Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#rfc 09AB7F8

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1746716483}}

Should the United States and/or NATO be added to the infobox of this article after the publication of the recent NYT article: {{Cite news |last=Entous |first=Adam |title=The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine |work=The New York Times |date=29 March 2025 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250330021832/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html |archive-date=30 March 2025 }} Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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

{{Info|NOTE: Per WP:GS/RUSUKR Remedy A., this discussion is open only to extended-confirmed editors. Comments made by other editors will be removed.}}

:It was suggested above that the question should not be "Should this or that be included in the Belligerents field?" as it opens the article to be a victim to the tyranny of the crowd. The correct question should look like "What criteria a party should meet for the inclusion into the Belligerents field?" ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Link to previous RfC: Closed on March 6, 2025 about a similar question.

:Link to 'supported by' RfC: Closed on July 19, 2023 deprecating broadly the use of 'Supported by' sections in infoboxes and requiring exceptional uses to be backed by an affirmative consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• No for starters the source does not call them a beligerment, and generally, we do not add supporters. 2, NATO is not a nation, and not all NATO nations have provided military aid. 3, This is one source, and it seems to be that unless other rs call them beligerant this smacks of wp:synthesis. Also there is the fact do we then have to add anyone else, Iran, China etc?, No, this will just cause bloat for no reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – Plenty of conflict articles include supporters in the infobox, just look at any Yemen-related conflict article. Should we go to every one of those and remove the supporters? Also, are Iran or China the command-and-control of the Russian military, as the US is for the Ukrainian military? Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Its depricated, and I will not be engaging in a too and throw. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{tq|1=the command-and-control of the Russian military, as the US is for the Ukrainian military}}
  No false theses please. It only weakens your argumentation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• That is what the NYT article describes. Not a question of opinion. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :No, the article does not indicate that the U.S. assumed command-and-control over Ukrainian military operations. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::That is exactly what it indicates. Again, not a question of opinion. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::"{{tq|generally, we do not add supporters}}." Note that the infobox currently has a "supporters" field, which includes Belarus. As worded, this RfC is about including the U.S. in some form in the infobox, with the threshold for being a supporter obviously being lower than that of a belligerent. Therefore, editors should clarify whether they support/oppose just listing the U.S. as a supporter in their !votes. The 2023 RfC on the infobox does not preclude listing supporters with a consensus in exceptional cases, which in my opinion this is in light of the specific circumstances. — Goszei (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The problem with Belarus is the sources don't support the conclusion that there is some special category that Belarus falls in to and which no other country (e.g., Iran) occupies. They either say that Belarus is not a combatant in the present conflict, or they say that Belarus is (or has been) a belligerent (a category that Russia and North Korea also occupy).

:::Either (like Iran) they should not be listed, or (like Russia and North Korea) they should be listed as a belligerent. There is no third option.

:::Including them as a "supporter" on the basis that they are a belligerent is blatantly contradictory, and only serves to create endless discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support – There is a reliable source, the New York Times, which clearly does link NATO and the US as being involved in this war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• No (invited by the bot) (First, to clarify, I assume that the question is to list them as belligerents) The brevity of info boxes means they they should be limited to well-accepted factoids. This certainly isn't that. And it doesn't fit the common meaning of "belligerent". Finally, this would be based on deriving that term from a newspaper article. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This RfC is about listing the U.S. in the infobox in some capacity, with the threshold for being a supporter (as Belarus is currently listed) being lower than that of a belligerent. You oppose the latter, but what is your opinion on listing the U.S. as a supporter of Ukraine? — Goszei (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::This isn't correct, but hardly your fault. The threshold for inclusion for the two is the same: belligerency. The distinction is that unmarked belligerents are widely accepted as being parties to the conflict; while marked belligerents are disputed parties to the conflict. There just was never any agreement on how to mark Belarus so the deprecated 'supported by' was retained by default. See the archived, unresolved RfC here. Near the whole of that discussion is about Belarus as a 'co-belligerent'. There was a suggestion to re-header Belarus away from the deprecated heading – by myself and Manyareasexpert – but it was never formalized. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• Yes, I support listing it as a supporter. The New York Times exposé reveals that the U.S. military planned everything from strategic and tactical troop movements to every individual long-range missile strike. The U.S. selected Russian targets, provided coordinates to Ukraine, and directly authorized the attacks using weapons provided by the U.S. itself ($70 billion worth of them, and without which many analysts say Ukrainian lines would have collapsed long ago; [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/world/americas/ukraine-us-weapons-suspension.html]). The most relevant pieces of information revealed in the article, which all editors involved in this discussion must read in full before contributing, are:

:* that "{{tq|the United States was woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil}}".

:* that "{{tq|American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv's counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.}}"

:* that U.S. generals at their base in Wiesbaden, Germany would "{{tq|oversee each HIMARS strike}}" against Russian troops, with their oversight such that "{{tq|the Ukrainians were supposed to only use coordinates the Americans provided. To fire a warhead, HIMARS operators needed a special electronic key card, which the Americans could deactivate anytime.}}" These actions in particular go far beyond advice, instead resembling direct command-and-control.

:* that teams of active-duty U.S. officers were first dispatched to Kiev, and later "{{tq|eventually allowed to travel to Ukrainian command posts closer to the fighting.}}"

:By the NYT's evaluation, "{{tq|U.S. intelligence and artillery helped Ukraine quickly turn the tide against the Russian invasion.}}" This level of involvement far outstrips NATO or the European powers' level of involvement. This is exactly the kind of exceptional case which the 2023 infobox RfC was talking about, so the U.S. should be listed at minimum as a supporter. However, I think the bar for belligerent is quite high, and I think I would have to see a ruling in an international court to support that. — Goszei (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|1=Support listing as a supporter}}
This needs a different RfC. The field name is Belligerents, and it currently lists belligerents only. There are more supporters than the US, including the US only would be taking some strange side. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::As you know, the current infobox lists Belarus as a supporter, not as a belligerent, so adding another supporter would follow that precedent. — Goszei (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It was decided to remove that confusing "Supported by", see Special:GoToComment/c-Manyareasexpert-20250402211700-Romanov_loyalist-20250402210800 . Belarus is more than a supporter, it's a belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What is your justification for obfuscating that the US military set up a headquarters to plan and direct Ukrainian military operations (which is what command-and-control means)? Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|1=justification for obfuscating}}
No WP:STRAWMAN please, it only weakens your argument. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So what is your position then? Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The field is "Belligerents" and that's what goes there. There are many countries which can be characterized as "supporters", not the US only. The amount or the extent of the support varies, but wiki editors are not eligible to decide which amount of support means belligerency and which is not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::How is Belarus a belligerent but the US isn't, despite having a much bigger role in the conflict? Romanov loyalist (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::per sources. Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement.{{pb}}"Bigger" is the assessment of a Wikipedia editor with the corresponding consequences (irrelevant). N Korea sent its troops and is now a party, despite relatively small impact. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Technically, NK "gave" troops to Russia, as they are wearing Russian livery in combat, not North Korean uniforms. And most RS's more or less state they'll never be allowed back into NK. It's a fine point, but if these guys are part of the Russian army now ... 2603:6080:21F0:6380:B99B:629F:E051:339A (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The fact that North Korean troops are wearing Russian uniforms is neither here nor there - interviews with captured North Koreans and captured North Korean documents show them to be part of North Korean units. FOARP (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. Until such time as the United States actually ends up in a state of war with Russia, it is, by definition, not a belligerent, only a supporter. Ships & Space_(Edits) 17:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :In a legal sense, not even Russia is currently in a state of war, let alone a country like North Korea that we've already determined suitable for inclusion in this article. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Indeed, the legalist arguments are used quite selectively. JDiala (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. But I would support removal of Belarus (while its help was exceptional at the start of the 2022 invasion it has dwindled to relatively minor in the larger and longer scope of the ongoing war). Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | Collapse non-EC editor !vote

*Yes. Because the level of U.S. involvement clearly goes beyond standard military support. The New York Times article doesn’t just describe aid in the form of money or weapons it details how the U.S. helped plan Ukraine’s military operations, provided precise intelligence, and even maintained control over certain weapon systems, like HIMARS, which required U.S. approval to fire. That’s not typical of a "supporter" in the abstract — it’s active operational involvement. If Belarus is listed as a supporter for its limited early role, it would be inconsistent not to include the U.S., whose involvement has been deeper, longer-lasting, and more central. This is exactly the kind of exceptional case the 2023 consensus allowed for — and it makes sense to reflect that reality in the infobox. --HanKim20 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC) ::Per WP:RUSUKR, non-EC editors can't participate in "internal project discussions"—such as move requests or RfCs—related to the Russo-Ukrainian War Placeholderer (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• No "Supported by"s should not be included in the infobox.

