filled with such minor actions. But if we agree it makes no sense to include each and any (known) airstrike or command raid within Ukraine, that raises the question why we would then need such a map for Russia. It seems a bit asymmetric to me. Also I am not sure the proposed internal conflict map works for this purpose. Arnoutf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These territorities have been held for nearly 2 weeks now...@Arnoutf 68.132.201.101 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source saying that the pro ukrainian groups have been driven out of said territory. In the absence of one its reasonable to assume their still there @Slatersteven 68.132.201.101 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British English is probably unenforceable[edit]

This topic area is finally peaceful and quiet enough that it’s time to seriously consider what that banner is doing up there, given that it’s honoured only in the breach. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, inconsistently, rather than not at all? I would think it could be difficult to enforce either way though. Usually Europeans are split on US and UK English usage, and the topic is of interest to a very broad audience, so I think this is likely to be a problem whatever anyone does. Jim Killock (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. But inconsistency is the worst of all in my opinion. Obviously as a proud American I have a bit of a potential bias here, but for what it’s worth both Ukrainians and Russians overwhelmingly use American standards of English in real-world settings. And I do believe it’s empirically verifiable that a sort of de-Americanized American standard is becoming the global standard for non-native speakers.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RETAIN exists to avoid wasting time arguing about this. Since the topic has no ties to any particular English variety, whatever was first used post-stub revision is what should be used. If you care that deeply, look at the article history and see if the British tag was correctly added. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took your advice…
Turns out, it was disruptively (agf) added by @WhisperToMe without discussion or justification at a point when non-British spellings were already prominently in use.
To my knowledge, British English has never, ever been consistently used in the article. Or at least, since the time the tag was unilaterally added, when the infamous words "demilitarize and denazify" were already in the lead in non-British spelling. What with the chaos on the ground, the frequent edit conflicts due to the usual current-events flurry, and other stuff, no one noticed the addition and later it became the status quo.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioactiveBoulevardier: - This was the state of the article on February 24. I added UK English template because the article was using day first date format, a characteristic expression of British English, in the lead and in multiple places in the article. I am aware that the US military uses day first, but ordinarily U.S. topics use month first. I did not extensively go over each part of the article to see which spellings were used. While there are other Englishes, of course, that use day first format, UK English is typically the most prominent. Unless an article has a particular tie to a particular English speaking country in some way, if I see day first being used, I choose British English as I assume that is what is being used in the article. Due to the prominence of the date format, I perceived UK English to be already a matter of fact in the article, and not necessary to discuss. Oxford Learners' Dictionaries state demilitarize is acceptable British English as it states "(British English also demilitarise)", though Cambridge dictionary states that in the UK it is usually "demilitarise". Collins dictionary stated that both forms are used in UK English. I am not aware of "denazify" being spelled differently in the UK, and Oxford English dictionary uses "denazify". WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden: - This is the first diff I see in the revision history (which seems to be a split from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). It uses day first date format. While "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" is used, The Guardian (a British newspaper) uses that particular spelling for NATO. As for "recognized," Collins dictionary states that both "ize" and "ise" are used for that word in British English ("recognize in British English or recognise "). Same with Oxford Learners Dictionary ("(British English also recognise)"). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DATETIES, For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English are independent issues. That is why we have separate use templates. For example {{use dmy dates}}{{use American English}} is pretty common in milhist and many other areas.
It’s an interesting point you make about “demilitarize”, but I don’t believe it’s ultimately well taken. While I don’t have an OED on the shelf at home, Cambridge Dictionary [1] has “BrE usually”.
(Furthermore, your citation of a learner’s dictionary is arguably evidence of the increasing normativity of certain American spellings in international/L2 contexts).
Also, the diff you linked appears to be from six hours later, which is an eternity in terms of actual revisions on the first day of a massive current event.
I didn’t suggest that “denazify” has divergent spellings.
NATO has an official spelling and it’s that way probably because the depositary and primus inter pares of the North Atlantic Treaty is of course the US.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this seems to have been the revision I would have read before I added the template. In the end, the page still uses extensively DMY. Anyway, I was not aware of the line in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic (and it turns out the line was in there at the time). It seems so strange because date format is perhaps the most visible difference between those varieties of English. Unless I knew the topic is about the US Armed Forces, my brain automatically decided "British English" when I saw that date format, and likewise when I see MDY my brain decided "American English". I used date format as the decider too because it would take too much time to look through every single spelling and weigh its prominence and guess what the editor who added meant. Date format just became a very convenient decider for me. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well respectfully, I believe that was eroneous. Dmy can indicate any number of non-Anglophone TIES. If I wrote a biography article about a Brazilian in AmE, would I use mdy?
Anyway, do you have any objection to the removal of the tag?
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. While DMY can be based on ties to non-Anglophone ties, the majority of edits on ENwiki are from countries with Anglophone ties (see Wikipedia:Edits_by_project_and_country_of_origin). Additionally, editors of non-Anglophone backgrounds are often influenced by the key variety of English they learn in school (either British or American). For example an editor from Brazil may have learned English from an American teacher (or a non-American teacher who uses American English) and therefore uses American English.
2. I'm fine with the template being removed while editors reconsider which variety to select. Consensus should decide which one is ultimately used.
3. Additionally, when I went back over WP:ENGVAR I found the line "An article's date formatting (March 24, 2024 vs. 24 March 2024) is also related to national varieties of English – see MOS:DATEFORMAT and especially MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR." Should this line have clarification that MOS dates are not necessarily related to national varieties of English?
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the article revision at the time the TP was tagged (without the article itself being tagged until much later), only one possible Britishism, “authorised” appears anywhere. While there are no smoking-gun Americanisms, the “ize” endings and consistent use of Oxford commas (mainly an Americanism these days, sadly) seem to indicate otherwise. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really unenforceable, as we can enforce it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps (although I would question the feasibility) but did you read all the above comments? I have seen no evidence of any explicit consensus to use BrE, except tacit acceptance of what was erroneously assumed to have been the original state. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I am happy for the change to be made to US English, in return for the US unblocking its support for Ukraine in Congress. This is a fair exchange, I believe. Jim Killock (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't help out there 😂Not even by calling my rep bc they're already solidly in favor.
In any case I don't see Ukrainian sources switching to BrE as a protest lol RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump could intervene in favour of British English yet. Seriously tho, while I don't think international == use US English, you probably should regard this as a question of what is convenient and minimises the work. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same issue. But "TACIT ACCEPTANCEE" is consensus. But I will say why British English, as this is not a British topic. But it does need consistency, so we have to pick one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article should be consistent in things like spelling and date formats. An article in a state of flux (eg an ongoing current event) will rarely be consistent until the article becomes stable. Many editors don't make a conscious choice of EngVar spelling when editing, so this inconsistency will always be an issue until it becomes relatively stable. We do need to choose one variety of English or another so that the article can become consistent. WP:TIES really doesn't resolve this. Do we accept the variety of English as tagged? Do we try to analyse the very first edit? Do we take it to an RfC and see how many US users v non-US users turn up on the day? Are there better and more important things to do? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My view, as I said above, is that there aren't better things to do in this topic area for now. Unless the usuals here want to join some backlog drives or hop over to the ongoing CoI mess at ANI or, y'know, take some ZSU brigades and VS RF divisions to GA, then I don't see why this isn't the ideal time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]