Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics.): April 2022

Even more arguments!

RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On the numbers, there are 30 bolded "support" !votes and 31 oppose !votes. On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. Although this RFC has only been open for a little over a week, continued discussion in this RFC is unlikely to lead to consensus, and as an uninvolved editor, I am closing it, although a subsequent RFC, which can be launched at any time, may yield consensus, if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC, which I will summarize below. Thus, this is a "no-consensus-without-prejudice-to-speedy-new-discussion" result.

There is clear consensus against adding countries that are supplying arms to the |belligerent= section of the infobox without at least some form of separation from the countries that are combatants and are listed as "belligerents". Several editors directly opposed this, and combined with the recent NATO RFC, the consensus against listing supporting countries along with active combatants together in one unseparated list is clear.

The consensus about listing countries in a separate list, e.g. "Supported by", which might be a collapsed list under the "belligerents" section, is less clear. This RFC, which asked the open-ended question, "Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox?", has probably done as much work as it can in terms of generating consensus for such a list. On the plus side, it asked a general question (not indicating exactly which countries should be listed, or where in the infobox and under what heading), which allowed for a general discussion in pursuit of consensus. On the minus side, because the question was very general, it is not exactly clear what editors were supporting or opposing, with many participants supporting some specific implementations and opposing other specific implementations, or supporting/opposing conditionally. As such, a new RFC, with a more narrowly-drawn question, may yield consensus about a "supported by" list, especially if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC about a "supported by" section. I see the relevant parts of that discussion as follows:

1. Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice. Nobody pointed to any documented global consensus either requiring or prohibiting inclusion of a "supported by" section in the infobox. With the lack of a binding global consensus, editors are free to come to local consensus at this article about whether to include, or not include, a "supported by" section in the infobox.

2. A number of editors !voted to "support if" or "oppose unless" there was a consensus of reliable sources that verified listing a country in the infobox under a particular heading. This is already a requirement of global consensus, documented at MOS:INFOBOX (e.g., the section MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), which documents the global consensus that infoboxes should summarize the body of articles. This means that no country can be listed as a "belligerent" or a "supporter" unless the body of the article says the country is a belligerent or supporter (and of course, per the Verification policy, the text in the body must be reliably sourced). In this case, the article does identify countries that are belligerents in this war, as well as countries that are providing support (see, e.g., the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section of the article). Thus, global consensus such as WP:V, WP:RS, and MOS:INFOBOX, is or can be met, at least for some countries to be listed in the infobox as belligerents and for some countries to be listed as supporters, if the local consensus of editors here is to do so.

3. A number of editors who opposed did so on the basis that listing all the supporting countries in the infobox would make the infobox so long as to be unusable or disruptive, especially for mobile readers, for whom collapsed lists are automatically uncollapsed, and who have smaller screens, resulting in a lot of scrolling to get past a long infobox to the article content. I am going to note here that this is an example of an unnecessary technical limitation constraining editors' content decisions – there is no reason infoboxes can't collapse for mobile readers, and that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. Putting aside my soapboxing on unnecessary technical limitations affecting content, this objection nevertheless leaves open the possibility that editors who oppose this RFC may support adding a "supported by" list if that list were not too long.

TLDR: While this RFC is not resulting in consensus, editors who wish to add supporting countries to the infobox may want to launch a new discussion (or even a full RFC) proposing the addition of (1) a specific list of countries (2) to be added under a specific heading (e.g. a nested list within a paramater, such as "supported by" under "belligerent"). The list of countries and their designation in the infobox must be in the body and properly sourced. The list should also be short (although I have no numerical cut-off for how long is too long), which might mean grouping the countries somehow (e.g. "NATO" instead of listing individual members), or listing the "major" countries with the last entry being something like "... and XX additional countries", or some other creative solution. This RFC close does not prevent anyone from launching such a new, more narrowly-focused, RFC at any time, although a pre-RFC discussion may help, and if that discussion leads to consensus on the talk page, a full RFC may not be required.