:A procedural note: It would be helpful to clarify precisely what the NYT article adds to the discussion that wasn't addressed in the RfC that closed a month ago.

:A necessary tangent: The reason that Belarus is currently listed as "Supported by" is because Belarus is explicitly considered by multiple RS to be some form of belligerent. I don't agree with this inclusion of Belarus. There are 3 possibilities based on what sources say: 1. Belarus is (or was) belligerent; 2. Belarus is (or was) not belligerent; or 3. Sources disagree on whether or not Belarus should be considered belligerent. In none of those cases, I feel, does it make sense to include Belarus under "Supported by". I think that the current listing of Belarus is the darkest (viable) timeline.

:About "Supported by": The concept is deprecated. See that discussion for extensive discussion. Listing supporters *in the infobox* should be avoided. The main reason for this general practice is that "Supported by" is so incredibly vague. There's no clear cutoff for which supporters should be included or excluded. Within the category of "Support" there are countless different *types* of support, and within each type of support there's a gradient of *what level* of that support is provided. A supporter might provide all the food, water, and wages to one party's army; a supporter might lead an international sanctions initiative—without a blockade, which is an act of war—to cripple one party's economy; a supporter might sponsor and legally cover domestic, civilian hackers who target one party's digital infrastructure—all without the supporter even having a military. And all of those things can be done to an arbitrary range of extents—what if the supporter only provides 10% of the food, or just does a few sanctions, or just pardons one partisan hacker? A supporter might send boatloads of weapons to one party—but that certainly can't be the standard for infobox inclusion because that opens the door to inclusion of huge amounts of supporters in any major conflict infobox, which is the clearest example of what the deprecation meant to stop. In this example specifically, if you include the US, what about the UK? Or France, NATO, the EU, New Zealand, Argentina, or anyone on Russia's "unfriendly" list? Where's the cutoff? Each country's support has different types of support, each type at different and hard-to-compare levels. The worst standard is to compare "overall support", since that means comparing every single war-related action that all potential "Supported by"s take.

:There is, though, a cutoff that can save us for infobox inclusion. That cutoff is if RS say a country/party is belligerent. However, if people would be up for adding a mention of support in the lead, I'd support that Placeholderer (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::I also support a mention in the lead, either with or without a mention in the infobox. — Goszei (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::100% agree that Belarus should not be in the infobox under "supported by". The arguments used to justify the present situation are blatantly self-contradictory.

::If Belarus is a belligerent, then they should be listed as a belligerent in the infobox. If Belarus is not a belligerent, then they should not be listed in the infobox. If sources disagree as to whether Belarus is a belligerent, then they should not be listed in the infobox. In no circumstance does it make sense to list Belarus as a "supporter" because we do not include mere supporters in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• No and Remove Belarus - only actual combatant states should be included. States whose status requires a nuanced discussion to explain, should not be included in the infobox. Belarus’s status as a belligerent is disputed, dependent on a specific legal theory, with reliable sources also describing them as a non-belligerent (or similar) in this conflict.

::

role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | Reliable sources stating that Belarus is not currently involved in this war as a belligerent

*The Telegraph: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/07/21/end-war-prevent-nuclear-abyss-warns-lukashenko/ "Despite officially being a non-belligerent..."] Newsweek: [https://www.newsweek.com/lukashenko-putin-belarus-front-war-1890070 "...has avoided direct involvement in the war"] StratFor: [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=726f1f1e-dd51-4e28-89f0-5d8e67fa5aa6%40redis&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZW4tZ2Imc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=160095234&db=bth "Belarus remains unlikely to join the war because its forces cannot guarantee a Russian victory..."] Transitions: [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=726f1f1e-dd51-4e28-89f0-5d8e67fa5aa6%40redis&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZW4tZ2Imc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=159813154&db=a9h "Will Belarus Enter Russia's War Against Ukraine?"] New York Times: [https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T004&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&retrievalId=5f58da6b-04dd-4a77-84fd-2d4adbaf5304&hitCount=1&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA73 "[Lukashenko] has resisted getting involved in the conflict directly."]

:Alternatively, if the argument is that Belarus should be included because it is a belligerent, then it should be listed as a belligerent, not as a supporter. It is simply contradictory to say that Belarus needs to be included because it is a belligerent, and then to list it under {{tq|“supported by”}}.

:I was honestly amazed that some of the people who so vehemently opposed including North Korea as a combatant (because they disputed the immense amount of evidence in favour of doing so, virtually requiring Russian/North Korean confirmation of North Korean involvement in the war) support including Belarus on the basis that Belarus is a "belligerent" when the evidence for including Belarus is so much more dubious and dependent on WP:OR interpretation of what the sources say. I also note that no-one is seriously questioning North Korea being included now.

:PS - a minor point, but since the previous template has now been replaced with the standard infobox, arguments that the consensus deprecating "supporter" for conflict infoboxes doesn't apply here because we were using a different template no longer apply. FOARP (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• No per the comments in the last RFC, it's only been a month, and the deprecation of 'Supported by'. Infoboxes should be for information that doesn't require any clarification, 'Supported by' is something that obviously needs clarification. I would also support removing Belarus (per FOARP), as it's participation in the conflict isn't easily reduced to simple terms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment A People need to understand how RfCs work. You are asked to comment on a very specific proposal by an editor. That's it. OP is not asking about Belarus, yet this is still being brought up by people. This will only cause confusion for the closer. JDiala (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment B The RfC is bad because the OP is not clarifying whether it should be added as a belligerent or a supporter or something else. This distinction is crucial for this and is causing confusion. JDiala (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Belarus is being used as an example of why other entries should be added, so discussing it's inclusion is appropriate. The OP added a comment early clarifying that the question is whether the US should be added under 'Supported by'[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#c-Romanov_loyalist-20250403163200-RfC:_Should_the_US_and/or_NATO_be_added_to_the_infobox_in_light_of_new_NYT_artic] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@JDiala - {{tq|"how RfCs work"}} is that people provide comments. They don't have to limit their comments to the specific question asked. This is particulary when the prescence of Belarus in the infobox is ultimately why the topic of adding the US comes up again and again and again (and again). This is another reason I support limiting to those countries that are unambiguously involved in this war as combatants - and that is Russia and North Korea on one side, and Ukraine on the other. FOARP (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I did add a note to clarify as the original RfC wording was described as not specific enough: the U.S. should be added as a supporter of Ukraine to the "belligerents" section of the infobox in light of the recent NYT article. It has been pointed out that it was previously decided in other discussions not to include supporters in the infobox unless there is an exceptional situation. As the user Mr rnddude noted above, belligerency has been the threshold for a country to be listed in the belligerent section either as a supporter or otherwise, with supporters being those countries whose belligerency is disputed.
• :There have been two main arguments going on: (1) whether or not the recent NYT article is enough evidence of belligerency to add the U.S. to the infobox as a supporter of Ukraine, as an exceptional situation; and (2) whether or not supporters should be included in the infobox at all, no matter what the situation is. The first argument has more to do with the RfC.
• :So, to simplify the main issue of the RfC – the question is whether or not the U.S. should be added to the infobox as a supporter. Romanov loyalist (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|"the question is whether or not the U.S. should be added to the infobox as a supporter"}} - which, to be clear, is a question that has been asked and answered repeatedly. The fact that the answer to this is already clear from previous discussion is why the discussion has turned to other topics.
• ::{{tq|"belligerency has been the threshold for a country to be listed in the belligerent section either as a supporter or otherwise, with supporters being those countries whose belligerency is disputed"}} - The fact that this is a highly problematic, self-contradictory approach, is the entire reason why the discussion has swung around to removing Belarus so as to end the thing that is driving these continuous "what about the US?" discussions. FOARP (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I have read some of the previous discussions regarding supporters in infoboxes, and there is not a consistent explanation on what qualifies as an exemption to be listed as a supporter. The conclusion of that RfC says the use of "supported by" in certain instances is to be decided on specific article talk pages. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The conclusion of that RfC says the use of "supported by" in certain instances is to be decided on specific article talk pages.
• ::::Precisely. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. We have recently had an RFC on this. While it was closed as "no consensus", I don't think editors will say there have been any changes to warrant inclusion. There is a lot of WP:SQS going on in this whole topic area.

