Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Ukrainian War at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc. | |||||||||||||||
|
Caption
The caption on the image says “The military situation as of 19 May 2022[update]”, when it should say “The military situation as of 6 September 2024[update]”. 2A01:119F:253:7000:9072:8D51:B6AB:8A80 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Naming this a ‘war’ without addressing the primary offensive against civilians is in error.
How can this be called ‘an ongoing war’ when Ukraine was a sovereign nation attacked on Feb 24, 2022 by Russian forces? How can this be called a ‘war’ when top military experts worldwide are calling this a genocide? Calling this a ‘war’ and an ‘extension of a war in from 2014,’ seems to exclude the unique and obvious situation of an unprovoked attack on primarily civilians. 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can look at the current situation and not see it as a war. Attacks on civilians doesn't make it not a war. However, in terms of when the war started, you might be looking for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. — Czello 11:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could you explain why you believe it not to be a 'war' because of these factors and what else it would be called? I might be missing something but a war frequently includes civilian casualties. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the people running this site don’t know how it works. It’s clear that the Russia-Ukraine war started on february 24 according to every single source, yet they bring up pointless self published books and change the notion of this war Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pleae read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please read literally every single other wikipedia guideline article and learn how to run the site and stop sending personal insults. Wikiman92783 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Woah, let's calm down and stop starting fights. Let's work together to settle this civilly. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
In other wiki articles they list other names for the event in the first few sentences which could work as something of a middle ground. I've seen Putin's War thrown around in the West. I can't find a really good name from any Russia source though. The best might be: Russia's Ukraine Operation which I found in Russia Today, but even that's a bit too technical. I don't know how Wiki formatting works 2:03, 11 May 2022 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1900:A5A0:892E:7508:FA84:85F4 (talk)
I love the name "Russo-Ukrainian War": traditionally, the loser of the conflict gets the hyphenated prefix and the victor gets the full name. So.... Russo-Japanese War (they lost that one too), Franco-Prussian War? Don't even need to look it up to know who won. Russo-Ukrainian is quite accurate! 70.51.88.190 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from NATO and non-NATO nations
When a NATO member country supports Ukraine, it is not to say they act on behalf of NATO there⸺if you get what I'm saying. Nordic non-NATO countries have also supported Ukraine. Feel free to add this information there therefore. ToniTurunen (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/ramstein-meeting-gives-birth-to-global-contact-group-to-support-ukraine/ Probably more than 40 countries suport Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The usual practice here has always been to list sides that, besides mere diplomatic or humanitarian support, also had a direct of indirect military role (often, but not always, including those supplying military-grade equipment). Under that note, adding Sweden, Finland, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand to the list is the most accurate course of action. These countries have supplied arms to Ukraine just like NATO, yet cannot be included under the NATO umbrella. Having NATO as Ukraine's sole defender seems dangerously close to US-Eurocentrism and pure misinformation. The Last Scholar (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ukraine is NOT supported by NATO; to say this is a misunderstanding of how NATO works. NATO does not have the authority to state opinions or make declarations in this manner, that is done by its constituent member states speaking as individual states. NATO is not a political body capable of having such views beyond issues relating to its constitutional purposes. Things that Boris Johnston or Joe Biden may say represent the views of the UK or USA, not NATO. It is an important error because it supports a misleading view, one that Russia would like to promote, that Russia is in a proxy conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, only some of whom happen to be in NATO, all of them speaking for themselves. The only two things of significance that NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has not happened) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. While convenient to reduce the list to one to fit a small space in the info box, it omits important others and supports a spread a serious misunderstanding. Ex nihil (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- From the AP,[1]
NATO, as an organization, refuses to send troops or weapons to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone over it to keep the trans-Atlantic military group from being drawn into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual NATO countries, however, have provided anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, as well as equipment and medical supplies.
