Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

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


Concerning the edit of this article in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC"

[edit]

Hi everybody ! My message is about the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" that was reverted the same day at "17:04 UTC".
I'm looking for opinions of editors involved and editors that aren't involved.
The two edits are readable "there."

I did considered that it was relevant and so I did reverted the revert of this edit. The editor that reverted the edit put in the summary : "When and if he does soethinw this might be relevant."

I made this revert the same day at "21:19 UTC".
The revert of the revert is "there."

In "MAY/27/2025" at "05:48 UTC". My revert was reverted with the next summary : "obviously not relevant, analogous WP:NTRUMP". The edit is "there."

The same day at "05:52 UTC" another editor made a "dummy edit" with the next summary : "Dummy edit because Rsk6400 got to it first. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to achieve consensus". The edit is "there."

I think that we can maybe include in the article the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" (Or a modified version) because there was some moves since this edit.

One of these is the next : After that "Donald Trump" said that "Vladimir Putin" had gone absolutely crazy.
Trump said that Putin is "playing with fire" by refusing to engage in "Ukraine ceasefire talk with the Ukrainian side".
"Dmitry Medvedev" did answered that "World War III" is the only "Really bad thing". I think that we can include these moves in the article.

What do you think ? What we should do ? I have some ideas about what we should do but this message is already long.
Ask questions if you want to know more. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. That's what I think. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for this opinion with only few words ! Before to say what I think.
I prefer to wait some days to see if others editors (involved or not in these edits) will leave an opinion there.
I don't want to monopolize this topic. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per RSK, this may well turn out to be nothing, when Trump acts we can sit up and take notice, not when he (quite poossibly) is just gob shiting. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above. This isn't significant or substantive enough to merit inclusion in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the editor of the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" stated in the summary of an edit "no additional opinion/statements".
Considering that all others involved editors in these edits consider that such edit is inappropriate , except me.
Considering that "Cinderella157" an uninvolved editor in these edits agree with the majority of involved editor.

I did created this topic in "JUNE/08/2025" at "04:18 UTC" and we're in the morning of "06/21/2025" in UTC time.
Tomorrow , this topic will be aged of two weeks.
Nearly all involved editors did participated to this topic and only one uninvolved editor did participated.

In these conditions. I will explain what I think only if asked. This message is far to be short.
I consider that explain what I think would be irrelevant considering that there are already a consensus even if it might change in the future.

For all the reasons mentionned above. I "leave the stick" because I think that it's unlikely that this consensus change in a near future.
I hold to thanks the editor who did said "no additional opinion/statements" and all editors who did participated to this topic made by me. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that @Pofka made edits on "JULY/05/2025" at "09:11 UTC and 09:12 UTCT" that were reverted by "@Rsk6400" on "JULY/07/2025" at "05:03 UTC".

The two edits of Pofka are readable "there".
The edit of Rsk6400 is readable "there".

I did openned this thread for another edit that is older (Refer to the title of the thread) but :
1.Considering that is is a matter very similar to the previous one.
2.Considering that two editors of the previous one are implicated.
3a.Considering that I refuse to do a revert of the revert because I consider that there are a consensus as explained in my message of "JUNE/21/2025" at "06:00 UTC".
3b.Today , I had two new ideas that I haven't before. I'll explain these.

For these reasons. Considering that "consensus can change" even if "consensus doesn't have to change".
I have two proposals based on the ideas mentionned in "3b". Anyone involved in this new matter or the previous one are free to participate or make the choice of silence. The same for uninvolved editors in any of these matters.

Proposal n°1 (Probably the most complex) :
We can create a section concerning reactions by leaders of different countries.
A section by country. A subsection by leaders (For example. Concerning USA , there would be a subsection for Biden and another one for Trump).

The main problem for me is the next. The article is already long.
The second problem for me is the next. It should not be wrote as news because we are writing an encyclopedia.
Therefore , we should to synthetise info and keep the most important reactions but how to consider what is important and what is not ? We can potentially violate "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" without want it , "Wikipedia:Due weight" for example.
The third problem for me is the next. If we practice my proposal. We should think about analysis of these reactions that we can found on "reliable sources". Avoid "Wikipedia:Due weight" could be hard.

Proposal n°2 (Complex but probably most simple than proposal n°1) :
Create an article concerning reactions on this war by world leaders.
If necessary. Create an article for a specific leader and link it to the main article concerning reactions on this war by world leaders.