:I am writing this so that editors don't waste their time with another fruitless RFC. Ping for @Romanov loyalist, might be useful as this RFC is pretty much exactly the same as the previous one.

:This is not a pro-UA vs pro-RUS issue either, it as a pro-narrative vs pro-WikiPolicy issue. Per WP:RS and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the inclusions seem like a no-brainer. Those arguing against inclusion have the argument: "Supported by has been deprecated from the infobox" and if you claim there are exceptional circumstances per WP:RS, they will simply repeat that supported by is deprecated and that they are not convinced that the US has been done enough to be called a belligerent.

:Two issues are immediately evident. 1) Disputed decisions on Wikipedia are decided by a consensus among WP:RS and strength of arguments in RFCs, not majority opinion; 2) editors conflate "belligerent" and "supporter", citing the deprecation RFC, while that RFC did not deprecate supporters in all cases, thus "belligerent" and "supporter" are still separate categories with separate criteria.

:This whole quagmire started with an RFC over on the template talk page for the military conflict infobox on the deprecation of the Supported by parameter. The RFC was closed as "deprecate" but with a caveat: {{tq|"However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes ... these circumstances would be rare ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1166117665 diff]

:Some editors have understood "consensus" to mean "consensus of opinion", but it doesn't mean that, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: "editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". I have tried getting this clarified on the template talk page, but that went nowhere.

:Before any RFC of this nature can proceed "the infobox supporter problem" has to be solved. Either the language in the close of the template RFC is clarified or another discussion/RFC on the issue is done, as there seems to be clear friction/confusion among editors as to the consequences of that RFC.

:The military conflict infobox appears on some [https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Infobox_military_conflict&namespace=10 ~25000 Wikipedia articles]. A decision that potentially affects over 25000 articles was made based on ~13 !votes. Those 13 votes are overriding everyone on this talk page arguing for inclusion, WP:CONLEVEL problem.

:At least one editor was motivated by concerns about how it might reflect on Ukraine in regards to the current conflict: {{tq|"This is all the more problematic in articles about active wars in progress, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, where a major point of one side’s propaganda is the characterization of non-combatants as involved."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-Mzajac-20230331163500-Cinderella157-20230412235700 link] Not surprisingly, that same editor had no problems with leaving Belarus in as a supporter, making the argument we have all heard dozens of times here before, Belarus is left in for {{tq|"providing its territory for invasion and attacks"}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-Mzajac-20230401145400-BogLogs-20230401071400 link]

:This begs the question: Who drew this arbitrary line in the sand for what warrants inclusion as a supporter and what doesn't? No WP:RS say it, it is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

:I have made a comment in the previous RFC I have listed many WP:RS ( 1, 2) where a clear consensus among them can be seen:

:* The military and financial aid provided to Ukraine by the US and EU is "crucial", "unprecedented", "significant", "extraordinary" and Ukraine would not be able to continue fighting the war without that support.

:* Ukraine and US, EU are consistently referred to as "allies" and "partners".

:* US and EU have both taken active and unprecedented measures to hurt Ukraine's adversary in the conflict with the stated goal of hurting Russia's ability to wage war.

:It can be seen from an airplane that the infobox needs updating. But, the magic line set by editors of "using a country's territory for attacks" has not been crossed, and therefore they argue against inclusion. Clear violation of WP:NPOV, as that criteria just so happens to include Belarus (Russia's ally) and no one else.

:It also means that "support" has been limited by geography, so even in clear cases such as these where a country is literally (in the true sense of the word) completely propped up and armed by foreign powers to continue waging a war against a common adversary, those foreign powers cannot be included as supporters.

:In any other case all these discussions wouldn't be needed, let alone all these RFCs. Of course, all this bureaucracy and litigation suit the exclusion side, because as long as we're "discussing" and "RFCing" the status quo remains.

:This RFC is a waste of time. Nothing will change on this talk page, the changes have to be made and come from elsewhere. There are a lot of things wrong and litigating it all would be a nightmare (another convenience for the exclusionists).

:Re: Belarus. There are enough WP:RS to justify having Belarus as an ally of Russia (or belligerent) in the infobox; and in that way US (and others) can be added as supporters. This is a clear, categorical separation between Belarus and the US (and others) that reflects the differences in their involvement. Problem solved.

:With all that said, I have no desire to keep repeating the same arguments with the same editors. Nor do I have the Wikipedia experience and know-how to know where and how to fix the issues I have identified. I wrote the above so that other editors can see what has already been tried and not waste their time coming to the same result. I hope that I have helped some editors by articulating issues they themselves have recognised, and in that way gave them ideas for more productive ways forward.

:Happy debating and editing! TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is a severe wall of text (it's ~ 7,500 bytes | ~ 1,000 words [that's middle school essay length]). You can use {{tl|pb}} to paragraph text without having to create a new line rather than returning twice and re-indenting. You probably don't need a new paragraph every few lines. You may want to consider displacing some of this information either into footnotes or collapsed sections to reduce the visual space occupied within the discussion, but without completely omitting it. I'd personally copy-edit it down by more than half, as at this length it won't be impactful. Or, alternatively, you could just section it off under a sub-heading with a hidden note to insert !votes above the header. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for explaining all of this and getting the entire series of issues to the point. The U.S. needs to be added as a supporter to the infobox because the burden of proof for doing so has been met, in accordance with existing Wikipedia policies and the conclusion of the past RfC that leaves an exemption for exactly this kind of situation. The arguments against doing so are absurd. But, I also do not know enough about Wikipedia's administration to know how to get this taken to the next level for implementation. Romanov loyalist (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Those arguing against inclusion have the argument: "Supported by has been deprecated from the infobox" and if you claim there are exceptional circumstances per WP:RS, they will simply repeat that supported by is deprecated and that they are not convinced that the US has been done enough to be called a belligerent.}} My own argument, at least, is that "Supported by" is deprecated mostly because there's no way to rigorously include it. I'm not saying "Don't include because it's deprecated", I'm saying "Don't include because of this major problem, which was recognized over a year ago in the deprecation". As for whether the US has done enough to be called belligerent, we need RS that say that, not OR interpretations or SYNTH combinations of misc sources—editors aren't the ones who need to be convinced Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The "supported by" RfC does not say that an exemption to list a country as a supporter requires the use of legalistic terms, so that is WP:OR. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't understand your point, or how it relates to my comment Placeholderer (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::My point is that the previous RfC concluded that a country can be listed as a supporter in exceptional circumstances, and the conclusion does not say that RS need to explicitly call the country a "belligerent" for it to be an exceptional circumstance. So if a country is providing support and RS are describing that support in terms indicating it is exceptional, then it can be listed. Romanov loyalist (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::To clarify, including parties as belligerent is separate from including parties under "Supported by".

::::::As for including support, it's my position that I don't think that it's best to include *in the infobox* even in cases where the support is super significant for the war. This discussion includes some of my reasoning—for one thing, US support is exceptional here in its (nominal) size more than in its effect on the war. I'm more sympathetic to the argument that the types of support offered are a difference in kind from other types of support, but even then there's the problem of defining exactly what types of support would be worth including—and to come up with a nuanced and thought-out distinction between inclusion-worthy and not-inclusion-worthy support would make the support field inappropriately nuanced for infobox inclusion Placeholderer (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I honestly don't get how @TurboSuperA+ can state that {{tq|"Who drew this arbitrary line in the sand for what warrants inclusion as a supporter and what doesn't? No WP:RS say it, it is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH."}} and then conclude, regardless of this, that we should keep this standard and add the US under it, rather than simply abandoning this editor-generated standard and removing Belarus. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It is not an editor-generated standard. It is the same standard applied across wikipedia. I simply don't understand how everyone just forgot about WP:RS in this topic area.

::::::::"Supported by" is deprecated except in rare circumstances -> consensus among WP:RS that support given to Ukraine is "vital", "crucial", "unprecedented", "extraordinary" (all direct quotes btw) -> this justifies inclusion as a rare case.

::::::::It's very straightforward. Nobody is disputing the WP:RS consensus. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Providing “vital” support does not make a country a belligerent and nobody seriously believes it does. The United States was not a belligerent against Germany in 1940, but it did provide “vital” support to the UK. The USSR was not a belligerent against Israel in 1973, but its support to the Arab countries was “vital”.

:::::::::Moreover the RS sources saying that the US is a belligerent just aren’t there.