In sum, I believe this RFC has done as much as it can to hone consensus, and while it didn't achieve consensus, it did illuminate the issues, and hopefully paved the way for a consensus to be reached on this topic through further discussion going forward. (non-admin closure) Levivich 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update : several users rightfully asked what sort parameter I would suggest. I suggest adding the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers" (cf. Korean War, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Arms suppliers" isn't a parameter. You're suggesting using the belligerent param |combatant2a= with {{collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is there not a WP:Skin auto-collapsing on mobile :/ Maxorazon (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support as nom. There are dozens of WP:RS making world headlines for more than a day about the millions of dollars worth of (lethal) weaponry that are being sent to Ukraine. In fact, this very article includes numerous of these RS already.[38] In addition, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which likewise list arms suppliers in the infobox, such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and First Nagorno-Karabakh War (FA-class). Thus I don't see why this should be an exception. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the FA-class article you reference didn't have arms suppliers at the time it was promoted to FA, plus its current title is probably OR. The 2020 article is not the best example to use either - I remember closing an RfC on that article where the majority position was not policy compliant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support countries have been sending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, including lethal weaponry. Even though they aren't committing their armed forces, their assistance is vital to the Ukrainian war effort. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all, just supplying or selling weapons (like by Turkey) does not make any country a belligerent in a military conflict. Secondly, what exactly list of countries do you suggest to include? This is a long list, and they must be explicitly named in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per comment by ProcrastinatingReader, one needs multiple RS saying that "country X is a participants of a war against Russia", not that "country X delivered weapons to Ukraine". Claim that delivering weapons makes country X a participant of the war against Russia would be WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: UK, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, etc., cannot be labelled as "belligerents" by any reasonable definition. Any of them would deny that they are participants in a war against Russia. The claim needs to be contextualised and explained, which is best done in the body (incl the lead), lest people start thinking half of Europe is at war with Russia, which would be quite problematic indeed. I also think it's an excess emphasis on Western military involvement; the equipment I'm sure is valuable but as the Ukrainian President said they're defending Ukraine alone and, absent further context and considerations (best done in the body, as infoboxes are space-limited), that does seem correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously - only if USA is at the top of the list. Let the peacekeeping friendly USA take the spotlight with the peacekeeping friendly Russians.Maxorazon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - most articles have countries that sent support to any belligerant in the infobox, so i think that it would make sense for it be the same here. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a significant part of the story. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support if they can be reliably sourced or are otherwise notable for inclusion. --lomrjyo (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per My very best wishes and ProcrastinatingReader. Much of NATO and the EU as well as the US is selling or giving weaponry, or has done so. Any list would be absurdly long and fail to give context. The infobox is not the best place for this information and supplying arms certainly does not make a country a 'belligerent'. Even with more 'normal' wars, this would not be done ordinarily. Of course this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question and alternative How big is this list going to be? An extensive list would not fit with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is intended to be an "at a glance summary". Bloating an infobox with extensive and intricate detail defeats the purpose. Also, the infobox detail must be verifiable and supported by the body of the article. I am not opposed to such inclusions subject to the preceding. However, I am almost certain that such a list would quickly become inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The alternative is to place a note that would direct the reader to a section in the article eg - See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS adding what would be an extensive list becomes a matter of WP:ACCESS. Collapsed lists do not display as collapsed on mobile devices. Consequently, a mobile user must navigate past a bloated infobox to even get to the second para of the lead. Links to a section and, even better, to an article are the best options to indicate "support" from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The arms shipments and now calls for foreign volunteers is not an isolated incident and appears to occur on a continuous basis, with vocal government support from the supplying nations. The inclusion of individual countries supplying weaponry appears in other major conflict pages including the Vietnam War and Iran–Iraq War. This precedent, in conjunction to the ongoing aid, provides added weight that such information should be added to this conflict. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, good point. I'd add the Korean War article might be a good guide for layout.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good find. I like how it is broken down into sub-categories. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per precedent and if reliable sources indicate the arms support is related to the invasion. Suggest adding the European Union. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if they are clearly indicated as providing arms and not as belligerents. A separate portion of the infobox would be helpful if the infobox can be tailored that way. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly analogous to the "supported by" section in the Iran-Iraq war infobox. Meets the H:IB criteria for infobox inclusion. 李艾连 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Robert McClenon. Peter Ormond 💬 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Although I suggest the title be called Arms Suppliers unless countries are not providing support beyond supplying weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General support - This is common practice and actually communicates something important about the conflict appropriate for a summary, though if need be make it a collapsible list or direct it to a section (and inevitable new article) on "Foreign support for Ukraine" or something. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the belligerent section should’t be included in any form the name of countries which are just selling weapons to one or even both factions, without fielding any soldier nor shooting any bullet. The process is just a supply of weapons, no different from what always happens between countries. The said countries are not involved in the conflict, nor have received any aggression from Ukraine or the Russian Federation. The fact that military competence is the cornerstone of statehood and sovereignty shouldn’t be a push for including as participant in a war every country that has shown preference or hatred for a determined part in conflict. --Foghe (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copying my statement from the previous survey. Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you didn't read the RfC. I never mentioned NATO. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. However my position that only entities participating in combat operations should be listed in the infobox applies just as much to the Netherlands or Estonia as it does to NATO. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support As long as it is material support and not merely diplomatic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of countries (may be around 40) have provided some support that was not merely diplomatic, including imposing sanctions, even Switzerland. And even Finland promised to supply weapons. Sure, this should be noted on the page, but listing all of them in "belligerent" section would be misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support They are included in similar articles so I don't see why this should be an exception. The supply of (at least) hundreds of millions of $ worth of military aid is not a "minor detail", especially when you take into account Ukraine's yearly military budget of around $5 billion. Qowert (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under the basis this should be elaborated on beyond a simple infobox mention. The International reactions section would, I believe, be more appropiate, and enable more contextual elaboration. Calling them belligerents is a bit overboard though, even if it is for organizational purposes. Mooshua1857 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't go in the infobox; it would lead to infoboxes that are huge and useless for... well, most wars. For example, 1948 Arab–Israeli War correctly does not include Czechoslovakia as a belligerent on the Israeli side, despite their arms support for Israel being so huge and significant that there's an entire article on it at Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–1949. And that's correct: for basically every single Cold War conflict, we'd have a useless infobox of half the countries in the world if we adopted such a lax standard. Now, if something like armed Ukrainian insurgents start operating out of Poland with Polish support, then we can talk... but not merely arms shipments. (Canvass warning: saw this RFC on a neutral request for comment at the WP:DISCORD.) SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relevant, suppliers are partial belligerents in all cases, and main belligerents in some ( Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war.)
Acceptance criteria would include:
- Listing the countries as arms suppliers
- Listing the countries as supporters
- Listing the countries individually
- Listing the countries under groupings (like NATO)
- When combined with other reasons, and if this extends over time, listing the country as a main belligerent. --TZubiri (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Support As previously mentioned by others, this adds to the value of the article, is important information and it demonstrates which countries support the Ukraine by action and reflects values exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support if we're listing them as arms suppliers and not "belligerents". I myself came to this page to see who had officially sent Ukraine lethal aid, it would have been useful information to have clearly listed. I don't support them being listed as belligerents, however. NATO nations are going to great lengths to avoid ending up at war with Russia, and while I personally don't understand why shooting a Russian plane down is a declaration of war but funnelling weapons to Ukraine and explicitly trying to bankrupt Russia are not, that appears to be the reality of the situation. John Bullock (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional support~~ (edit: on reflection, I now oppose adding this per Lyndaship's point about the difficulty of distinguishing what level of support warrants inclusion and the concerns about mobile accessibility raised below Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)) - while it's useful information to show, as many point out above, arms suppliers shouldn't be listed below (i.e. within) a "belligerents" section/header, like the Korean War example given above. Either {{Infobox military conflict}} needs to be adjusted to allow for a dedicated section, or the | combatants_header = parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate. Jr8825 • Talk 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support infobox, so long as it is clearly not under "belligerents". Belligerent has a very specific meaning, and supplying arms does not make one a belligerent. It is however, useful information that would be nice in the infobox (preferably in a collapsible form so it doesn't take up too much space). BSMRD (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom.--BlackShadowG (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator? Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy close to RfC, overwhelming support. Viewsridge (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how much support a proposal gets if it's not feasible (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As already pointed out, these infobox sections auto-expand on mobile, which is how 70%+ of readers will see this article. An "arms supplier" list of 40+ anything in an infobox would render the mobile infobox unusable, so it's a non-starter. Infoboxes are not for every single true fact, just the ones short enough to be summarized. (At best, we could have a "see section/list" for Arms Suppliers that was an internal link.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  would render the mobile infobox unusable Not just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Other similar pages show that not to be the case. In the Gulf War article, a whole 40 countries are listed on one side under "Belligerents" and it doesn't seem to be a major issue. But if it was really an issue it could easily be rectified by putting "Supported By" and under it, text linking to the separate page listing all the countries providing arms shipments and aid. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support I want to know it, in addition to arms dealers. also those who put sanctions on Russia as it this war is more than just Ukraine now, but that's an opinion. as for the arms dealing it's not just selling there is a fair amount of just throwing weapons at them and telling the Ukrainians here use these. or that is what it looks like.... i could be wrong I don't have proof on hand. Bruvlad (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    i think another way to satisfy this is maybe have a separate list to show supportersBruvlad (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A pointless bewildering of our readers. The epitome of what shouldn't be in an infobox. Refer readers to the text, or a separate article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's my perception and many readers' that the rule is actual belligerents are listed directly in the infobox, and material support goes into a "supported by" list. Pretty much every article does this in some way, and readers are able to make this distinction that while the US may not be directly fighting Ukraine, they're a participant in the war in the sense they're sending lots of weapons. I can see the argument that this is technically incorrect based on the definition of belligerent, but the fact is that pretty much all the Wikipedia articles on wars list the countries actually fighting and then provides "supported by" in a separate list within the infobox. This isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm advocating encyclopedic consistency with how pretty much all the other articles on wars deal with this issue. If we're going to change this, this should be both a global change and done after the top 6 most viewed pages on the English Wikipedia aren't related to the current conflict. [39] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is how things work..... that is two sides getting arms from other countries. Definitely not worthy of being included under belligerents. This paramater was taken out years ago...so we dont list 100 places in the infoboxMoxy- 00:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:What about providing military reconaissance in warzone airspace? Fephisto (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant material support is important to mention. Also per the arguments put forward by User:Chess and User:Ingenuity. --Inops (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Arms suppliers are not belligerents. This will just clutter the infoboxes and detract from the readers' understanding. Arms and equipment are often secured from many neutral countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bewildering indeed. Nazi Germany would be added to the nations supporting the Allies in World War II, and Sweden in the Vietnam War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arms suppliers, especially of defensive equipment, are definitely not classified as belligerents. Involved parties in infobox must be extremely clear. Tellarin (discuss) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose frankly, this is pointy nonsense, and a rabbit hole that would severely bloat the infoboxes of almost all modern conflicts. Mention in the body is all that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not against naming supporting countries per se if they are actually notable, but it's difficult to say whether supplying equipment by itself is worth mentioning. Maybe in huge quantities, or in combination with other gestures or actions that, taken together, might be significant, but otherwise it's debatable. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Propose Alternatively, link to a list instead of enumerating all the arms suppliers. CurryCity (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mention in prose (if adequately sourced) but it's too much detail for an infobox. Think we're going to hit a problem here defining just what level of arms supply qualifies Lyndaship (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are way too many countries and individual donations to keep the list accurate.Mozzie (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because now there is a dedicated article. P1221 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I would support however to add a link to that article in the infobox P1221 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose - Infoboxes should be summaries of key points about an article, not a replacement for the article itself. Additionally, adding these countries with only minor roles to the infobox would overplay their role and minimize the efforts of the actual belligerents. Finally, this would set a bad precedent for other articles' infoboxes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would add clutter for little benefit. Infoboxes are meant to be a simple summary of key facts, and the more facts you try to squish into them the less useful they get. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is already done on conflict pages --Spafky (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No problem with it being listed in article as its an important part of what is happening but would make for an extremely long Infobox which is not desirable for all the reasons listed already. Thx811 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and move discussion to infobox talkpage - On a basic level, I oppose listing out the countries per User:My very best wishes's reasoning. Listing countries there would redefine what "belligerent" means. That said, this discussion would be moot if the infobox had an "Arms Supplier" param per User:LouisAragon's idea. Adding that parameter to the infobox, then listing the countries under it seems like the right idea to me. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it still should not be used in this specific case. In this case, the issue should be handled by creating a separate list, i.e. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War that we already have. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this is against the purpose of infoboxes and creates issues for mobile accessibility. We should link out to a section or a different article for the context being sought here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TZubiri . He points out that this has been done in other pages, and it makes sense to be consistent with them. If this measure is not passed, then Belarus should be removed as a supporter of Russia as well to be consistent. If not, then at least provide some sort of criteria. E.g., if the argument is that Belarus provided recon, the U.S./U.K. have provided sat recon. That they've housed troops, then the U.K. has trained Ukranian troops. At the very least, they should be place under the "Supported by" column, right? Fephisto (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - infobox is supposed to be sort and concise. List of arms suppliers would be 30+ countries long at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too verbose for infobox and too unclear now, if evidence of significant material support with training etc manifests then there's a possibility. Battleofalma (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just look at other conflict related infobox’s (particularly Cold War related) and it’s quite misleading to suggest that it’s just Ukraine vs Russia and its allies. This just depends on where you draw the line. Belarus has not used its troops but has supported Russia by letting them use their territory to invade so why not include arms suppliers. - Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This has already been brought up before about adding NATO. The request was denied.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even if the arms suppliers are not sending soldiers to Ukraine, they are still involved in the conflict. It’s misleading to suggest that is only Ukraine against Russia and the separatist republics when there are countries actively supporting Ukraine. Davidmejoradas (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, imagine "indirect" supporters were removed from the infoboxes of Cold War proxy conflicts, it would be ridiculously misleading. A large amount of readers don't go beyond the lead section and/or infoboxes as well. Qowert (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to mobile UX; just try looking at the article as it is on a phone. The infobox is already a very long scroll and imho details should be removed from it (e.g. materiel losses) instead of adding more and more stuff. Also, listing e.g. Poland and Belarus both as "supporters" would imply a false equivocation (Belarus being a staging ground for the Russian attack and allegedly also adding forces of its own versus Poland providing arms and humanitarian aid). So if the very long list of countries which supply or support the Ukraine in one way or another (be it training, arms, aid, sanctions etc.) were to be added, it clearly would have to be in a fashion that demarcates it from direct military involvement. Phiarc (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not what infoboxes in war pages should be used for. They should be in reference to the two sides of the conflict. We don't put arms support in Soviet–Afghan War. Gimiv (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should follow the layout used in FA level articles.2605:8D80:541:667F:4DFD:EC42:1E57:5C1A (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Countless other related Wiki articles give a "Supported By" section composed of nations alliances or groups that provided arms, equipment, or humanitarian aid without direct troop involvement. Examples:

Iran-Iraq War. China, Libya, Israel, Poland and others are all listed under "Supported By", with only financial and/or weapons support.

Vietnam War. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Cuba, Sweden, Taiwan, and Malaysia are all listed under "Supported By" with no direct troop involvement and only providing weapons/humanitarian aid. It even says diplomatic next to Sweden.

Yom Kippur War. The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and Pakistan and on the other side the United States are listed under "Supported By". All mentioned parties only provided weapons and equipment.

Soviet-Afghan War. East Germany "(Military and Political Support)", India "(Humanitarian aid)".

Korean War. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Romania on the North Korea side and Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Pakistan Pakistan, Cuba, El Salvador, and Spain are listed on the South Korean side. Again nations which provided, financial, humanitarian, or arms shipment assistance.

Football War. The United States and Nicaragua area listed under "Supported By". Nicaragua provided weapons and ammunition, the US supplied various military arms and hardware.

Cambodian Civil War. Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Romania, Soviet Union all supplied arms or medical aid. Again listed under "Supported By". SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (but not as "Belligerents" or any collapsible list, "Supported By" is fine) - Belligerents should be restricted to those with involved troops/pilots/captains/etc actually pulling triggers. Now, "Supported By" is not something that needs to be in every article about any war ever, but this war in particular is practically a proxy war being fought via non-trigger pulling "support", so I think it's particularly relevant for this article. And yes, the list of supporters is long. That's why a lot of people are thinking this might legitimately become WWIII. It's vitally important information. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support adding NATO only to support. Beshogur (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the boat on that RFC... Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Listing "Arms Suppliers" may be acceptable someplace but under/within the label "Belligerents" falsely implies a connection that does not exist. Several countries in question have very deliberately limited support to the supplying of arms because this is accepted internationally as nonbelligerent. States have a shared implicit consensus about what constitutes direct military involvement and thankfully their leadership is both keenly aware of where that line is drawn, and for the time being, holding steady on the nonbelligerent side of it. Blurring that line by adding "arms suppliers" in this location is at best shoehorning data into a someplace it doesn't belong simply because we've made the same/similar mistake in other WP articles and at worst giving undue weight to a fringe theory that this topic has involved 25+ additional nations as co-belligerents. This proposal would be a poor summary of the primary topic flooded with unnecessary and potentially misleading details that are already contextualized where it's appropriate to do so: in the article prose. --N8 04:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The infobox is too large as it is. Additionally, I think that it's too crude a delivery to lump countries as belligerents or not where there is no clear answer if they are belligerents. This information can be added somewhere else in a less crude way. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pabsoluterince: I propose the question of "belligerence" is one of the few very clear cases in which involved parties (notably exclusive of WP editors) actually agree. Putin himself has acknowledged the distinction saying, "These sanctions that are being imposed are akin to a declaration of war but thank God it has not come to that." He further contrasts the current status quo with the possibility of another power imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine which Russia would consider as entering the military conflict. (via Reuters) [emphasis mine] Russia and "the west" have a mutual understanding on this point. --N8 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin says a lot of things, that does not mean they are true. If he thought it aclty meant Russia was at war with NATO they would be attacking us, they are not. Thus that is all just hyperbole. As poitneds out, he contradicts himself. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree here Slatersteven. The whole point is that Russia's actions specifically indicate Russia does not view "arms suppliers" countries as belligerent. The refusal of NATO countries to send troops via air, water, or land indicates an understanding of where they have common definition of nonbelligerent with Russia. These parties clearly agree about this definition. It's just the discussion here that seems willing to expand the scope of belligerence despite that agreement. --N8 22:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Clear difference between belligerents and countries engaging in trade. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note: this RfC differs from the one above, in which the inclusion of NATO as a group was specifically discussed. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the RfC question should specify which parameter will be used to add this information? I am inclined to support the inclusion but not if the supplying countries will be listed as belligerents in the conflict.--John Cline (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cline: Thanks, yeah. Suggesting the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers". Will add that to the description of the RfC. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlackholeWA mentioned in a previous section the idea of a WP:VPPRO to better define belligerence in armed conflict infoboxes. I think that wikipedians should not be comfortable stating that only direct armed forces on the ground can be qualified as belligerents. I am a supply chain advisor and know that, for one soldier firing a rifle on the front, there are 10 other soldiers providing for him in the background. Ensuring the supply chain of war - as far as simply financing the operations, is belligerence in my eyes, and tracking the chain of responsibility up is beneficial for a wider understanding of the reader. The risk is WP:OR, and turning to geopolitics, then philosophy, then void. But some wise geopolitics coverage cannot hurt. I think that this deserves a systemic discussion and attention. Maxorazon (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit moot – even if you have experts saying that belligerence means what you say it does (so it isn't OR), Wikipedia is for readers (WP:RF/WP:AUDIENCE) so we should be using words in layman's terms, as they're commonly understood. My concern is that many people may take "belligerent" to mean "someone involved in a fighting". Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSED INFOBOX

Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Date	24 February 2022 – present (1 month, 1 week and 4 days)
Location	{{{place}}}
Status	Ongoing (list of engagements · control of cities · timeline of events)

Belligerents

Ukraine

show

Arms Suppliers:

This is how I think, proposed infobox to the left should look like, with a collapsiple for arms support, and note describing what arms have been provided by the countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I vocally disagree with full alphabetic state. I can find another wikipedia article if you want as precedent, but sorting by descending order on the budget of supplies is mandatory in my opinion. Maxorazon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty nice work. Fephisto (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dropped off a neutrally-worded notice of this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC_@_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_No._2. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I'm here: I stated my opposition above, but if this RFC is seen as passing anyway (which I would not agree with), having a mobile-readable infobox is required, not optional. I would humbly suggest that a simple link to Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or an internal-link to the relevant section of this article ("Foreign military support to Ukraine") would be better - just one line. Even if this is decided to be pertinent to the "belligerents" field of the infobox, it's simply not feasible to list so many countries. Note that the infobox at, say, World War I cuts off a "full" list of Allies and Central Powers and simply has an "and others" link at the end, and that's for countries that are non-controversially part of the Belligerents field. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two issues here. The first is about recording foreign support to the Ukraine. I am not arguing against that. The second is where and how it should be recorded. The responses don't necessarily distinguish the two issues. There is some perception that the infobox is the best and perhaps the only place to do this. Such an extensive list is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bloated infoboxes help nobody. Even in the body of the article, such an extensive list details would be a disproportionate section. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is perhaps a better article to link to. It currently lists (almost exclusively) aid provided leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. There is a discussion to merge this with Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is also a suggestion to rename this to better reflect that it is primarily focused on recent aid - leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. Linking is much better than bloating the infobox in the first instance and the article in the second. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about moves other than just being an arms supplier? For example, the U.K. training Ukrainian troops; or the U.K. and U.S. supplying intel and sat recon? Fephisto (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & references

The following notelist & reflist consists of the notes & references of the proposed infobox:

Notes

^
Relevant citations
^ Jump up to:^a ^b The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are separatist states that declared their independence in May 2014, while receiving recognitions from each other, the de facto state of South Ossetia, and Russia (since 2022).^[1]^[2]^[3]
^ Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.^[4] Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko also stated that Belarusian troops could take part in the invasion if needed.^[5] Belarusian territory was also used to launch missiles into Ukraine.^[6] See also: Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
^ Belgium is sending 3,000 automatic rifles and 200 anti-tank weapons.^[7]
^ Bulgaria is sending 16 MiG-29 and 14 Su-25 combat aircraft.^[8]
^ Canada is sending lethal military aid.^[7]
^ Croatia is sending small arms.^[7]
^ Czech Republic is sending 4,000 mortars, 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, sniper rifles and over a million rounds ammunition.^[7]
^ Denmark is sending 2,700 anti-tank weapons.^[7]
^ Finland is sending 1,500 rocket launchers, 2,500 assault rifles and over 150,000 rounds of ammunition.^[7]
^ France has sent anti-aircraft weapons and digital military equipment.^[7]
^ Germany is sending 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles.^[7]
^ Greece is sending defensive equipment.^[7]
^ Netherlands is sending 200 Stinger surface-to-air missiles and 50 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons.^[7]
^ Poland is sending 28 MiG-29 combat aircraft.^[8]
^ Portugal is sending grenades, ammunition and automatic rifles.^[7]
^ Romania is sending military material.^[7]
^ Poland is sending 12 MiG-29 combat aircraft.^[8]
^ Spain is sending defensive equipment.^[7]
^ Sweden is sending 5,000 anti-tank weapons.^[7]
^ United States is sending anti-aircraft weapons.^[7]
^ United Kingdom is sending light anti-armour weapons.^[7]

References

^ "South Ossetia recognises independence of Donetsk People's Republic". Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. 27 June 2014. Archived from the original on 17 November 2016. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
^ Alec, Luhn (6 November 2014). "Ukraine's rebel 'people's republics' begin work of building new states". The Guardian. Donetsk. Archived from the original on 26 January 2022. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
^ "Общая информация" [General Information]. Official site of the head of the Lugansk People's Republic (in Russian). Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
^
^ Rodionov, Maxim; Balmforth, Tom (25 February 2022). "Belarusian troops could be used in operation against Ukraine if needed, Lukashenko says". Reuters. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
^ "Missiles launched into Ukraine from Belarus". BBC News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p "Which countries are sending military aid to Ukraine?". Al Jazeera. 28 February 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Mcleary, Paul (28 February 2022). "Ukrainian pilots arrive in Poland to pick up donated fighter jets". Politico. Retrieved 1 March 2022.

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.

"Putin echoing antisemitic conspiracy theory"[edit]

What? I am very confused by the Times article and the Guardian article cited in particular. The Guardian article is talking about the antisemitic cabal conspiracy, which seems quite nonsequitur? I can understand there is a problem in Russia, but I'm not sure this is relevant? Not defending Putin, but there might be another reason that Russia uses the memories of WW2 than antisemitic tropes when making war propaganda? Namely the fact that Slavs were the #2 or #3 target of ethnic violence and persecution by the Nazis (Jewish people being the #1 victim of violence)?

I'm not opposed to these articles being cited in themselves, but is there a more nuanced position that can be included than simply saying "Russia is the real Nazi"? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There might well be, but if RS make a claim we can say so. But we do not say they are the real Nazi's what we do is report what RS has said about the claims (And directly link this to the invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven Admittedly a hyperbolic statement to say that this article calls Russia the real nazis, so I apologise. But I had said that because to say Putin is "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany." seems far fetched to me. I think it would be justifiable to say if Putin were dismissing or even denying the suffering of Jewish people in WW2 but to my knowledge he didn't do that so it's very out of place to me. There are definitely groups, including in Russia that do that but from what I know no mainstream politician says that. The Guardian article makes a strong assertion but doesn't really elaborate on how Putin is doing that.

That said, I know it's WP:RS so I am not calling for its removal but I'm hoping there can be an alternate perspective from another RS to be more balanced. Part of WP:NPOV is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I am not aware of other articles analyzing this aspect of Putin's rhetoric during the invasion but (see my next response below for citations) there has been alot of nuance on this issue in the past, as its a very complex topic. So it would be consistent with Wikipedia policy to have all that's available and relevant from RS.