Concerning the problems that we can have with this proposal in practice.
Refer to the proposal n°1 and what I did named the "second problem" and the "third problem".

What do you think concerning my proposals ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russia-Ukraine War

[edit]

the russia-ukraine war should mainly refer to what started in 2022, not 2014. the 2014 conflict was mostly limited to the donbas region and crimea, with russia backing separatists rather than directly invading. that fighting mostly faded after a ceasefire in 2015.

what happened in 2022 was a full-on invasion by russia across all of ukraine, with airstrikes, tanks, and battles near major cities like kyiv. it turned into a real war between two countries, not just a local conflict. that’s why people usually talk about the war starting in 2022 — because that’s when everything escalated massively.


Imagine we renamed the iran israel proxy war since 1980s to “iran israel war”. This is what this article is. Idk2716639 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very unprofessional of admins to completely delete any talk discussion or move request related to this subject too. it completely disregards sources and everything Idk2716639 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC at Russian invasion of Ukraine here, which was notified on this TP here. This is a community decision that relates to both articles. Drive by comments that do not consider previous discussion and which rehash arguments already made therein are not particularly helpful and not constructive within the terms of WP:GSRUSUKR. They could even be considered disruptive. Within the terms of WP:GSRUSUKR, it is appropriate for editors (not just admins) to close or remove unconstructive comments - particularly by non-ECP editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was no drive by comment.
And even if an RfC was reached, does that not mean we could point out the issues on that considering it’s extremely incorrect? It completely and entirely disregards all sources, and i’m not giving my personal opinion here.
All the supporters provided sources that prove the beginning of the war was on February 24 2022, while opposers rejected the proposal without any source whatsoever. That’s the issue in case readers are wondering what’s my problem with this article. Idk2716639 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Article titles
This is the main policy that supports my claim. It says that The title should be recognizable, natural and consistent with the titles of related articles
Specifically:
A title must reflect reliable sources.
It cannot be misleading or invented.
Consensus does not override policy. So even if all editors agree on a bad name, it still can’t be used.
WP:Consensus is not always valid
Even if everyone agrees, it doesn’t matter if the result breaks policy. So if a name is false, it can’t be used
You can’t make the “2014-2022 Donbas conflict” article be called “Russo-Ukrainian war” unless reliable sources widely use that exact phrase. Even if 100% of editors agreed, the name still breaks policy if sources don’t back it. Idk2716639 (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire historiography section that deals with the employed 2014 date. This article has held the current title since well before the 2022 invasion (it held it originally in 2014 – eventually moved to invasion – and was re-instated in 2020), because reliable sources have referred to the conflict since 2014 by the term 'Russo-Ukrainian war'. This can be seen in the substantial spike in the term's preponderance from 2014 in book sources shown by Google Ngrams (the dataset is limited to 2022, but post-2022 would see a second far larger spike resulting from the second invasion). Your comments are drive-by, because they demonstrate a lack of context on this article and its history, the topic and the sources employed, Wikipedia's internal processes, the role of administrators, deletion on en.wiki, and archival practices. This is alongside the various plain falsehoods and misrepresentations contained within the remainder. Your opinion has been noted and, at least on my end, discarded. Others may assess your complaints as they see fit. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and discard my opinions. Idk2716639 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HAve we not come out of a move discussion about this a month or so ago? Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it closed no-consensus, we can revisit the topic at any point. We are certain to revisit it next year in any event, when the world's media again heralds another anniversary of the war that began on 24 February 2022 and which sources overwhelmingly now refer to as the Russia-Ukraine war. FOARP (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing caps at start of sentence

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#War_crimes_and_human_rights_violations

"the UN Human Rights"

should be

"The UN Human Rights" CircleStuddedSky (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS by Russian Military

[edit]

Intelligence agencies in the Netherlands and in Germany say, that Russian military uses chemical weapons in Russo-Ukrainian War. 

--92.77.57.126 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government: Russia must win

[edit]

In 2025, Chinese government says official, that Russia must win Russo-Ukrainian War. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi talks to EU-politician Kaja Kallas

Why China wants a long war from Russia with Ukraine.--92.77.57.126 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since it has already been misinterpreted once, 'Why China wants a long war in Ukraine' is the English translation of the title of the Süddeutsche Zeitung article linked above. It'd help IP if you used the {{textdiff}} so that it's clear what change you want to be made and where. I'm not sure that this is the best article for it either, consider either Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement or China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine as alternatives. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who did misinterpreted this "there". Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources still overwhelmingly use "Russia-Ukraine war" or similar as the name of a war that began on 24 February 2022.

