Friday, March 11, 2022

The Backroom Speaks on the Russian-Ukrainian War

For the record (and laughs), here are sections of the Talk page on the "Russo-Ukrainian War" article.

Opening sentence of lead[edit]

The opening sentence of the lead is a bit misleading:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. [emphasis added]

It would imply that Belarus is a belligerent and not just a non-belligerent supporter. It tends to also suggests that the international supporters have a belligerent involvement since while we (WP editors) may know that we don't mean that they are belligerents, our readers don't necessarily know this - that the support is indirect. The sentence needs to be cleaned-up/clarified to remove the ambiguity/lack of clarity. Suggest:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other.

This is simple and accurate. If it is absolutely necessary to add more words than the proposal, then it might be something like: "Many countries have provided various levels of support to Ukraine short of becoming belligerents in the war while Belarus (also not a belligerent) has provided Russian forces territorial access for the 2022 invasion." Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed Belarus from that sentence once as I agree there's ambiguity over whether Belarus is a full participant. I didn't notice when/why I was reverted. Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now changed it to "supported by" – thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, I am still not comfortable with how the unqualified "supported by" is being used for both Belarus and the "international supporters". It does not distinguish that both are non-belligerents. I have added a note using the above text. However, I would be more comfortable with this version or as a second choice, this version. In the second choice, I think the added words break a more natural flow. Thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
addition of "international supporters" is flat out wrong. Take it out. They are not involved in the war, not a single soldier or squadron. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: thanks for removing the supporters from the first sentence, I was also thinking of doing the same as I also wasn't content with my earlier compromise text. I've reworded the sentence further today. Jr8825 • Talk 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, I think that the main sentence: ... is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces on one side, and Ukraine. is clearer (IMHO) than ... is an ongoing war between Russia, together with pro-Russian separatist forces, and Ukraine. However, we don't need to say "primarily" in the first version. Or perhaps: ... is an ongoing war between Russia (together with pro-Russian separatist forces) and Ukraine. Changes to the note are fine. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and make any changes you believe are necessary, I'm not too fussed about the precise wording now my main concern (listing non-belligerents in the opening sentence) has been addressed. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


Taking into account as to what is currently happening inside Russia, what are the chances of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko ending up like Nicolae Ceausescu and/or the Romanovs?

Please read wp:crystal and wp:forumSlatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


Russo-Ukrainian War[21][d] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The conflict includes the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), the war in Donbas (2014–present), naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what we are supposed to do with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or to out it another wat, what are you asking? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be confirmed whether a Russian army general was assassinated by a sniper during a parade in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukranians that make war (against) Bulgaria and Bulgarian-Russian people[edit]

I think it should be fairly stated that Ukrainians although having supporters in Bulgaria are leading a war here with making war crimes as killing people, taking over companies without any law stoppage and that Poland too is into this, and these too take over communications and computing in either friendly or unfriendly manner, with life or rape threats, and various other feeling protected by EP because EU would not recognize officially that Ukraine is leading a war against Bulgaria.

This, again, started with Rusdo-Polish and later Russo-Ukrainian conflicts that hit even on medical studies, that is the most embracing after all but even continues?

As Polish and Ukrainians tend to interfere wherever medical research is done in Bulgaria even if this is for a while (not state regulated, or thinly state subsidated) or in company (Telenor Bulgaria).

While previous times Ukraine was simply seeking and finding some support here, after some acknowledgement of what this is used for major support was refused but yet, a Ukrainian rep was elected and he without any remouses is leading war in Bulgaria naming it "war against Russia", this includes cars fights, street fights and treats, embeselment of state and private communications (making joke of the pro-medical company Telenor), attempts for humiliating medical researchers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medupdate (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am gonna be super nice and not delete this as wp:soapboxing, and just tell you that to add anything about this you need wp:rs to say Ukraine is at war with Bulgaria. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022[edit]

Zelenskyy to Zelensky 2607:FEA8:E3A1:2800:424:20AD:2D01:931 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See here. — Czello 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)[edit]

| commander1 =

Change Zelenskyy to Zelensky

2607:FEA8:E3A1:2800:424:20AD:2D01:931 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Zelenskyy's name is transliterated in several different ways. Zelenskyy is the transliteration on his passport, and his administration has used it since he assumed presidency in 2019 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spillover into Belarus[edit]