- From the AP,[1]
- Read the sources carefully and you will usually find it says "NATO members" or something similar. But not "NATO". ::NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ukraine is NOT supported by NATO; to say this is a misunderstanding of how NATO works. NATO does not have the authority to state opinions or make declarations in this manner, that is done by its constituent member states speaking as individual states. NATO is not a political body capable of having such views beyond issues relating to its constitutional purposes. Things that Boris Johnston or Joe Biden may say represent the views of the UK or USA, not NATO. It is an important error because it supports a misleading view, one that Russia would like to promote, that Russia is in a proxy conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, only some of whom happen to be in NATO, all of them speaking for themselves. The only two things of significance that NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has not happened) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. While convenient to reduce the list to one to fit a small space in the info box, it omits important others and supports a spread a serious misunderstanding. Ex nihil (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- Yes, and yet the infobox still stays Supported by: NATO, which is incorrect. Ex nihil (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/X_mark.svg/18px-X_mark.svg.png)
I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:
Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I want to add a section including NATO contributions to the war and their involvement. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any real details belongs in the subarticle 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In this article, it is enough to include a sentence or two summarizing that support, and another one or two about why that matters. You could write some draft text with sources and post it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'The NATO' (France and Germany) delivered military teechnology to Russia.
- 'The NATO' (Hungary) vetoes sanctions. Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! BadKarma22 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll move this to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine BadKarma22 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- BadKarma22 If we're talking boots on the ground then NATO as an entity itself is not directly involved, although people have commented that NATO is fighting a sort of "proxy war", if you would. At this point it's mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations. Hope this helps. Perhaps if you included a section detailing the commentary by people such as Jeffrey Sachs, that could be of use? X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is a dangerous fallacy that NATO has contributed to the Ukraine war effort. Its member states may have done so in various ways but that does not mean that NATO has. It is important to recognise this, because NATO has no authority to act or speak at the moment, all that has been done was done by its constituent member states acting and speaking as individual states. Russia promotes the idea that they are in conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, because it suits them to do so. If NATO were to contribute directly, as NATO, then that would be an enormously important event, but that has not happened yet. All NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has yet to happen) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. Boris Johnston speaks for UK, Macron for France, Biden for USA; nobody has spoken for NATO and none of the foregoing three examples have the authority to do so and won't. I think this discussion arises from a misunderstanding of how NATO works. The day NATO contributes to the war effort as NATO, we will all know about it, and we are into World War 3. Ex nihil (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- X750 if, as you say, NATO has "mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations", that fact is not evidence of NATO supporting Ukraine. After all, they are only in the "surrounding nations". And anyway, the claim would still need RSs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's exactly... what I meant NewsAndEventsGuy? My stance is that NATO is not supporting Ukraine X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I kind of thought so; I wasn't talking about the issue just potential edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's exactly... what I meant NewsAndEventsGuy? My stance is that NATO is not supporting Ukraine X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- BadKarma22 I oppose your desired change on the basis of RSs such as this one from the AP[1]
NATO, as an organization, refuses to send troops or weapons to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone over it to keep the trans-Atlantic military group from being drawn into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual NATO countries, however, have provided anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, as well as equipment and medical supplies.
- Read the sources carefully and you will usually find it says "NATO members" or something similar. But not "NATO". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Additional deaths
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3482769-who-estimates-3000-avoidable-deaths-in-ukraine-due-to-lack-of-access-to-chronic-illness-treatments/ Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- ALOT more additional deaths than that. The Civilian toll will just be left as it is, after the war it may be updated. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Grain war
- https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns
- https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110
- https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/
- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Xx236 it is unclear what you want to be done, please specify. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 01:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022 | Add Flags next to leaders names
Next to vladimir putin and Sergei Shoigu add ''
next to voldemort zelensky, Petro Poroshenko and Oleksandr Turchynov add '
' — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- PreserveOurHistory Why? They're on the same side, no need to add more flags. You've done this once already at short-range ballistic missile. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 14:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- it looks better PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not a particularly good reason, PreserveOurHistory. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 11:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- another reason is that is how wiki articles usually are. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not a particularly good reason, PreserveOurHistory. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 11:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
under "supported by NATO," should the NATO states be listed individually?