:::::::::This entire argument is just a classic case of why deprecating “supported by” was the right idea. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::But we're not talking about belligerency, we're talking about support. In another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#c-FOARP-20250413140500-%22supported_by%22,_again comment] you wrote: {{tq|"I simply don't understand the arguments that argue that Belarus should be listed as a supporter because it is a belligerent. This simply seems contradictory to me."}}

::::::::::But now you say a country needs to be a belligerent to be included as a supporter: {{tq|"Providing “vital” support does not make a country a belligerent and nobody seriously believes it does."}}

::::::::::"Supported by" and "Belligerent" are two different categories with different criteria.

::::::::::{{tq|"This entire argument is just a classic case of why deprecating “supported by” was the right idea."}}

::::::::::It was not deprecated in all cases. The close of the RfC is very clear on this point. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|"now you say a country needs to be a belligerent to be included as a supporter"}} - I said absolute nothing of the kind. I have consistently oppose the inclusion of "supporters" in any form: I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox. Is that clear enough for you? Only actual belligerents should be included. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|"I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox."}}

::::::::::::{{strikethrough|Why is it your decision? WP:OWN.}} edit: wrong policy, it is more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

::::::::::::There was an RfC on the issue of deprecation. The closer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1166117665 wrote]: {{tq|"However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes ... these circumstances would be rare ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article."}}

::::::::::::SInce there is disagreement on the interpretation of the close, should we take this to WP:AN for close review? Or should it be discussed at WP:Village pump? I would be perfectly fine with removing the exception, just as I would be fine with removing the deprecation. I just want us to get out of this limbo. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|"Why is it your decision?"}} - This is an RFC, and I am commenting. I have explained in great detail why there should be no "supported by" section here: the facts are such that there is no standard that won't lead to overly-long lists or dubious groupings such as "NATO" (which includes Hungary) and "the EU" (which includes Austria and Ireland). It's also an NPOV issue to include "NATO" since this is unambigously the Russian framing of this conflict.

:::::::::::::As for what the closer said in the RFC on "supporters" in general, it's essentially saying that WP:IAR is still policy on Wikipedia, but there's just no good reason to IAR in this case. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|"I don't think that it's best to include *in the infobox* even in cases where the support is super significant for the war."}}

:::::::But that's like your opinion man. If you want the exception clause removed, you can start a new RFC on the issue. But as it stands now, exceptions are allowed. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is no "exception clause" that says supporters must be listed whenever a source says support is exceptional. Consensus is needed to add supporters Placeholderer (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|"Consensus is needed to add supporters"}}

:::::::::And what is consensus on Wikipedia?

:::::::::WP:DCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

:::::::::WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"

:::::::::WP:DISCARD: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

:::::::::Consensus on Wikipedia has never been about consensus of opinion; editors' feelings and opinions on a topic do not trump WP:RS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think there's some miscommunication. I absolutely accept that RS call US support for Ukraine unprecedented/crucial/etc. What I do not accept is that we must put everything that RS say in the infobox—this view is consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Further, it is impossible to have a rigorous standard of where to draw the line of which "Supporters" to include in the infobox.

::::::::::It's not my opinion that the US is below some "support threshold" for inclusion as a supporter.

::::::::::It is my opinion that, because it is impossible to rigorously include "Supporters" in the infobox, they should not be included in the infobox. It is my opinion that it's inappropriate to stamp an arbitrary binary cutoff between countries being "Supporters" and being, by comparison, nothing at all.

::::::::::An RfC is literally a forum for opinion collecting. If we could "just go by what RS say" all the time, we wouldn't need talk pages Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Courtesy ping since I for one didn't notice your reply at first @TurboSuperA+ Placeholderer (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'd agree with you had that been the consensus from the beginning. For some three years nobody had a problem with Belarus as a supporter. When editors started asking for US et al. to be included then the response was "Well... how about we get rid of the parameter?" TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::In fairness, there have been two major changes since the start of the war—Belarus has become a much smaller part comparatively, and there was the deprecation RfC.

:::::::::::::In the first completed RfC on Ukraine support in this infobox, only one !vote explicitly said Belarus should be removed if Ukraine's suppliers weren't added. I think this point didn't go very far because Belarus's support was understood to be a difference in kind from arms supply. This understanding also needs to be taken in context—when shading in a map of the war, it made sense that Belarus not be shaded in as neutral, because the zone of conflict only made sense with the understanding that the Belarus–Ukraine border was a hostile front. In the initial invasion—which this article has expanded far beyond—it made more sense to include Belarus in the infobox. If "Supported by" had already been deprecated, maybe it would have been included as a full belligerent instead of as a supporter.

:::::::::::::In later RfCs, Belarus's listing as a supporter was justified through RS describing it as a special kind of belligerent, though this reasoning was problematic, as has been discussed Placeholderer (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|"a difference in kind from arms supply."}}

::::::::::::::That's a mischaracterisation of the support given to Ukraine, it is not just "arms supplies". The foreign support also pays the Ukrainian government's salaries, pays the pensions, healthcare, social and any other costs a country has, as Ukraine has virtually no income of its own.

::::::::::::::In addition to that, it has now been confirmed that US has also been sharing intelligence with Ukraine, intelligence which directly helped Ukraine find targets to strike and put together combat missions. {{tq|"A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field."}} [https://archive.is/roi7X#selection-489.473-489.643 NYT/archive] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I don't mean to try to express support for keeping Belarus as a supporter, I just mean to rationalize why it was included as a supporter to begin with Placeholderer (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I know, but then as soon as that criteria could apply to supporters of Ukraine the parameter was removed. Now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1285393072 it's back].

::::::::::::::::That's why I wanted to revisit the deprecation RfC, to either remove the exception, to revoke the deprecation, or make it more clear which kind of exceptions are allowed. I don't really care which it is, I just want us all to stop wasting time having the same discussions over and over. In my opinion that RfC is responsible for the mess we're in now. If "Supported by:" had never been deprecated we wouldn't be having these discussions. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::{{tq|If "Supported by:" had never been deprecated we wouldn't be having these discussions}}. This just isn't borne out by the facts. There were four RfCs to include Ukraine's supporters in the infobox before the deprecation of the sub-heading. There were at least a dozen discussions (whether edit-requests or random talk page threads) to do so as well. There have been a further two RfCs about the same thing since that deprecation, and probably another at least a dozen discussions outside RfCs. There have only really been two changes in this time: the usernames of those participating and the number of users participating. The second RfC was attended by over 60 editors, the sixth by about 12. Even the arguments are pretty much the same. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::And yet the deprecation is repeatedly cited as a reason why the US shouldn't be added.

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"The deprecation of 'Supported by' was meant to stop this, I don't see why it should be resurrected here."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_22#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250119215800-Slatersteven-20250117161500 link]

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_22#c-Cinderella157-20250202045600-My_very_best_wishes-20250130220700 link]

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"Please read the FAQ on this page. "Supported by" is deprecated."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_21#c-Cinderella157-20241222103300-TurboSuperA+-20241222095100 link]

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"Supporter is deprecated for a reason."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_21#c-Slatersteven-20241222145400-TurboSuperA+-20241222144700 link]

::::::::::::::::::And so on and so on... TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::The more important issue is whether it's better or worse to have groups listed as supporters in the infobox. It shouldn't matter if the arguments around this have shifted over time, except as those arguments get more or less compelling.

:::::::::::::::::"the exception" is that supporters can be listed in the infobox if editors think it's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate, for the reasons I've given.

:::::::::::::::::I strongly oppose the re-addition of Belarus under supported by, and at this point I can't imagine that an RfC would uphold its supported by status Placeholderer (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"if editors think it's appropriate."}}

::::::::::::::::::This is what confuses me. First of all, the RfC close said if there is consensus to add. Second of all, since when does consensus mean consensus of opinions?

::::::::::::::::::If the consensus is based on what editors think, rather than WP:RS or Wikipedia policy, then that goes against WP:DCON, WP:NHC and other policies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Editors interpret policy, such as with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is no policy that says "one must include invent a field in the infobox for supporters when RS use strong words to describe support" Placeholderer (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|There is no policy that says "one must include invent a field in the infobox for supporters when RS use strong words to describe support"}}

::::::::::::::::::::We're not "inventing" anything. The parameter exists and while it has been deprecated there are exceptions. You cannot say that the parameter is deprecated to argue against an exception to the deprecation. You see that, right? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Editors are to decide on exceptions. Your opinion is that the US (and maybe other powers) warrant an exception in this case. My opinion is that they do not. Placeholderer (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::It's not my opinion, it is WP:RS consensus that support given to Ukraine by the US (and others) is unlike any support given to one country by another and both the nature and amount of support exceeds/surpasses any support given in history. It even surpases the Lend-Lease given to the Soviet Union during WWII (again, this is what WP:RS say). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::I don't dispute that sources describe the support in strong words. I do dispute that the sources warrant a "Supported by" field Placeholderer (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::These are not "descriptions in strong words", these are facts.