@Mzajac Fair point about Russian propaganda, but it doesn't really explain how Putin is an antisemite, it just says he is. I think that is a problem. It implies that because Putin is anti-Zelensky that Putin has a problem with all Jewish people, this seems quite disingenious to me. Of course if Putin had said that or anything resembling it you would see no objection from me with regards to it being included in this article - however not even The Guardian article says Putin outright said such things, it's just extrapolating that because he is a Christian nationalist therefore he is complicit in propagating an antisemitic conspiracy. However, a few examples from the past would show that there is a more nuanced reality than that, see:^[1]^[2]^[3]. Of course there is also this on the contrary:^[4]^[5]. So it's a mixed bag, I think that any article talking about this subject should reflect that. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a non-sequitur, but maybe can be clarified. It is all part of the fallacious, indiscriminate, and even contradictory way Russian propaganda uses the memory of WWII, accusations of “fascism,” and conspiracy theory in its propaganda. Part of it is an extension of official Soviet antisemitism. There’s more in Putinism. —Michael Z. 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, could you clarify which part of "Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" is nonsequitur? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I spent a long time rejigging this sentence so that it's coherent and reflects the sources. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts, as I personally think the sentence now does a very good job of accurately & succinctly summarising the sources cited. I appreciate it's a complex sentence, but it's hard to expand on as there are space constraints and I think the preceding sections on Putin's portrayal of Ukraine as a threat to Russia provide the necessary context. I'm also mindful that further fleshing this sentence out could result in too much emphasis on antisemitism, leading to undue weight issues. Regarding the Guardian article, the author is Jason Stanley, a well-known academic who specialises in fascism. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply removing the word "antisemitic" from the sentence? That would weaken the implication that Putin himself is an antisemite, while retaining most of the relevant information. Or do the sources clearly try to imply that Putin is an antisemite? (I haven't read them.) Ornilnas (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ornilnas: the language of the sources is clear that antisemitism is linked:

"By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism" [1]
"The Putin regime has once again consciously sought to instrumentalize Russian and Ukrainian antisemitism for its own purposes" [2]

The flipside is that while there's an antisemitic tone aimed for Russian consumption (i.e. Ukraine is a threat to Russia as it's a Nazi regime that wants to genocide Russians; Zelenskyy, its Jewish president, and other global Jews seek to mask Ukraine's Nazism – and historic Nazism, e.g. the Holocaust – by presenting themselves as the only victims, at the expense of Slavs), there's also an attempt to utilise/leverage accusations Ukraine in order to prove its Nazi nature [3]. It's a case of Russia accusing others of what Russia itself is doing (similar to the accusations of indiscriminate fire on civilians). Jr8825 • Talk 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The sources do indeed seem to imply that Putin is playing on domestic antisemitism, although they're a little unclear on the specifics (so much so that they left me a little confused). To me, it looks a little opinionated; perhaps some qualifier, such as "has been described as", could be used? Ornilnas (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilizing antisemitism in politics and war is antisemitic. Putin’s abusive and insincere accusations of Nazism and genocide are an offence to the memory of Holocaust victims, Holocaust distortion, and arguably antisemitic. Putin’s favourite and oft-praised “historian,” Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, was antisemitic. I don’t think there’s any need to censor quotations from RS’s about Putin’s antisemitism because we can’t find a direct quotation of him saying “I hate Jews.” More: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. —Michael Z. 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jr8825, I meant this part in particular "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany". I hope my previous responses help to show my position adequately - the problem to me of course is that it makes strong assertions but does so more by extrapolation than solid fact. So I say it's nonsequitur because it makes a strong statement but with little direct backing in fact. Obviously this is a complex problem in Russia, especially due to the history of the country. There's definitely a problem but (see above sources in previous response) there is alot of layers to it. So I think this problem could easily be solved by also including an alternate perspective on the topic from another RS. As I said earlier, not sure if there's been more WP:RS analyses on this rhetoric of his during the invasion, but I think that it should be included if and when it is found. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with IP Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slatersteven, User:Mzajac, User:Jr8825, Do you have any additional comments? If not, I will have to consider this a consensus. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For removing the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how consensus works. The sentence is well sourced and should stay. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jr8825. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t that be Stalinist propaganda with nazis running the country and should we include the azov battalion as a combatant Persesus (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right about that? Persesus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Azov Battalion is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard. They are not listed because it’s redundant. You can find them on the page about the order of battle, though. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are also mentioned in the section of this article being discussed. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany", fairly extraordinary and puzzling on first reading. The sentence is meant to be registering what he said on the eve of the invasion, not itemising all of Putin's or Putinism's faults. Also Soviet deaths in "The Great Patriotic War" (ie WWII) numbered somewhere between 20-27 million - so - if 'body count' is the main measure of who was the real-est, (if not the "truest") victim, USSR is light years ahead of anyone else. That isn't a 'conspiracy theory', it's historical fact. There are many complicating factors of course - some of the Soviet victims were Jewish, disproportionately large numbers were Ukrainian or other non-Russians, and the Soviet Union was extremely careless and wasteful in the use of its own manpower, but still, human death during WWII in the USSR was enormous and the war fought on both sides with indescribable brutality. People in Eastern Europe tend to remember that and are often grieved that the rest of the world generally doesn't.

Now, having read the Jason Stanley source, which says: "The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). The claim makes a little more sense, but it isn't a sense that our text conveys very well. The preamble speaking of "seizing the victimhood narrative" and the use of quotes on "true" victims conveys the supposed 'fakeness' that takes the claims into conspiracy theory territory. The second source, Snyder adds to this interpretation slightly: Putin is"appealing to a certain tradition in antisemitism, which tries to flip around who are the victims and who are the perpetrator But Snyder continues "as I say, I think his main purpose here is just to pervert these terms and to confuse us … “He’s not really referring to any true history. He’s just taking advantage of the fact that there are strong emotions around these concepts.”

I think therefore that I have 3 concerns. Firstly that out text isn't a very complete or comprehensible account of the two sources used. Secondly the sources are as much - or even more - about this strain of Orthodox Christian Nationalism or Putinism as they are about the pre-invasion speech. Thirdly I question Jason Stanley and Snyder's authority to speak in Wiki-Voice. Stanley is mainly a philosopher, Snyder is certainly an expert on modern Russia, but even he is saying that Putin's language is mainly designed to confuse rather than stating antisemitism as the main factor. So IMO even if this claim were made clearer, it should be attributed, there simply isn't agreement that Putin's speech contained any anti-semetism AFAIK, even if Putinism or Russian Orthodox nationalism generally does.

A plausible alternative explanation which I have read from several authorities recently as to the root of Putin's "denazification" claim is that in Eastern Europe, and Russia particularly, the Nazis are despised because of what they did to USSR, rather than for what they did to groups such as the Jews. We in the West automatically respond "how can the Ukrainians be Nazis, their President is a Jew? Such a thought would barely occur to a Russian, especially a Nationalist one according to this viewpoint. There, Nazis are people who wished to destroy Russia, not people who tried to eliminate Jews. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has there or is there going to be an outcome from this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157 Not likely any time soon unfortunately. I can understand though, a recent and ongoing war is a very contentious issue but it'll take awhile for calm discussion from everyone. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfortunately very snowed under IRL at the moment, so haven't been able to give a full response to Pincrete's points above. From glancing at your points, Pincrete I agree the wording can appear rather confusing. I'm glad you felt it made a bit more sense after reading the two sources, but your concern about whether it does a good enough job of accurately conveying their nuances remain. I do think the current sentence does a decent job of reflecting the sources' general sense, particularly given the tiny amount of space that's used to do this within a complex sentence (which also serves to ensure undue weight isn't given to this relatively specific issue). To address your concerns the wording needs to be made clearer and sources' points more clear – a longer exposition (probably a sentence of its own) is probably required, which would allow for attribution and greater qualification. I think your point about the contextual appropriateness is insightful. Right now this text is under the prelude section in "Russian accusations and demands", and while it does thematically link in, you're right to point out that the paragraph which contains it has an unclear scope and appears to be focused on a specific speech (the product of having many hands crafting the same small section of text). I'm wondering if a better location for the antisemitism point might be in the background section under "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and the War in Donbas", where there's also a discussion of Russian nationalism – the problem is that it's already a particularly long section (the longest in the article according to the section sizes box at the top of this talk page), and the antisemitism relates closely to Putin's rhetoric (which isn't currently discussed in the background section, so would require an expansion/rewrite). I can see two main options: move the point to the background section (the most difficult option, I think, but it might connect related ideas more neatly together), or rewrite the start of the current paragraph so its focus is more clearly on Putin's rhetoric over a longer period in the run-up to the invasion, combined with a possible rewrite to make the point about antisemitism more clear. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions you have either way, or other alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put thank you Pincrete. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Image of killed civilian[edit]