[edit]

Examples from Today:

All of these high-quality, highly-reliable sources describe the present situation as a "war" that began in 2022, not 2014 and not just an invasion. As time goes on this trend only becomes more clear. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and what do you suggest doing? TylerBurden (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That we revisit the question of the naming of this article and Russian invasion of Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which title do you prefer concerning the article "Russo-Ukrainian War" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Russo-Ukrainian conflict. "Russia-Ukraine war" is the common-name/primary topic for the war that began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accorded to my researches. "Russo-Ukrainian war" seems to be a term mainy used on a academic context. Some examples :
1.Plokhy, Serhii (26 May 2023). The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-1324051190.

2.[1] 3.[2] 4.[3]

I can found instances when this term isn't used on an academic context. 1.[4] 2.[5] 3.https://ukr.warspotting.net/ (A project by volunteers using "open-source intelligence" to estimate loss of material (Drones , Tanks , Vessels etc...) by each sides. Losses are documented). I don't think that we can consider this project as a reliable source because of its way of functionning. Read : https://ukr.warspotting.net/about/. If we refer to "WP:USERGENERATED". We can read the next sentence in this "content guideline". "Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources". I put the word "generally" in bold while citing the sentence. This is because I think that exceptions are maybe appliable in some cases. I don't think that we can consider this is a reliable source (For Wikipedia) but I think that I'm maybe wrong.