::::::::::::::::::::::::Saying "strong support" is a description, but saying "support given to Ukraine surpasses Lend-Lease given to SU during WWII" is a fact.

::::::::::::::::::::::::Saying "big support" is a description, but saying "Ukraine could not keep on fighting without US/EU support" is a fact. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::Let me rephrase: I don't dispute that the US has, factually, been providing vital support. I do dispute that provision of vital support warrants inclusion under "Supported by" Placeholderer (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::In your opinion, what kind of support would warrant an exception to the deprecated parameter? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::The one time I did argue in favor of a "Supported by" field was on The Troubles. The situation was that there were three separate "sides" to the conflict, with the government and the loyalists as separate parties. I argued in favor of including alleged government support for the loyalists, under a "Supported by" field, because allegations of government support for loyalists was a major point of contention. I thought that having them in the infobox as explicitly separate parties might be a NPOV concern—it was the government's perspective that they were a neutral third party, but republicans alleged that they weren't. But I withdrew my argument because I was very new and still learning policy and because I wasn't confident enough in the strength of my argument Placeholderer (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That doesn't answer the question. We've been talking about this article and in the context of the Ukraine war.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::In your opinion, what kind of support would have to be given to Ukraine by the US and/or others to warrant an exception to the deprecated parameter? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I explicitly did answer your question.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::As said previously, {{tq|It's not my opinion that the US is below some "support threshold" for inclusion as a supporter.}} Placeholderer (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::If it's not your opinion that the US is below a "support treshold", does that mean your opinion is that they are above a "support treshold" for inclusion as a supporter? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No. Placeholderer (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, basically. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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

:{{tq|"My issue with US inclusion is not about the quantity of support"}}

:Noted. Even more reason to re-examine the deprecation RfC close, because the closer never said what kind of exception it should be: is it quantity or nature of support? The close only said "rare cases". As long as editors interpret what a "rare case" is differently, we'll be going in circles and every RfC on this will end up being decided by a head count. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::The deprecation was a way to answer the question of "Should we include supporters, in general?" with a "Probably not", while leaving specifics up to editor discretion. I think there's a case to be made for revisiting the RfC to get a more conclusive answer in some areas, but it is already pretty strong by saying it's {{tq|the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article}}. In other words, even if there's big disagreement and an RfC is No Consensus, "Supported by" should be avoided. Now, if this discussion truly were a small number of policy-citing editors in favor of "Supported by" and a large number of IJDLI editors opposing "Supported by" with no argument, then this conceivably could be closed in favor of listing the US under "Supported by". However, I think (from my own perspective, ofc) that the arguments against "Supported by" here are not without value/worth discarding.

::The current deprecation close gives flexibility to editors by being vague. I do generally support more flexibility being given to editors (such as with appropriately using controversial sources), so I don't think I'd actively support the idea of revisiting the deprecation RfC, but if that's something you or others would like to pursue that's your prerogative. At the very least, it could be helpful to include more voices in that discussion Placeholderer (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Just for the record, the "supported by" RfC was quite widely notified, including this TP, at Russo-Ukraine War and MilHist. I see that the close is reasonably clear and sound. In essence, "supported by" is generally deprecated but may be used if there is an exceptional case for doing so as determined through an RfC - and that is exactly what is supposed to be happening here. The RfC concluded that there were issues with using "supported by" because what constituted "support" was ill defined (among other reasons). A new RfC that mirrors the original question is unlikely to resolve the question as to when using "supported by" is appropriate, nor is an RfC that specifically asks this question in a general sense. The problem/issue is that each situation is different and any answer will be context specific. There is no "one size fits all" answer to this question, no matter how one might try to phrase it. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support. USA, UK, France, Poland etc. who are actively involved in funding, logistics, training, media support, weapons supply, target acquisition, diplomatic support, treatment of injured soldiers etc. and actual presence of their personnel in Ukraine, should be included in the list of belligerents. (My basis is the precedent established for Vietnam War where USSR is included in the list of belligerents for similar role). Further the list should also include other proxies such as Russian Volunteer Corps, Freedom of Russia Legion etc. since they are actively involved in action on behalf of Ukraine. Unfortunately for reasons beyond my comprehension some editors are refusing to see the logic in facts being presented here. This reminds me of an old saying "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". That might be the reason that some editors here are refusing to see the reason in the facts being presented here. (i.e. they very well know the facts are undeniable but due to reasons beyond my understanding they have decided to stonewall every proposal and have arbitrarily decided who are supposed to be "Supporters" and who are supposed to be "belligerents") Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The USSR is included in the Vietnam war article because {{tq|"Soviet crews fired Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles at US aircraft in 1965. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian officials acknowledged that the USSR had stationed up to 3,000 troops in Vietnam."}}, which is to say, since there is no de minimis rule for war, even this single incident of missile-firing is enough to make it a combatant. Actually Soviet involvement directly in combat extended far beyond this single incident. [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-soviet-troops-fight-in-the-vietnam-war According to Russian sources Soviet pilots flew missions against US bomber claiming kills, and research by historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan shows that the USSR suffered 16 KIA and numerous more wounded in the war].
• :There hasn't been a single incident record of US military personnel actively, directly participating in this war. There also hasn't be an instance of Belrusian personnel doing this either, and for this reason neither should be listed in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::* Let us maintain some consistency, in Wikipedia attributing quotes to Russian officials are usually frowned upon. Either you accept Russian information sources as reliable or you don't. These historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan have attributed their sources to "Russia Beyond" website. Which I dont think has made it it to reliable sources of information as per Wikipedia. Further you have selectively quoted from that link. Presumably you might have not read the entire article, therefore I have brought what was quotedhin that web page (i.e. as per the link you have provided):
• ::{{tq|"Unlike [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/united-states-was-right-intervene-vietnam-214076/ the American involvement], the Soviet Union’s engagement in the Vietnam War was highly secretive. However, what can be gathered is that they gave direct and indirect aid to the North Vietnamese on a vast scale, but stopped short of putting actual Soviet combat troops onto the front lines … Moreover, around 2,000 Soviet advisors were stationed in Vietnam assisting with radar and antiaircraft installations.}}
• ::* I hope the above information clarifies any doubt you might be having. In case you still not convinced, I am providing some more information (source BBC):
• ::{{tq|The UK is among a number of countries with military special forces operating inside Ukraine, according to one of dozens of documents leaked online.}}
• ::{{tq|It confirms what has been the subject of quiet speculation for over a year.}}
• ::...................
• ::{{tq|According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1).}}
• ::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 The source for above quotes is BBC (dated 12 April 2023)]
• ::* You have quoted "USSR suffered 16 KIA and numerous more wounded in the war", if this was the criteria to declare them as belligerents then we should also count the number of Americans, Britishers, Poles etc. killed in this war. (especially those who conveniently took early retirement from Army) Such deaths already might be in their hundreds.
• ::* It seems the goalpost are being constantly shifted. I remember earlier the discussion was about who are supporting whom, then gradually when those arguments regarding role of USA, UK, France, Poland etc. in supporting Ukraine became ridiculously untenable, a new role was introduced - "List of belligerents". Tomorrow once the excuses again becomes ridiculously bizarre a new term will be coined. (Maybe "List of belligerents located in east of Ukraine")
• ::* Again as the saying goes "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". In case you are still not convinced then there is no point in carrying this discussion forward.
• ::Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Firstly, WP:AGF is a pretty firm rule here on Wikipedia. Repeatedly casting aspersions in this fashion is disruptive behaviour. This is particularly the case on pages designated controversial topics, such as this one.
• :::{{tq|"These historians Albert A. Nofi and James Dunnigan have attributed their sources to "Russia Beyond" website"}} - Nope. That is literally not what the source says. Nofi and Dunnigan wrote a book, in which the 16 KIA figure is cited to official Russian sources. The website "Russia Beyond" has nothing to do with the citing of that figure - it is instead cited for Soviet claims of US aircraft shot down during the war.
• :::The section from the National Interest article that you've quoted does not contradict this: it merely states that Soviet troops weren't fighting {{tq|"on the front line"}}, which is not the same as never fighting at all.
• :::{{tq|"if this was the criteria to declare them as belligerents then we should also count the number of Americans, Britishers, Poles etc. killed in this war"}} - if you can find figures showing troops serving in the military of these countries, and not simply volunteers fighting in the Ukrainian International Legion and similar formations, who were killed in action in the present war in Ukraine, then please go ahead and cite them.
• :::Regarding the BBC article - you're omitting that this was from a leaked cache of documents that according to the same source was partially doctored (i.e., fabricated). This is not a reliable source. This is also something that's been discussed at great length in the past and it would be a good idea to review those discussions and why this claim has not been included in the article.
• :::PS -for the total avoidance of doubt, I don't support adding China either, despite [https://news.sky.com/story/bluesky-13344417 the news that has broken in the past hour that Chinese citizens were captured fighting in Russian units]: this is not evidence of the involvement of the Chinese military in this conflict as these men are likely volunteers/mercenaries. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|It seems the goalpost are being constantly shifted. I remember earlier the discussion was about who are supporting whom, then gradually when those arguments regarding role of USA, UK, France, Poland etc. in supporting Ukraine became ridiculously untenable, a new role was introduced - "List of belligerents". Tomorrow once the excuses again becomes ridiculously bizarre a new term will be coined. (Maybe "List of belligerents located in east of Ukraine")}}
• :::{{tq|Again as the saying goes "You can wake a sleeping person but it is impossible to wake a person who is pretending to be asleep". In case you are still not convinced then there is no point in carrying this discussion forward.}}
• :::I don't remember ever, in any of my comments on this page, advocating in favor of keeping a "Supported by" field. I object to this generalization of everyone that everyone who opposes a "Supported by" field is acting in bad faith.
• :::I will say, I was very frustrated when it took seemingly forever to add North Korea as a belligerent, so I can sympathize. In those discussions I didn't do a good job with AGF. I sincerely suggest you don't make the same mistake, and that you AGF Placeholderer (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::TBH I think some level of frustration around the North Korea discussion was reasonable, since the consensus in the discussion was very clear for some months before the it was accepted. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:Just my view obviously @Slatersteven, but I don't think a formal close would be needed for the above anyway - the consensus is very clearly against the proposal and it's just turned in to one "pro" arguing with all the "antis". You can request a formal close at CR if you want.