it seems odd to list many entities as one2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:6DE (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The term "Revolution of Dignity"
The Crimean separatists and Donbas separatists would obviously not agree to this characterization. I suggest editing this term to the "2014 Ukrainian Revolution." If the editors were to add "(characterized as the 'Revolution with Dignity' in Ukraine)", that would be accurate and OK, albeit a bit wordy. The page on the 2014 Ukraine Revolution should also be edited along the same lines. The current entry is biased and inaccurate from the perspective of one side in the dispute. Wikipedia needs to stop being so partisan in everything. It is tiresome. 108.56.219.144 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, the latter is derived from usage in reliable sources. A09090091 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but are these independent and does it satisfy WP:DUE? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Russian conscripts
I request to add an information on the fact that Russian concscripts are used in the war since the beginning. Thanks. Few sources: [1][2][3] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alexander Davronov, I encourage you to go ahead and add the content yourself! No reason not to, I think it would be good to mention if it is not already well-covered. I'd recommend not using the US Embassy source as that is definitely non-neutral, or at least using it only as an attributed opinion ("The US Embassy in Georgia claimed in 2022..."). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811:
or at least using it only as an attributed opinion
I totally agree with you, but I'm Russian and I tend to abstain from contribution into the article. There is a plenty of sources besides US embassy website. Cheers. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811:
Complete the article with extra info
Can someone please add info into the article as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_arsenal_of_Russia ?
It would help the 30k people looking at this every day with having some perspective with regard to nuclear arsenals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:C45F:2E5A:862B:6891 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest statement about nuclear weapons
Add this into the article please. It's the Russian ambassador to London's declaration about nuclear weapons.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61618902 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:2521:62FF:8BC7:AF90 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Wiki "Belligerents"
It's about who supports. Ukraine is supported by Greece, Turkish, English, French, German, Swedish, Australian, Norway, United States of America. But not listed on wikipedia? Meanwhile, on the Russian side there is Belarus. Is wikipedia in terms of this information, can be very accurate or not? Wikipedia should always be updated for the latest information. Neutrality is always upheld, as a proper medium of information and does not erase the role of each event because it can change history later. SoloRazer (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does not matter how often this is asked, or how often the same thing is reworded. If we have said no once we will say no again. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's possible you (like me until now) were unaware of an addition. In the current version, 1091026877, under Ukraine in the infobox it says For countries supporting Ukraine during the 2022 invasion, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This resolves the legitimate point you raised, but since its already taken care of, there's nothing to see here, move along folks. However if anyone wants to make a case, based on RSs, for doing something for suppporting nations prior to 2022, I'll listen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work you guys have done, and I know this has been a headache, but would it be possible to use the main title of the linked section (Foreign Military Support) as opposed to Foreign Military Involvement. It is confusing without the context and infographics shown from the beginning of the section.
- Thanks! Debiant (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
U.S. disinformation campaign
I don't see any discussion here about the U.S. disinformation campaign and its impact on Wikipedia's reliance on sources that simply reprint U.S. intelligence products. Any comments? Jojalozzo (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Until and unless there are WP:Reliable sources to go with your claims, there's nothing to discuss. You can list them like usual and after your sig include {{reflist-talk}} to generate footnotes here in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
Spending by Obama in 2014 was for "non-lethal" weapons, and by Trump in 2017 for "lethal" weapons.
The distinction between the two is riot control equipment is non-lethal (e.g. police), and everything else such as bullets are lethal (e.g army).
I'm pretty sure America is honest about what it's doing as a government, but individual players obviously have varied agenda. But, I'm 100% sure, if the USA government did something, they'd have a receipt for it. But, the caveat is, obviously, we're not always going to agree with those players are we.
Anyway that's my stance on "disinformation", I usually put it down to incomplete research, but then I like reading more than others I guess.
I hope you all have a nice day, and in the future we don't have wars like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.175.53 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Grammar in title
Wouldn't the norms of English grammar dictate the use of an en dash "–" instead of a hyphen in the title "Russo-Ukrainian War". The dash article attests to the en dash's usage in lieu of a hyphen in the cases of compound words such as "Russo–Ukrainian". Quoting the article, one of the en dash's main uses are "as a substitute for a hyphen in a compound when one of the connected items is more complex than a single word", as in the examples given such as "Radical–Unionist coalition", "Boston–Hartford route", and "New York–London flight". Cheers, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 05:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
OK by meChanged mind, opposed, see below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)OK by me. Didn't notice till you pointed it out.Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- NO. Please search the talk archives before making these proposals. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES establishes the use of hyphens when combining forms, such as 'Russo-', are used. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who knew? Thanks for pointing that out, I retract my OK above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
War chart
Can someone add this war chart in please?