I'd like to propose adding spillover into Belarus with this as a source. While there is dispute over who exactly is responsible, it does appear this is spillover from this conflict. Not adding the edit myself as I'm <500 contributions and I'm curious if this is WP:TOOSOON U-dble (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful, as it seems to be a bit murky. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France24's OSINT program provides a verified and valid sources for events in the war[edit]

Currently this article is behind on the information, thus proposing to utilize the sources from to keep up with the info.. Kreyren (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


As the reader can plainly see, en.Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia, where topics are written about after they happen and all sides are consulted. Now it's some sort of oddball "late news" website where ongoing issues are written about as they are happening and any lies, omissions, obvious propaganda is deleted later. The Encyclopaedia Britannica did not have a full writeup of World War I incorporated into it until 1929; additional volumes covered the war 1914 to 1918. Time will tell if Wikipedia are the reality of this recent conflict will completely jibe.

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Addendum to LaRouche Post: Howard Scott and "Technocracy, Inc.", LaRouche's Ancestor


Above: Howard Scott on the cover of The Technocrat, a Technocracy, Inc. magazine, at the height of his influence in 1942.

Before Lyndon LaRouche there was the less-wild eyed Howard Scott (d. 1970) and his plan for creating an America run by engineers, Technocracy, Inc. Completely forgotten today, this group was known across America in the 1930s-1940s and heavily popular in California. They published a lot of material (magazines, books, pamphlets, and ephemera) that was never digitized, though a collection of Scott's interviews and press appearances over the decades is on the Internet Archive here

Above: The "Monad", the symbol of Technocracy, Inc. The two swirls are supposed to represent the forces of production and consumption, and it resembles an upside-down Chinese Yin-Yang symbol, minus the two counterbalancing dots in the swirls.

The Technical Alliance

According to Kevin Coogan, Scott was involved with the Industrial Workers of the World in 1918-1919; IWW leader Ralph Chalpin was convinced by Scott to start a "research bureau." Scott fell out with the IWW, and formed the Technical Alliance, the first attempt at Technocracy, Inc. in 1920 with a modest office in a brownstone at 23 West 34th Street in New York City; it's now a multistory parking garage. 

After a decade of self-promotion, Howard Scott pushed for an "Energy Survey", which was an energy-based, non-monetary survey of industrial development going back a century. He was able to get the backing of Columbia University's Engineering Department in 1931, and the survey itself was going to be in graphs. At the same time a "Continental Committee of Technocracy" was formed. By 1933 both the CCT and the survey were moot; Scott made odd comments to economists on how the Depression was the natural product of "technologically produced abundance" and "technologically created unemployment" crashing into a now-obsolete price system, or in other words, the 1920s in America was nearly a post-scarcity society to him. But then, Scott used such terms as "thermodynamically balanced load", "energy transversion", "steady state of doing work" in conversation. At any rate Columbia was done with Scott, partially over plagiarism  - he was supposedly cribbing from Oxford professor Frederick Soddy's 1926 book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, also because he lacked an engineering degree. (Soddy won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; writer William O. Coleman discovered that the British-born Soddy had recommended to his readers The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, see Coleman's 2002 work Economics and its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics.)

Technocracy, Inc.

Despite a New York Times article mocking Technocracy as "a new religion", Scott incorporated Technocracy the same year, kicking off the organization at a convention in Chicago. It was here that the Monad symbol was first used, and it quickly adorned everything used or created by Technocracy, Inc. - magazine covers, letterheads, sign advertising the group, lapel pins. Very quickly Technocracy groups sprouted across America, and chapters were in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Seattle, Spokane, and Portland.

Above: A 1933 issue of The Technocrats Magazine. The push for Howard Scott or a committee of Technocrats to save America from the Depression is palpable.
Below: Lists of the towns and cities that had Technocracy groups pop up from 1938 to 1941, which was the zenith of the movement. Taken from David Adair's 1970 thesis The Technocrats 1919-1967: A Case Study of Conflict and Change in a Social Movement.

(post under construction.)