:Personally I'm beginning to think we should just moratorium any further discussion on this topic (barring any big events which would be IAR anyway) for at least 6 months. It's just turned in to something we return to again, and again, (and again) without any chance of productive discussion. Even in the words of the most prominent support !voter {{tq|"This RFC is a waste of time"}}. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::For the record, I did not !vote in this RfC, I commented calling it a waste of time (and explained why I think so). This kind of RfC cannot move forward unless everyone agrees what the outcome of the Supporter deprecation RfC was: some think the parameter is deprecated in all cases, while others think there can be exceptions.

::Looking at other articles, such as Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present), the infobox has both "Supported by:" and "Alleged support:". Afghanistan–Pakistan_border_conflicts and Islamic_State–Taliban_conflict also have a "Supported by:" parameter, while Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict has both a "Proxies:" and "Supported by:" parameter.

::My posts in this discussion were really about the military conflict infobox policy, rather than the RfC question. That is my bad for taking the thread off-topic. I simply don't know whether I should take this discussion to WP:AN for a close review of the deprecation RfC or should I take it to WP:Village pump (policy) since it is a policy question? Please help! TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:There's a tension between WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AGF. Discussion should, ideally, mean thoroughly explore the different viewpoints rather than throwing up one's hands and walking away, though of course there are limits Placeholderer (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• ″Strong″ Oppose. It didn't make sense under the Biden presidency, it makes even less sense under the Trump presidency, which at this point is not [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/25/us-rejects-un-resolution-condemning-russias-war-how-your-country-voted even condemning the invasion], in fact, it doesn't even condemn [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/apr/15/donald-trump-volodymyr-zelenskyy-vladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-europe-news-live-updates Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilians]. Since the other (failed) RfC's on this, the US has only moved closer to not supporting Ukraine, to the point of the above and generally repeating Russian war rhetoric from the level of president. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top

|result = {{done}} Tag added! Placeholderer (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

:Thanks for the info, but the {{KIA}} symbol is only for people who were killed in action Placeholderer (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Placeholderer}} there is the {{Natural Causes}} symbol for this situation, if that's better? It does seem strange to list Zhidko in the IB as if they are an active commander. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I didn't know about that one! That seems appropriate; will add Placeholderer (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Wait upon reflection it's probably a bad idea to assume that deaths of high-profile Russians due to unspecified illness is "natural causes" Placeholderer (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The sources in Zhidko's article are now two years old, and the IP mentions that his death was from a heart attack. I'll check for more recent sources when I have the time; I have my own projects to work on. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't see sources saying he died from a heart attack specifically; sources reported that the government said he died after a "long illness", and some sources understandably called that out as questionable. Is there a neutral symbol that just says someone died without implying a certain cause? Placeholderer (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::None that I'm aware of, unfortunately. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I take it that 💀 is probably not the answer Placeholderer (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::😂🤣💀 Mr rnddude (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've opened a thread at the Teahouse Placeholderer (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{Ping|User:Placeholderer}} {{Ping|Mr rnddude}} Looking at the discussion, † is not usable, as well as #. I would suppose something like a footnote, or just a simple (deceased) next to his name might work, as I could not find a template appropriate enough, because the cause of death is disputed. All that is needed is a reference.{{pb}}{{A note|This reply is a copy of a reply posted to a thread on the Teahouse. You can view it here}} Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm fine with either proposed solution here, to be honest. I can see minor pros and cons to both. A footnote allows for an explanation, but is probably 'exposition not suited to an infobox'. A '(deceased)' tag is minimal exposition, but lacks the clarity afforded by a footnote. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Should I close the Teahouse discussion as it appears it has moved here?
Also, according to the thread the cause of death is disputed- doesn't that mean that it would be tricky to add details to the footnote? The deceased tag seems the best option here as long as a source is present Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

thumb

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

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

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

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

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

:Apart from all of the other reasons (I do not disagree) we already have too many images (in this part of the article at lease) such that it appears way too far from where it would have any MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::All these are minor issues that could easily be corrected. The question is only − once corrected, would you all allow the graph to return to the article page?

::{{tq|Some of these arguably aren't "wars" (e.g., the invasion of Czechoslovakia)}} − I can remove the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia from the graph.

::{{tq|Some conflicts that should be included here are missing (Donbas War, the first Chechen war, Russo-Georgian war)}} − This is just a sample of conflicts, not a definitive list. There just would not be enough room on the graph to include so many conflicts at once. Also, Donbas War is already included in Wikipedia as part of Russo-Ukrainian War.

::{{tq|"Modern" history is typically understood as including the years 1914-18 and 1939-45. If we mean "post-WW2" we should just say that.}} − Debatable. But just to cut to the chase, I can change it to "Deadliest European conflicts from 1950 to present".

::{{tq|The Russo-Ukrainian war that began in 2022 is still ongoing, the graph should be clear that this is an incomplete figure}} − I can do that.

::{{tq|Worst of all, this is basically a collection of different estimates from different sources measuring different things to different degrees of certainty, and as such a WP:SYNTH and raises questions about whether it is WP:DUE. For this to be a defensible graph, the same source (or at least the same methodology) needs to be used for the deaths in each conflict. For example, the Uppsala Conflict dataset could be used, but is only up to date to 2023.}} − This is basically the most unreasonable complaint. Different sources mention different conflicts and their respective death tolls. Therefore, several different sources simply have to be used to create the graph. If you have one that mentions all these wars, feel free to post it. Uppsala database, which you mentioned, was already eliminated by yourself since it is incomplete and still not up to date. The methodology is the same − a reliable source mentioning a death toll of certain war. All is mentioned in the graph description.

::{{tq|An additional issue is using single years for all the conflicts when several were multi-year conflicts}} − I can correct that.

::{{tq| (a) all of these are wars (b) no war with more death than 300 occurred in Europe in the given time frame (listing all the sources that you have is not sufficient evidence there are no deadlier wars for which no source was found for hence the need for a reliable claim there are none)}} − a) I can change it simply from "wars" to "conflicts". b) Incomprehensible, I already explained that this is not a definitive list, since one graph alone cannot include all 20-something conflicts in Europe from the 1950s to today (for instance, the Ten-Day War isn't that notable). But I gave a sample of some of the deadliest conflicts in recent time. I can include the First Chechen War or any other conflict that you would suggest.