@Hcoder3104 removed this image because Disturbing image, @Super Dromaeosaurus reverted because WP:NOTCENSORED. another reason must be given for the removal of this image. I'm not sure that the image increases our understanding of the invasion, but my main concern here is with source and privacy. The image has been uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs without providing information about the photographer, the subject and the context (they claim it's Kyinka or Pavlinka near Chernihiv). We should remove contentious material about living or recently dead people that is poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BDP, and we should be extra cautious in case of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: the image could be a fake and, if it is genuine, publishing it might show lack of respect for the deceased and his loved ones. The image is not indispensable for the article and I suggest we remove it. P.S. the image is now also in Russian war crimes and in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I don't see that its inclusion is IAW WP:IMGCONTENT and that it particularly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like most other article space images, this image is a window into viscerally understanding the meaning of the text next to it. If you find the image disturbing, that's good because war is disturbing, and this image serves to convey that reality. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies. I also don't agree with the privacy argument. The subject is not readily identifiable from the image as they are lying face down; thus there are no privacy concerns from where I'm standing. We regularly feature images of identifiable people who aren't public figures, for example, see human, so this argument does not hold water for me. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source in this case, so I do not see the concern that this is fake. I obviously understand that Ukraine is engaging in a propaganda war, but there is every indication that civilians are indeed being killed, so this image fits what we know from corroborating reports.
In summary, in my estimation the image serves an encyclopedic purpose in demonstrating the reality of the war which this article covers. Melmann 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source"... are you basing this on anything other than that you personally support Ukraine in this conflict and therefore believe with utmost faith and sincerity that Ukraine could not possibly be producing propaganda that works in their favor and to the detriment of their enemy? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove poorly sourced, we know very little information about this photo Ilenart626 (talk)
Keep - Why should we devoid the horrors of war in an article related to a war? Per Melmann. There are more images and videos related to the war circulating around the internet that are far more disturbing than the image shown (i.e. people burnt to crisps / brains, guts, everything). Giving readers a taste of the reality of war invokes a stronger perception and concept regarding the importance of avoiding one in a pretty raw fashion. The image doesn't show or hint the actual identity of the person killed, that's another reason. PenangLion (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wasn't this already answered with FAQ #1? It was also discussed here. Beyond that the new course of the war has increasingly been defined by attacks on civilian targets, such being the case from an informational standpoint the image is just as important if not more important than the image of burnt out Russian tanks in Bucha. This is what the war looks like. I'm not saying that we make this in to a gore thread, but Russia is currently carpet bombing Mariupol, which has mass graves and dead bodies in the street, this is the war. It's worth noting that pages about similar conflicts such as the First Chechen War also feature graphic images, the First Chechen War page having an image of civilians in a mass grave, and dead civilians in the back of a truck. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The photo is not 'disturbing' (as for example this from an identical reality to that of the indiscriminate mass bombing of another country we see now with Ukraine. It is moderate, objective, an obvious reality of what war does, without making viewers nauseous by exposing them to a brutal goriness few of us can watch without feeling unhinged.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My !vote to remove (above) was not because the image was too confrontational but that it did not increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (per WP:IMGCONTENT). If anything, an image sufficient to increase the readers understanding would be more confrontational. If the present image doesn't do what it should, it should be removed or replaced with one that does (IAW policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ditto Melmann. Recall photos on World War Two, the Korean War, the Rape of Nanking and so forth; so long as it is relevant, factual, and relatively informational, I'm fine with keeping. Obviously balanced writing is necessary, and gorification ought to be avoided, but I find no issue with this specific photo. Augend (drop a line) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - content from a self-published source that's currently involved in an information war. A similar image verified and published by an independent source would be much more inline with WP standards. Aside: the acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns. --N8_wilson 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this definitely "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". That was already decided in previous discussions (link by Alcibiades979). There is no copyright issues if I understand correctly or anything problematic per policy with this image. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Images of the exteriors of shelled apartment buildings are commonplace. Cinderella157 argues that this particular photo does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", but I disagree. This photo of the interior of an apartment where someone was killed at home significantly increased my own understanding, and when I see exterior views of blasted apartment buildings in the future, I will have a much better understanding what the people who lived in those buildings suffered, and the horrors that could be seen inside those shattered apartments if a photographer entered those devastated places. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 20y 22 (UTC)
Keep (unless better alternative found) - As far as I'm concerned, the focus of this RfC is not about it being disturbing (though the edit war was about that), it's about whether the source is reliable. However, I see no reason to even suspect that the source has fabricated the image in any way, as there seems to be no need to do so. Suspecting this image as fabricated seems akin to suspecting the US of faking the moon landing-- it's literally easier to get the real thing than to fake it. Lack of photographer credit means little during war time, and the source is an official source even if it uses facebook. I do see the arguments made above that a better representational image might be found elsewhere, (which might be even more disturbing that this one) and I would support replacing this image with such an image if found and sourced... but I also have no objections to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs' facebook page being a source. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question This image appears in the section "War crimes:Attributed to Russian authorities and forces". How does this image of a dead man contribute to our understanding of war crimes attributed to the Russians? There is nothing that would indicate this death actually results from a war crime? On the otherhand, deliberately targeting a well marked hospital is pretty clearly a war crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think this is where I fall. I agree the image could be suitable for placement in the article at an appropriate part of the prose, but it's unclear how it relates to "war crimes by Russian authorities". Unless someone can clearly explain how this image depicts a war crime, its placement doesn't seem relevant in that section. The particular contents of the image (i.e. whether it contains a body) doesn't seem too relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laws of war generally distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets. The target of the attack must be a legitimate military target, and the damage to civilians must be proportional to the military objective that the attack attempts to achieve. Although I am under no illusion that a bunch of volunteer editors can meaningfully adjudicate whether a war crime has occurred based on one image, if we just take it on face value, we have an image shared by a legitimate government source accusing the Russian military of killing this civilian, with the image showing a civilian who appears to have been killed by military action while in a civilian residence, which is unlikely to be a legitimate military target. Further to this, we know from WP:RS reporting that scenarios similar to what this image purports to represent are indeed occurring.
Of course, there could be further context we are not privy to, such as this civilian opening fire on Russian troops, or providing material support to the Ukrainian military, which could make them a legitimate target, but the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that this image depicts a war crime against the civilian population of Ukraine. Melmann 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies of some of the hundreds of Vietnamese villagers who were killed by U.S. soldiers during the My Lai Massacre. This is a compelling image