4.[6] Can we consider this as a reliable source for Wikipedia ? This is a pro-Ukrainian website. Can a partisan website be considered as reliable for Wikipedia in the context of this conflict ? If we refer to "WP:PARTISAN" , I think that we can use this website as sources in some cases. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ "Russo-Ukrainian War". Harvard University. Archived from the original on 27 June 2025. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  2. ^ Watling, Jack; Danylyuk, Oleksandr V.; Reynolds, Nick (29 March 2023). "Preliminary Lessons from Russia's Unconventional Operations During the Russo-Ukrainian War, February 2022–February 2023". Archived from the original on 18 May 2025. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  3. ^ Souleimanov, Emil A; Laryš, Martin (2 October 2024). "Driven by Revenge: Why Chechen Foreign Fighters Have Joined Ukraine Against Russia". Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 3 October 2024. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  4. ^ Edele, Mark (23 May 2023). "Is NATO to blame for the Russo-Ukrainian war? It's complicated, explains historian Serhii Plokhy". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 13 April 2024. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  5. ^ Umland, Andreas. "Global Dimensions of the Russo-Ukrainian War". Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. Archived from the original on 20 April 2025. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  6. ^ Mukhina, Olena (6 July 2025). "Russo-Ukrainian war, day 1227: Russian missiles release toxic clouds over Ukrainian cities". Euromaidan Press. Archived from the original on 7 July 2025. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
Yes, Russo-Ukrainian war is probably academese and not the WP:COMMONAME for this conflict.
It is also notable that the RUSI source is using it to discuss the war that began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But calling this the Russo-Ukrainian war goes back to 2014. So in fact this has been called it for longer. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"longer" doesn't matter - what matters is what the WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is now. Although the fact that this page was called "Russo-Ukrainian war" even before any sources outside Wikipedia were even using the phrase - indeed before any real fighting - does rather point to what's gone wrong here. FOARP (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a common name if the name was in use longer for a related topic (in fact, the same) topic? [[1]] [[2]], its not clear cut enough to say this is not the same war. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of sources consider the present war to have begun in 2022. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree, so let's not bludgeon this, and let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the messages exchanged between @FOARP and @Slatersteven. My opinion is the next.
1.This article is about the war since 2014. We aren't historians (Or another kind of academics) and therefore this is not our role to say if this is a new conflict or a new phase of the conflict of 2014. As an editor , I haven't an opinion on this matter. As a person , my opinion is that the conflict since 2022 is a new phase of the conflict ongoing since 2014. My opinion as a person doesn't matter because we're on Wikipedia and we're writing an encyclopedia. We have to assume that "Wikipedia" can't be perfectly accurate because "Wikipedia" try to be the most accurate. The most accurate doesn't means perfect. Read "Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required".
2.There are the article "War in Donbas" and the article consider that this was a phase of "Russo-Ukrainian War". The article about "Russo-Ukrainian War" consider that there are two phases of the conflict. The phase 1 between 2014-2022 and the phase 2 since 2022. There are the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine" that consider that the conflict since 2022 is the second phase of the conflict ongoing since 2014.
3.As n°2 demonstrate that articles on "Wikipedia" consider that the conflict since 2022 is not a new conflict but another phase. We can use sources before 2022 concerning the title of "Russo-Ukrainian War" even if we have to take into account that the situation wasn't the same.
4.Concerning "WP:COMMONNAME". '"Russo-Ukrainian war" is a term with less occurences than others terms. We can read :
"[...] it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. [...]"
Academic sources and news sources have the particularity to be reliable. The only differences is that they haven't the same purpose. I put in bold and underlined the world "generally" while citing the policy. I think that this word does means that change an article name isn't systematic.
5.Concerning "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". The article is about the conflict since 2014. "Russo-Ukrainian War" have the same meaning that "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" and "Russia-Ukraine war". Refer to the message by @FOARP on "JULY/06/2025" at "20:28 UTC". Therefore , I consider that this part of the policy isn't relevant concerning this case. "WP:COMMONNAME" is the most appropriate. I did explained in n°4 what I think concerning this part of the policy.
6.I think that we will be unable to reach a consensus. For me , this question isn't important but I hope we will get a consensus. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On "JULY/07/2025" at "18:42 UTC". A message was leaved by me on the talk-page of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine". You can read the edit "there". Maybe , some editors will be interested. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have my support on this matter as always. It is clear that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" has fallen into almost complete disuse to describe the current hostilities. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SaintPaulOfTarsus If we change the name of the article "Russo-Ukrainian War". Which title do you prefer ? If we change the name of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Which title do you prefer ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel very strongly about the specifics. I am open to all options that result in the renaming of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to a title containing the word war. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what then happens with Russian invasion of Ukraine, since the invasion (it's obvious bad actors just don't like the fact that an invasion is called an invasion, and we're indirectly satisfying these bad actors with the move, and before someone is offended, I'm not talking about anyone here) itself is a notable event deserving its own article in that case, we're on to the next fun Wikipedia adventure of agreeing on how long the invasion "lasted".
One example is the Iraq War, there the 2003 invasion of Iraq article works as a prelude to the Iraq War article, in this instance the article says the invasion lasted a month.
Now of course these are different conflicts, further complicated by the fact that this war essentially has two major phases, one beginning in 2014 and the other with the full-scale invasion of 2022. So if we go through with this "the war started in 2022" move narrative, what are we doing with this article? Renaming it the Little green men-Ukrainian war? WP:RS generally agree that Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014.
What I'm trying to say is that perhaps some more nuance than blindly following WP:COMMONNAME is required here, and things should be carefully considered before we "fix" one problem just to create more. TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden , I read your message published on "JULY/08/2025" at "18:43 UTC". I can say you that I agree with your message concerning the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine". But concerning what you call "Bad Actors" , I prefer not to express myself. I consider that the debate have to stay encyclopedic even if I think that I understand what you means. I have to admit that this war is more than a thing in an encyclopedia because of the political consequences , humanitarian consequences , environmental consequences etc... I think that it is better to stay encyclopedic because we're on "Wikipedia in English". We're not elsewhere where it's possible to talk about the conflict in a non-encyclopedic context. I believe that our role is to describe the conflict in the most accurate way including titles for articles. I agree with you concerning the fact that "reliable sources" generally agree that the beginning of this conflict is in 2014.
The title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not perfect but this is not possible to find a perfect title. The majority of "reliable sources" consider that there are two phases of the conflict. When specifically referring to the phase 2 ongoing since 2022 , it's common for these sources to use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" even if a small scale invasion was already ongoing in some territories of Ukraine. The "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" in 2014 is an example showing that a small scale invasion is a reality between 2014-2022. The same concerning the support of secessionist forces by "Russian Federation" in the course of "War in Donbas" without forget the presence of hidden Russian units. The full scale invasion of Ukraine is ongoing since 2022. Therefore , I think that the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not a problem because the majority of "reliable sources" could use this term while referring specifically to the second phase of the "Russo-Ukrainian War". Concerning the title "Russo-Ukrainian War" , what do you think ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not common that sources refer to the events of 2022-2025 as an invasion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have examples of sources that don't refer to the events of 2022-2025 as an invasion ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you ask for can be found in the first post here (FOARP 16:09, 6 July), where they mostly use the term war instead of invasion.
For example, the FP article refers to the anniversary of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, implying that the invasion is not ongoing as of 2025 and did not extend into 2023 or 2024.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Throw in the fact that the scope of the article is now well beyond Russia invading Ukraine. Combat within Russia is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Nearly every high-quality source identifies the present conflict as a "war" that began in 2022, not 2014. The sources that discuss 2014 call it a "conflict". Is there another topic-area on EN WP where the NYT, Guardian, WaPo, Times, etc. all being in agreement on just gets ignored like this? FOARP (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This question keeps being ignored, like in the RfC, say we go through with the move to whatever you choose, what happens with the article title "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Are you saying there wasn't an invasion but just a "war"? TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article entitled "World War Two", the fact it exists does not mean that Germany did not invade other countries. It simply recognises that more things happened after that. Nobody is ignoring anything - if anything this gives us the opportunity to have a more detailed article focusing specifically on the period of the initial invasion. FOARP (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's my point, in your comparison, there's the article invasion of Poland about the initial joint Nazi Germany and Soviet Union invasion of Poland. Even if you change the title, there will still be a need for an article about the actual invasion, which as I said, brings us to the next challenge of determining what period of time this covers. I don't think it's productive to keep repeating the same WP:COMMONNAME argument over and over again without looking at the wider picture, which is that this is an issue affecting multiple articles, and so far no one has suggested anything concrete other than replacing the word invasion with war. TylerBurden (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see why you see this as an insuperable problem. We already state in the article what the period of the initial invasion is ("24 February – 7 April 2022"). Even keeping the article-name as it is doesn't remove the issue of us needing a dedicated article about the invasion since at present this is covered by just a few paragraphs. Changing the name doesn't create a problem that doesn't not already exist. The renaming the article to fit WP:COMMONNAME and having an article about the initial invasion are independent issues. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Concerning the message of this editor published on "JULY/09/2025" at "07:46 UTC". "The sources that discuss 2014 call it a "conflict" In "Common language". The two word are synonymous.
"Combat within Russia is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine"." The fights , sabotages , targeted killing etc... inside of the "Russian Federation" are tied to the ongoing invasion. There are articles about some of these things like "Kursk offensive (2024–2025)" mentionned in "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SaintPaulOfTarsus Concerning the message of this editor published on "JULY/09/2025" at "00:59 UTC". Does these sources said explicitly than invasion did ended ? Not in my knowledge. Did I misread these ? I admit this possibility. There are so many sources in the message that you did mentionned. I can't exclude that I did missed a sentence like "The invasion of Ukraine had a duration of ...". Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say most sources just tended to stop using the word invasion rather than explicitly declaring an end to it. I would argue that the former is still quite relevant even in the absence of the latter but I am not entirely sure what you are attempting to demonstrate. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 07:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that I think that while using sources. We have to interpret these literaly. If a source doesn't use the word "invasion". Source doesn't say than "invasion" did ended explictly. We can suppose than source say implictly than "invasion" did ended but we can't be certain it want to say that. I'm referring to the next extract of your message published on "JULY/09/2025" at "00:59 UTC". "For example, the FP article refers to the anniversary of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, implying that the invasion is not ongoing as of 2025 and did not extend into 2023 or 2024."