::I can correct all these omissions. But I need a guarantee from you that the graph will then be included in the article. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am sorry but I have to disappoint you here. As Wikipedia depends on consensus no a-priori guarantees can be given that any edit/figure will be accepted (other editors may get involved, additional issues and objections may emerge, people may disagree with how the raised issues are dealt with). Arnoutf (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:The start date does seem rather arbitrary, and I am unsure is supported by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:As does general inclusion, where are the troubles? The Turkish invasion of Cyprus? Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As already explained, I cannot include every European conflict since 1950 in only one graph. I can include The Troubles, if you will support including the graph in the article. Cyprus is in the Middle East, though.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you make such selection you need an extremely reliable source that explicitly makes that selection. You cannot do that yourself. Otherwise the selection itself might be original research (and in this case likely to be biased). Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the best selection is to just include the top n "wars"/"conflicts"/etc by deaths. There must be some source that gives a convenient list—maybe one that also includes upper and lower bounds.

:::::In principle the graph makes total sense to include in the Casualties section. Given that that section shows a lot of variance in the estimates, having bounds might be a good addition, but I'm not the one doing the work for this Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|I think the best selection is to just include the top n "wars"/"conflicts"/etc by deaths. There must be some source that gives a convenient list—maybe one that also includes upper and lower bounds.}} − Unfortunately, no, I haven't found one. At best, there is one from 2022, but it's now outdated considering the high fatalities of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The best I can do is to give reliable sources for each war and compile them on a graph. I have implemented the suggestions and uploaded a new graph in the meantime, with some bars showing a range for two estimates of casualties in specific conflicts.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Isn't "every European conflict since September 3, 1945" is more used by historians than "1950" though?213.230.93.2 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It would already help to start form the 2022 source and than add the current war against that backdrop. At least you might have (if it is a reliable source) a good benchmark that is not original research. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Unfortunately, I cannot find the source anymore. The best I can do is give sources for each conflict on its own. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, No.

:We're not having a bunch of OR shipped in to a Wikipedia in a graph that we wouldn't accept in any other form. It needs to be a reliable source where the numbers shown are based on the same standard, reflecting the uncertainty in the figures given. The fact that this cannot be generated in a single graph at present is a good reason just not have such a graph. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|It needs to be a reliable source where the numbers shown are based on the same standard}} - What is this phantom "same standard" concept if not WP:reliable sources? What else is there than reliable sources? All are presented in the description of the graph, and I haven't seen that either one of them was disputed as a reliable source.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As pointed out more than once, the issue is the inclusion criteria, who gets to decide what is a "modern war"? Who gets to decide what wars are relevant for inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|As pointed out more than once, the issue is the inclusion criteria, who gets to decide what is a "modern war"? Who gets to decide what wars are relevant for inclusion?}} - As explained several times already, and visible in the graph itself, it was determined as post-WWII era, starting from 1950 until today. Those European conflicts with the highest death tolls are included.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Who decided that? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agree. Additionally - bundling the Donbas war together with the present war that has been ongoing since 2022 is no bueno as far as I’m concerned, for the reasons that we’ve discussed to death over and over. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And very importantly, since there are a range of different estimates used for each conflict, which estimates are used. It really needs to be a same-source comparison, and if that can’t be found, then we don’t need to have this graph.

::::It is not sufficient just to say “this source is reliable”, the issue is that a comparison between different estimates made to different standards leads to a conclusion that the individual estimates don’t state (i.e., the War A killed more people than War B). This is the essence of a WP:SYNTH. For this reason, the comparison itself needs sourcing. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} File:Eurasian borders.jpg

{{tq|And very importantly, since there are a range of different estimates used for each conflict, which estimates are used. It really needs to be a same-source comparison}} - This article contradicts you: Boundaries between the continents. Several different sources with several different definitions give different ranges for the boundaries between Europe and Asia, and yet, all are included in the article and a map is provided with these different estimates and ranges. There is no one source with the same standard, but multiple ones with different standards, and all are included. I thus disagree with the WP:SYNTH label. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Brief note: I looked at the image page to check the source. In 2024, Archives908 altered the source details to attribute the image to a 2022 post on a website, when the image itself was created by a Wikipedia user in 2008 citing it being their own work. They did so after another user removed the map from the linked article for lacking attribution, but was reinstated by Archives908 with the 2022 attribution. I have reverted that alteration for copyright reasons; I have also removed the false attribution for citeogenesis reasons. I have no idea which sources Aotearoa used at the time to create the image. Wikipedia in 2008 was very different to how it is in 2025. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Right. WP:WAX is not a good argument since stuff is being uploaded to Wiki all the time that doesn’t belong here. FOARP (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a sister to WAX that's tailored to talk page discussions: WP:OTHERCONTENT or WP:OCON for short. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is probably an OCON question but I'm genuinely wondering: is it reasonable to be this strict about all graph data coming from the same source, bearing in mind that we have a list of wars by death toll that certainly doesn't use a single unified source?

::::I understand that it's not ideal because different methodology is a possible problem, but the graph seems to me like a straightforward image that gives reasonable context to the conflict Placeholderer (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In list articles it is common to acknowledge lists are incomplete (as is done in the list of wars by death toll you cite). Also the sourcing in list-articles are included in the article itself. Including (in readable font size) both such a disclaimer AND the full list of used sources needed to be able to compare estimation methods in a figure is practically impossible - so yes I think such images require considerable strictness in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:One of the claimed numbers (for the Kursk region) was 288 [https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/04/30/kursk-governor-says-288-civilians-were-killed-during-ukraines-incursion-a88935]. But the real question is about who killed them. The indiscriminate shelling in this region was conducted by Russian forces. Moreover, some Russian soldiers have attacked Russian citizens in this area pretty much like they did in Bucha [https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/russian-soldier-kills-woman-in-kursk-oblast-family-attack-50510647.html]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm wondering if we could have a negative number for Russian civilian casualties? To reflect the number of civilians the Ukrainian forces saved from the indiscriminate killing by Russian forces. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There are no reliable numbers, but the subject was covered [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/world/europe/kursk-russia-war-ukraine.html]. [https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/04/30/russian-soldier-opens-fire-on-family-in-kursk-border-town-after-end-of-ukrainian-occupation This] is the most widely covered incident, and yes, this is Russian soldier killing Russian family. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ukrainians haven't killed a single civilian throughout the war (according to WP:RS), this isn't a place to peddle Russian propaganda. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please be constructive. My guess (and it is a guess so no reliable source) is that most likely some Russian civilians died in Kursk by Ukrainian fire (such is the tragedy and evil of any armed conflict). But these numbers are probably low, not reported in reliable sources (and there seem to be even less sources such casualties might be due to deliberately targeting civilian targets by Ukraine). So let us stick with the comment by Slatersleven - we need a reliable source and without that we should not include this. Arnoutf (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Here is a long piece published in reliable source which may be of relevance. [https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/18/counting-kursk-s-dead] SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed, there is no dispute that the Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region has resulted in civilian deaths, but it were not Ukrainians who started the entire war. Did the Ukrainian or Russian army make an effort to minimize the civilian casualties? I think we know the answer in general. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What is the relevance of your comment to this discussion? We are talking about finding acceptable data to include in the article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Funny that on this article currently being trimmed to oblivion to meet amount of word standards, with plenty of notable civilian killings being trimmed in this process, we should shoehorn in Russian civilians dying, in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don't think disputed claims about civilian casualties in Kursk is remotely WP:DUE for this article, it belongs on the Kursk offensive article (where it is already present). The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians. TylerBurden (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Nobody has asked for more prose here. The only thing requested is for the 'Confirmed casualties' and/or 'Estimated and claimed casualties' table – where Ukrainian civilian, Ukrainian military, and Russian military casualty figures are listed – to be updated with a figure for Russian civilian casualties. This would change the article word count by '0', as the table does not qualify as prose, and is something that would be expected in such a table on any other article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for the lovely edit summary, since when are tables exempt of WP:DUE policy? TylerBurden (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's an accurate summary. You aren't raising a legitimate concern, you're asking for Wikipedia to discriminate by nationality under the guise of policy: {{tq| ... shoehorn in Russian civilians dying ...}}. If the table is due, then the data relevant to the table is due. Whether the casualties are Ukrainian or Russian is not a matter of dueness. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::or Armenian, or Greek, or French, or US, or Spanish (all have confirmed civilian casualties see Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Foreign_civilians .... The "dueness" here is whether the number of confirmed Russian civilian casualties warrant their inclusion in this high level overarching article while those of other nations (such as those listed above but there are many more) is not due. In my view for this specific article the level of detail would be too much. Arnoutf (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::An entry that reads 'foreign civilian casualties' isn't a burdensome request either. You could use a footnote to break it down by nation if desired. That's an entry for the first table and 0 bytes of prose. If we can afford to list with granularity the casualties suffered by the two military forces, we can afford two lines in the table for civilian casualties. There are eleven entries for military casualties (5 in table 1 and 6 in table 2) with one of those being damn near three years out of date. How am I supposed to take 'too much detail' seriously? {{pb}} Russia claims 652 civilian fatalities and 2,980 injured[https://tass.com/politics/1921089] which is substantially more than the seriously outdated entry for NGU at 501 and 1,697 respectively. Being {{tq|confirmed}} isn't necessary when there's a table for estimated and claimed casualties for the belligerents stated figures to be listed. We don't list Ukraine's claimed figure in the confirmed table either, even though it is extremely similar, we cite OHCHR for that. {{pb}} As an aside, the ZSU figure should be moved to the other table as Kyiv Independent attributes it as a claim to Zelensky. It is not a confirmed figure. The NGU entry should be removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::What happened with WP:AGF? Arnoutf is correct, giving equal weight to Russian civilians dying in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is making a complete joke out of WP:DUE, especially if the source you're going to use is literal Russian state media like WP:TASS. Following NPOV being "discrimination" is certainly up there with the wildest accusations I've had thrown at me on this site.