Civilian deaths are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of war - being just too close to a legitimate target in the wrong place at the wrong time. The image of itself does not rise to depicting a war crime rather than an unfortunate event. I am not judging the act but the efficacy of the image to depict what it is supposedly intended to do per image policy. There are probably more confronting images that better support an understanding of the subject section. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC) See an example of a compelling image. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep I feel that WP:NOTCENSORED gets unfair weight in these discussions, being used in the sense that the content should be included because not doing so would be censorship. We should really pay more attention to WP:OM, and in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As this policy says "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." and goes on to say (my bold) "According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment'; that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." There is a point at which images become too gratuitous, and I feel that this image is probably somewhere around that limit.Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree that this image is offensive to an average reader. Obviously, the level of offence is highly cultural, but this image could have easily been a still from any number of police procedural dramas or action films, readily shown during the daytime in most Anglophone countries. The only meaningful difference between this and the procedural drama example is that we know for a fact that this image is real, while images from those dramas we know to be staged. This image does not show gratuitous violence, beyond from what is required to demonstrate the encyclopedic point in question. There are no internal organs strewn about, the victim is not beheaded, there isn't even a meaningful amount of blood on display. If anything, this is the mildest photo that can convincingly demonstrate the reality of death of civilian population of Ukraine. I understand your point, and I do agree to a point. I would not support ISIS beheading videos being the first thing the reader lands on when reading the page ISIS, but in this case, I think we are a long way off from getting the balance wrong.
I can understand how a reader might find the image distressing, but the topic of civilian death in a war is highly distressing on its own, and this image demonstrates the reality of it without displaying needlessly unmerited violence. Melmann 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember switching on the News after school as a four year-old during the Vietnam War. Images such as this (viewer discretion!) were common. No one had to tell me war was Disturbing while putting their own spin on "the facts" - a picture is worth a thousand words. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an article on a war, some disturbing images are expected, as the war is itself a disturbing event. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons given above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can anybody tell me how this image is clearly about war crimes? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Single incidence civilian deaths with no supporting evidence can't be automatically attributed as war crimes. Also any claim in that direction would need to verify three things: that the assailant was a combatant (in legal terms) and that the victim was a non-combatant, and that the attack by a combatant against a non-combatant was intentional. All of these things are extremely difficult to verify. All may not be as it seems, especially in a situation where it is alleged there is a widespread resistance movement within the civilian population. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I have seen much worse in relation even to this war, and the person actually looks quite peaceful and 'undamaged', but the relatively acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns., nor that we actually have no idea what the picture depicts and whether it does or does not illustrate anything specific about this war, nor about war crimes. It reitetrates the obvious, that people die in war, and violent death never looks pretty. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics. In terms of opinions for consensus purposes only there appear to be 12 Keeps and 4 Deletes, which is at about 3-to-1. Wikipedia policy is generally to be against censorship, and consensus should decide if the image is useful to the article as a whole on its own merits. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it 5 to remove. However, those arguments are being made mainly on the source of the image and policy - whether the image is adequate to support the accompanying text. They are not being made for reasons of censoring. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I have no issue of citing materials from verified social media accounts of government agencies or reputed individuals. My issue is the appeal to sensation instead of providing substantial context to the alleged war crimes committed by Russian troops. It's fair that we employ much stricter criteria when deciding what we should include in such article with high traffic because of the ongoing military campaign. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "falsely accused"[edit]

I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend (drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, we go with the language RS use. But without knowing what you are talking about its hard to say if the use of false is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking here: "Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." As a side note I agree with the usage of "falsely accused" in this case. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issue Augend and agree with you that the usage of the term "falsely accused" is problematic. In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. Maybe note in the sentence who considers it as a false accusation, attribute it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is clear that RS almost universally concur that Putin is exaggerating in the extreme, "without basis" does not work because there is a lot of basis for conclusions which are similar to the ones he draws. It is not so much a lack of basis, there are heaps of evidence of unusually pronounced affinities for Nazism throughout the record of Ukraine's various social phenomena. It is just that Putin makes a wild leap from that basis to a conclusion, framed here as Nazi "dominance", which lacks a sufficent basis to support his extreme conclusion and remedies. It is confusing though to state "without basis" which may be technically correct regarding the Putin conclusions because there is nevertheless a lot of basis for relatively non-controversial conclusions which lead towards, but do not arrive, at Putin's endpoint conclusion. Therefore, while supporting the spirt of the proposal "without basis", I do not support the use of "without basis" as a way out of this conundrum. IMV. Wikidgood (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above in reply to . Alcibiades979 (talk) as to the edit in his link "I'm thinking..." As stated eslewhere, I believe the lede is problematized more by the inaccurate characterization of Putin's remarks as a problem of Nazi "dominance" than by the characterization of his words as false accusation, although I concur with EkoGraf and others that "falsely accused" fails WP:NPV and 'balance'. There are many accusations floating around which are not necessarily so clearly false, eg., that shelling by UNG into Donbass is excessive, that UNG units such as Azov violate HR conventions, that Russian language-speakers are unduly suppressed by the Ua legislation, that the Party of Regions has been subjected to bullying, that the Odessa fire incident was an outrage raising certain red flags, that the use of the wolfsangel in official regalia is suggestive of inappropriate Nazi affinities, that some of the territorial acquisitions @ Galicia were suspect in the inception, etc etc.

None of these are universally regarded as "false", and they all could be woven together in a general theory of creeping Naziism afflicting Ukraine, which a significant plurality of commentators may believe. (I don't, by the way.) The point is that "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis" is just not a great piece of writing, it looks like writing-by-committee and we may be stuck with it.

If there is a way out, IMO, it would be to start with revisions that state more precisely it is that Putin does and does not say. We can then more readily determine the proper way to qualify his contentions. That would require quite a bit of thought, and, even if someone devoted some time to reformulation of that phrase, there would then be the task of winning support/consensus. It is not unlikely then that there debate will just continue around how to qualify what I believe to be the flawed subject of the qualifier. Thus is the nature of collective encyclopeiation, alas. Wikidgood (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Anyone who reads the article, or listens to the news, knows that Putin is lying every time he opens his mouth. However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. But, there's already been a similar discussion some while back, and the outcome was to keep the term, so good luck with trying to get it removed or changed HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Augend. I think the use of "falsely" is biased and non-nuetral. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're adding your support to Augend? E Eng 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence .... Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and WP:NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not mean we must be kind or take a middle-ground stance. It means we must report according to what the sources say. In this case, all reliable sources are unanimous that this is a false accusation. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is exactly the time to use wikivoice. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that we couldn't use WP voice but that we haven't gone about things the right way by which we could use WP voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, even though they are considered RS by Wikipedia, they are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so this has to be taken into account. Agree with Cinderella157, a right way needs to be found to convey the information in WP's voice. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have an issue with giving credence in the lede to a conspiracy theory that is currently being used to justify a war. Multiple RS's refer to these allegations as false. I'd also take it a step further and say that I think extra caution needs to be taken in this instance since the accusation is that one of the world's two Jewish heads of state is actually a nazi who is committing genocide against Christians. This is clearly extremely problematic, and the accusation is deeply anti-semitic. Putin's accusation itself is a text book example of WP:NAZI: "That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent." As far as reliable sources go:

NewYorkTimes: "Neo-Nazis have been a recurring character in Russian propaganda campaigns for years, used to falsely justify military action against Ukraine in what Russian officials have called “denazification.”"
CBS: "Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine"
CNN: "The false accusations of Nazism and genocide from Putin and his aides against the Zelensky government have drawn outrage."
NBC: "Putin has long sought to falsely paint Ukraine as a Nazi hotbed, which is a particularly jarring accusation given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost three family members in the Holocaust."
WallStreetJournal: "The references to Nazi Germany come against the backdrop of Russia falsely alleging that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis and that one of the aims of its war is to “de-Nazify” the country"
Politico: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish himself and whom Russian President Vladimir Putin has cynically and falsely called a Nazi"

This is what the sources say, and what is in common usage, and for good reason. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is advocating for the truth of Putin's statements, nor do we support the use of these mistruths in the advancement of an aggressive and damaging warmaking policy. That said, I also do not believe Wikipedia ought to be used for sending political messaging; the outrageous nature of the comments is not justification for our supposed burden to right great wrongs. Augend (drop a line) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling false accusations false is not political messaging; it is a factual statement, and being mealy-mouthed about it would be false balance. To quote our policy on NPOV: we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. The logic behind @Alcibiades979's post implies that the nefarious nature of the commentary somehow emburdens us to emphasize the lack of truthfulness or otherwise highlight the falsehood of the commentary. This is not true. Whatever the purpose of Putin's comments are, we are not obligated to act any differently because of them.