I think that change the names of articles "Russo-Ukrainian War" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a question for which unhappily no "consensus" will be reached. I consider that there are not a sufficient number of participants to get a clear consensus. There are only 5 participants if I'm right. Me , you , FOARP (Creator of the thread) , Slatersteven (This editor doesn't seems in favor of a name change if my interpretation is right) , Tylerburden (This editor doesn't seems in favor of a name change if my interpretation is right). I'm not particulary in favor of a name change or against it. If we change names for these articles. We have to be carefull. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attempting to make the case that the invasion has necessarily ended. Sources vary on this question and it has now become ambiguous whether or not the "invasion" is still ongoing or was something that ended in 2022, depending on which sources you consult. This is another reason I consider the article title inadequate for the present day. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for yours words. I understand better your opinion. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources agree that there was a distinct campaign at the start of the war in northern Ukraine that was abandoned in April-May 2022, and this is often referred to as the "initial invasion". This is also the point of view that we adopt in our article. To have both an "invasion" and an "initial invasion" is a confused approach.
That the campaign in Kursk is "linked" to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (as in, one happened because the other happened) doesn't justify them being under the same title. We do not cover the Berlin offensive in the Operation Barbarossa article simply because one happened because of the other - the title needs to be something that accurately covers both the 2022 Russian offensive on Kyiv and the 2024 Ukraine conquest of Sudzha and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" palpably does not cover both topics. "War" does, which is why it is the descriptor commonly used by reliable sources.
Finally, @Anatole-berthe, it really would be helpful for everyone if you wrote in clear paragraphs. There is no need to space individual sentences, doing so simply takes up a lot of space on the page and makes it hard to read. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technical difficulties
Concerning the paragraphs that I did wrote.
I can write texts that are long.
Do you have any advice to avoid spacing in the future ?