::::::::::If you could actually cite some policies for these claims you're making instead of casting aspersions, that would be good. The relevant portion would be "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." By all means remove them, I don't see how there needs to be more than Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian military, and Russian military, because those are the widely covered casualties in this invasion. TylerBurden (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|What happened with WP:AGF}}? is a question to pose to yourself: {{tq|The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians}} is how you closed your opening post indented to Saint Paul of Tarsus (whether directed at them or at all participants is up to interpretation). Don't complain about aspersions while speculating on the motivations of others. {{pb}} There is currently no weight given to Russian civilian casualties to be contrasted against both extensive prose and four entries in the two tables dedicated to Ukrainian civilian casualties. There are nearly sixty mentions of 'civilian' in prose – the majority being about civilians (there's other instances such as 'civilian infrastructure', for example) – and they are about Ukraine's civilians. There are several reasons for this, including importantly that the scale of destruction and loss of life in Ukraine is far greater than in Russia. Suggesting that a single solitary line in a table that purports to report the casualties of the two primary PtoC's would be 'giving equal weight' is absurd. {{pb}} Note, I said Russia claims 652 fatalities and 2,980 injured. I did not say that their figure is factual, nor propose for TASS to be cited or for its figure to be used. I mentioned it as a data point. I didn't even check for TASS, it's on the Wikipedia article linked to by Arnoutf. That said, citing TASS for a claim attributed directly to Russia abides WP:TASS: {{tq|... with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians}}. The Russian claim is relayed and attributed to by some other news media (principally Chinese, Indian, and Arabic) such as [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/2/russia-ukraine-war-list-of-key-events-day-1102 Al Jazeera], which is listed as generally reliable on WP:RSP, so the TASS source is not required. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You dodge any discussion whether the relatively small number of Russian civilian deaths, and the lack of any evidence of systematic war crimes in the killing of Russian civilians makes these number due. Nobody denies that Russian civilians died (sadly this happens in wars) only whether their number, and the systematic attacks on Russian civilians (of which there are no reports I know of) warrant inclusion in this - high level overarching article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Casualties resulting from this conflict are due in a table that purports to list the casualties of this conflict. The same as they are in any such table in a military conflict article. Is this sufficiently clear? {{pb}} Why would I be mentioning 'systematic war crimes' against Russian civilians when that's not the topic of the conversation, is not the topic of the casualties section of the article, is not a topic that is reported on in reliable sources, and may not even be a topic in Russian propaganda? This has become tendentious. Well, it already was, it's just become more tendentious. {{pb}} It's bold of you to complain about dodging whilst avoiding the entirety of my last two posts including a direct response to your concern about foreign civilian casualties. Or was that concern just a deflection? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Basically you seem to suggest to add all 25 countries with civilians deaths as due? (listed in Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War). That is far outside the scope of this thread that isolates the Russian civilians killed so would need another discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I suggest an entry for 'foreign civilians' with a footnote carrying details. If there is a source that has compiled such information that'd be ideal, as many of the entries in the table are from the first weeks of the conflict (e.g. Iraq is 27 February 2022, Armenia is 6 April 2022, and many others in-between) and thus regrettably, probably outdated. If that's not possible now (e.g. no available source), then whenever it becomes possible. There might also be an intermediary solution, a la footnote d (that needs explanation too detailed for this thread). It is a separate discussion, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The source seems fairly ok although I would prefer a stronger or additional sources. It is talking about 30 casualties during Ukrainian occupation, most of whom died of indirect reasons (e.g. traffic accident while flying, suicide etc) or natural deaths. Given the numbers of over 12000 Ukrainian civilian deaths (using UN estimates) the death toll of Russian civilians based on somewhat reliable sources, and even so including natural deaths is about 0.25% of the Ukrainians. Is it really due to mention those? Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:It makes total sense to add a number for civilian casualties of one of the two main parties to the conflict, given a good source Placeholderer (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Should an article be created? There has been Russian movement northwest of Velyka Novosilka. Perhaps a Zelene Pole offensive or something? Or is it too minor for an article to be made? Bcom123 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would consider those movements far too minor to warrant their own article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

China must be added as supporter of Russia. Since the war started, China is giving military supplies to Russia, China also favor Russia on saying the occupied Ukrainian territories are part of Russia. China is a clear supporter of Russia.

[https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/18/zelenskyy-says-he-has-information-that-china-is-supplying-weapons-to-russia Euronewshttps://www.euronews.comZelenskyy says he has information that China is supplying weapons to Russia]

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ukraine-war-briefing-china-arming-russia-and-building-weapons-on-its-soil-says-zelenskyy The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.comUkraine war briefing: China arming Russia and building weapons on its ...]

[https://news.sky.com/story/clear-evidence-chinese-companies-supplying-russia-with-military-attack-drones-western-official-says-13223066 Sky Newshttps://news.sky.com'Clear evidence' Chinese companies supplying Russia with military attack ...] Jones Drew 3907 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

China to be added on the supports Russia side. Jones Drew 3907 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Usage of the 'supported by' write in header has been deprecated. The provision of arms does not rise to the required level to present a party as a belligerent. See also FAQ Q4. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:As said above, its deprecated, so no. Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Neither NK or Belarus are active belligerents in the conflict, so they shouldn't be listed in the table. They could however be listed under "[Russia] supported by" but seeing how there's no such table for Ukraine - which received support from NATO and other countries - NK and Belarus should be removed from the table altogether. The only active belligerents in the conflict are Russia and Ukraine, and the unrecognised republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. 188.146.24.16 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:See talk page archives. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally, the belligerents included in those tables are parties that were belligerent at some point—a party withdrawing from the conflict doesn't mean it should be withdrawn from the table Placeholderer (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• There's no sourcing saying North Korean troops have returned home, and it is now acknowledged even by the North Koreans that their troops fought in this war. For Belarus the situation is more murky but I still prefer the present infobox to the previous one which used the deprecated "supported by" field. FOARP (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Volunteers from all around the globe fought on the side of Ukraine in the conflict, and even though those are regular NK units and not volunteers, it still seems misleading, as North Korea is not in a state of war with Ukraine. 188.146.24.129 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Why as you say, the NK were officially in the war, that IS the difference. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Since North Korea didnt fought on Ukraine territory, only in Kursk they couldnt be called belligerents UNLESS the title got change to 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war not invasion Lama 1234567890 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:There's definitely been discussion around changing the name,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_23#Requested_move_24_February_2025] though there isn't a recent consensus on whether or not it should be done. However, the fighting in Kursk is part of this article, so I think it makes sense to include North Korea in the infobox, regardless of the article's name Placeholderer (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|reason=Per WP:RUSUKR, IPs and non-WP:XC editors are only allowed to contribute to this topic by means of correctly formated, uncontroversial edit requests. An open-ended criticism as below does not meet this criteria. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Very biased article. Only present western view. 202.47.36.141 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:for example? Hoben7599 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sources used include The Moscow Times, Al Jazeera, those are not "western sources". Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Edit protected|answered=yes}}

In the section background, post Soviet relations section, the phrase 'Russia, the US and UK' should have an Oxford comma after US, Makeing the phrase "Russia, the US, and UK". Caleb's World11 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Thanks for pointing this out! Placeholderer (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)