Within the context of WP:IMPARTIAL, [t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPARTIAL is incorrect in this instance specifically because WP:NPOV refers specifically to reliable sources. Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular, nor is it credible to state that he is. We have a number of Reliable Sources in this thread, all of which refer to the claims as being false, in fact I chose the sources I did because they mirror the article's terminology almost exactly: "false accusations". As far as I can tell there is no debate that the accusations are false. We should follow the Reliable Sources. What's more is that we as edittors are not "neutral", in the sense that we give false balance, rather, we are neutral in our reporting and representation of Reliable Sources, which may lead to what maybe construed as "not neutral content" there is nothing wrong with this as long as we are fairly representing the Reliable Sources, which we are. In short, there's no WP:OR there's no going out on a limb, the article is just following Reliable Sources to the letter. For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking this down...

Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular - nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?

We should follow the Reliable Sources - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.

For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." - yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.

Finally, there is considerable historical consensus based on a wealth and breadth of knowledge on the topic since WWII - unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty (if anything, just because of how vaguely worded the subsequent clause is and the relative novelty of the entire phenomenon). Hence I do not believe it would be problematic to err on the side of caution (see [a]). Augend (drop a line) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty" Where is the uncertainty? Where are the sources that state then that the Ukrainian government is dominated by nazis? I found and listed a number of sources stating that the accusation is false. Do you have sources that say that Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a nazi? Otherwise to me it is exactly the same as the Gleiwitz incident, and if we get rid of the exact phrasing and just allow it to be RSs that refute the statement that Ukraine is a neo-nazi state then I can easily produce dozens of RSs which state that it is false. The middle ground is that the jewish president of Ukraine is not a nazi, that his government is not nazi and that he's not perpetrating genocide; that is the middle of the road NPOV statement. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about "incorrectly accused", is that better? We reflct what RS say, so we can't imply this is not incorrect or false.. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was already discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis. I'm generally very cautious about Wikipedia using judgemental terms in wikivoice, and have argued very strongly against this where I feel the sources are more cautious/hedged than our article voice. However, in this case I think "falsely" is clearly vindicated by the sources (as Alcibiades979 helpfully shows above). As it's factually true (Putin's claim is baseless and described as false) I think there's no need to qualify, attribute or water down this wording. In the previous discussion I also noted that MOS:WEASEL encourages editors to use their discretion with potentially opinion-sounding terms in the lead and in topic sentences at the start of paragraphs, as sometimes words which sound opinionated best and most accurately reflect the sources which are later expounded on the article body/following sentences, which I believe is that case here. That said, I didn't particularly mind Augend's suggested wording "without basis" – but I think the rationale for change, that there's a neutrality issue, is wrong. Jr8825 • Talk 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine" is not a factual statement which can be assessed in terms of true or false, but a declaration of intent hinting at regime change, plus an expressive statement aimed at escalating the conflict. Saying that it is "false" in the lead section is a way of taking a clear stance from the very start. Of course we should debunk false information, as we are now trying to do decently in the "Russian accusations and demands" section; and of course Ukraine is not run by fascists. But claiming that the statement "we come to wipe out the fascists" is false, without basis, etc., is just getting caught in the dumb talk of propaganda war. And yes, there are fascists on the ground in Ukraine, they’ve been responsible for atrocities, and yes the members of the Russian community may reasonably think that they’ve been subjected to systematic discrimination based on language and nationality. I think that our RS are much more reliable for facts than for value judgments. Echoing them doesn’t bring us closer to peace nor to truth. I’d remove the "falsely" adverb from the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here specifically to ask for the removal of falsely in this context. Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false. Accused itself, however, do not carry the connotation that the accusations are true. My suggestion is to use allegedly. ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. In this way, we still play down the possibility of persecution of Russian-speaking minorities, while do not dismiss whether some neo-Nazis are active in Ukraine right away. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false" – that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources is that they are all USA sources. Using the words of the press of a country heavily invested with one side verbatim is not constructive. Moreover, we have a seven paragraphs of Neo-Nazism#Ukraine and Racism_in_Ukraine mentions neo-Nazism three times. People who use wikipedia as their primary news source and who don't know anything about the conflict would probably think that there is no shred of evidence that there are any neo-Nazis in Ukraine, after reading this sentence. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources do not cease to be Reliable just because they are American. Fieari (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia is to copy the US media verbatim, we can redirect this page to New York Times and all of us can call it a day. Or, we can use allegedly which is only slightly less sure than falsely.176.89.106.252 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC: The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction. [11]
The Guardian: Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face [12]
Der Spiegel: Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine? [13]

This is not a US-exclusive phenomenon. To qualify this as anything less than false feels like false balance, at best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find several BBC videos on short notice stating some neo-Nazi groups freely act on their own, totally above the law. At least one such video suggested that the previous ministry of interior, Avakov, is affiliated with such groups. So, stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine. We know that overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe neo-Nazism do not justify an invasion but stating that all neo-Nazi accusations are false is not something we should do here. It doesn't even make sense, considering the fact that just next to the "falsely accused", neo-Nazism in Ukraine and Russophobia are linked right there.

Also, about WP:NPOV and specifically about false balance, "the minority view" is assumed as the minority view among the western readers. The countries that abstained in the UN GA collectively hosts about half the world. Offering the Western media verbatim here is an indirect show of western supremacy.

I want to reiterate my suggestion: ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. This way, we do not comment on the accusations about neo-Nazis but we still play down whether these neo-Nazis prosecute Russian speaking minority. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we are misusing NPOV and false balance. They are more applicable on issues that are exhaustively discussed on a scholarly level, such as Armenian Genocide. This is why WWII analogies do not work as well. Here, we use the language appropriate to use after a military tribunal, for an ongoing conflict. As things stand, someone who is sceptical about the mainstream western views on this conflict would not keep reading this article because he/she would think this article is western propaganda and why shouldn't they if we copy the western media verbatim? 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The actual claim as written in the article is Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the claim is wrong: Putin never said "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a point I've raised in an earlier discussion with no avail, yet I think it's relevant. We have the full text translation of the 24 February address on Ukraine by Putin (which the Russian Federation also submitted to the UN as official justification of war). It is here (Bloomberg) and here (TASS). We also have en extensive excerpt in the New York Times, here. This is what he actually said about nazism, verbatim: "Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine"; "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine"; "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These are declarations of intent, policy objectives, political judgments and predictive statements - not mere statements of fact, which could be true or false, like "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a ridiculous statement which Putin never pronounced, and by labelling it as "false" we are getting trapped in war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. "Ukrainian society and government [is] dominated by neo-Nazism" is a fair interpretation of "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". If this were clearly a predictive statement, as you seem to suggest, then that would be something like "tomorrow's neo-Nazis". The very next line is "You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people." That's present tense, not future. But more to the point, this is why we use secondary sources, rather than the primary source of the text of Putin's speech. And the secondary sources about this are pretty conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly.Gitz: "Putin never sai..." This struck me as creative writing and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Where did Putin ever use the term "доминирует" (dominated) to characterize his take on the neo-Nazism allegations regarding Ukraine. The encyclopedic requirement of reflecting RS should use the precise wording as the default and not reframe with connotations not in the original. Wikidgood (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort - I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend (drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's an alternate rationale for the change? Augend (drop a line) 04:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification This discussion has been notified at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of the term "falsely accused" at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still going on over there. E Eng 01:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

***
As long as the Russo-Ukrainian war goes on, there will be people editing the article. We have saved these portions of the talkpage in case they are deleted/revised later.

Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics.)

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Andy Ngo.....

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

More From the Backroom on The War....