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61726733?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049%26Russia%20may%20have%20lost%2020%2C000%20soldiers%2C%20Western%20official%20says%262022-06-09T16%3A45%3A20.265Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:45d54071-a546-4f7a-b65e-d44f4ad1433a&pinned_post_asset_id=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049&pinned_post_type=share — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:F002:281A:E7C5:89B2 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation 2A02:A457:53D3:1:31A3:64B4:8BCF:163D (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Its the Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation not Russo-Ukrainian war
- RS call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "(click to view)" to the Russian Invasion map gifs subtext as it has exceeded the number of frames that will allow it to play in thumbnail form. Physeters✉ 03:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
*Minor* grammatical errors under "Russia-NATO relations"
Found a couple of minor errors in the ["Russia-NATO relations"] section of the article:
> "Russian military aircraft flying over the Baltic and Black Seas often do not indicating their position or communicate with air traffic controllers"
Needs correction to "indicate"
> "Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have characterized the conflict as a proxy war instigated by NATO"
Needs correction to "has"
First time poster, apologies if this is inappropriate. Hoppingskipper (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for your help, Hoppingskipper! Jr8825 • Talk 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 18 June 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved Technical close. User:Onetwothreeip is represented as requesting this move but did not make this request. See below. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian-Ukrainian War – Common name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not objecting, but I doubt this is uncontroversial. The article has been moved before, and the topic is something that is currently on-going. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article has not been moved since 2020 except for formatting issues over the dash. I could not find a single objection to "Russian-Ukrainian War". Similar to the minor formatting changes, I am requesting a very minor grammatical change to the title, not a substantive one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=move it's been "Russo" since 2014. Looking at Template:Russian conflicts, "Russo" appears to be the convention, including for example Russo-Georgian War, so I object. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "Russo" is precisely what I am seeking to change. You're entitled to object but I don't see how you can say there's a convention. There are 27 uses of "Russo" and 15 uses of "Russian". The former is more historical while the latter is more modern. Pointing out a single other example would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I only counted 4 using "Russian" in compound words (i.e. with hyphens/dashes) on that template, with the most recent being Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812), for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeking to replace the word "Russo" in the title of this article with "Russian", so that would bring the total up to five hyphenated titles, and sixteen overall. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I only counted 4 using "Russian" in compound words (i.e. with hyphens/dashes) on that template, with the most recent being Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812), for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "Russo" is precisely what I am seeking to change. You're entitled to object but I don't see how you can say there's a convention. There are 27 uses of "Russo" and 15 uses of "Russian". The former is more historical while the latter is more modern. Pointing out a single other example would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=move it's been "Russo" since 2014. Looking at Template:Russian conflicts, "Russo" appears to be the convention, including for example Russo-Georgian War, so I object. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article has not been moved since 2020 except for formatting issues over the dash. I could not find a single objection to "Russian-Ukrainian War". Similar to the minor formatting changes, I am requesting a very minor grammatical change to the title, not a substantive one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Please show evidence that it’s the more common name in reliable sources, as opposed to many others (Russia–Ukraine war, Ukraine war, Ukrainian conflict, &c.). Please address the WP:CRITERION of consistency with other article titles, e.g., Russo–Georgian War. Please provide evidence that these terms are historical or modern. By the way, Anglo-Russian is the same kind of prefixed compound taking a hyphen as Russo-Ukrainian, as opposed to compound adjectives taking a dash English–Russian and Russian–Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose lazy proposal, no proof given. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inadequate rationale. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and rename to Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–2022), stop using this inadequate page name Wikiman92783 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A weak case with no real eveidence and nothing to show that the change would be a benefit. While this event isn't the only event that might be labeled "Russian-Ukrainian War", this ngram shows no clear reason to prefer one term over the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on process. Whoever has started this requested move has used my username without permission and without notifying me. This appears to come from a purely technical request that I made, hence the brief explanation, which was obviously not intended to be the basis for a move request on an article talk page. I would never disrespect my fellow Wikipedia editors by asking them to support a proposal to move an article with this lack of detail. The right action would be to re-open a move discussion with a proper rationale and for whoever started this to take responsibility for what has taken place. @GeoffreyT2000, Kj cheetham, Mzajac, Super Dromaeosaurus, VQuakr, Wikiman92783, and Cinderella157: Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)