Before answer to you. It's better if you or someone else share advices.
This is a little problem but you're not the first who said it to me.
Therefore , I need advices. A problem , little or big it should be resolved. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you've got separated lines if you're not intentionally writing them like that. Maybe try switching to Source mode if it's something that's happening in Visual editing mode (i.e., click on the word "Source" above the editing box)? FOARP (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can use "<br />" to separate paragraphs.
The touch "enter" pushed two time on my keyboard separate lines in the editing area but not in the preview area.
Each lines is spaced automatically but this is not enough if you want three to four lines for each paragraph.

There are maybe another possibility that "<br />" but which ?
I'm using "source mode". Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is causing this line-spacing issue for you. Are you pressing enter after every line? Don't do that. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't press "enter" after every line. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I honestly don't know why you're having this issue. If you write in paragraphs of 2 or more sentences, without pressing enter after each sentence, then the text should show as paragraphs like the one I am just writing. Your text certainly looks like you are not writing in paragraphs. Only press enter at the end of each paragraph, and other editors will see paragraphs. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There’s a bias on both side (russia or ukraine) about how long the war was to push their ideas. Russians claim it started in 2014 after ukraine allegedly oppressed ethnic russians or whatever, to claim a justification to the invasion in 2022 after “ceasefire breaches” while the ukrainians also claim it started in 2014, to push the notion that russia was the aggressor for way longer before 2022. To summarize it, it’s a political issue, and it’s seeping heavily into wikipedia. Imagine Gaza war included all conflicts in palestine starting in 1948. Same things happening here Idk2716639 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are an article about "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and this conflict doesn't happens only in "Gaza Strip". "Gaza war" is only a part of this larger conflict. There are articles on previous conflicts (Parts of the larger Israeli–Palestinian conflict) concerning "Gaza Strip" like "2006 Gaza–Israel conflict" and "2014 Gaza War". We can note that there are articles concerning others conflicts that are parts of the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" like "Palestinian Fedayeen insurgency" and "First Intifada". Each conflict is unique. I think that for this reason we can't compare conflicts. There are an article about "Russo-Ukrainian War" in the same way that there are an article on "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Where is the problem ? The war in Ukraine is in the second phase. We can't compare with a conflict that is longer and had a dozen of phases if not more. The "War in Donbas" is the phase 1 and the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is the phase 2. The names of these articles aren't perfect but I think that they are among the most consensual. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Where is the problem ?" - the problem lies in the inaccuracy of the present title. The article with the title "war" should be called "conflict" and the article with the title "invasion" should be titled "war", as they are in the I-P/Gaza example. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question wasn't addressed to you but your message seems to me interesting. Maybe that "Idk2716639" will answer. I don't understand really why it does seems that few editors have an interest about the titles of these articles (Few editors did posted a message on this thread). For me , even if the titles of these articles aren't an important matter. I'm interest. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you all for taking the time to look into my message.
The problem is that the Russo-Ukrainian war article name conveys a full scale conventional war between Russia & Ukraine since 2014. Which is FALSE. The conventional war began in 2022. Here’s why:
The beef between Russia & Ukraine began with a 2014-2022 internal conflict centered entirely around the donbas region - War in Donbas, which began as a full-scale war in eastern Ukraine from 2014 until the 2015 ceasefire, then continued until 2022 as a low-intensity conflict with occasional flare ups. Very few russian troops were involved in this conflict, as most of the fighting was done by Russian-backed groups. (Note: nothing I say here is politically motivated, I couldn’t care less about either sides, aside from feeling bad for Russian & Ukrainian civilians and soldiers.)
After the end of the aforementioned conflict, Russia took things into its own hands and invaded Ukraine in 2022, beginning the *actual* Russia-Ukraine war we witness today.
To summarize it,
2014-2015 saw: open warfare entirely concentrated in eastern Ukraine, between Russia-backed rebels (along with few Russian troops) & Ukrainian forces
2015-2022 saw: low-intensity conflict with occasional flare ups, in the form of artillery barrages and battles. 500 Russian troops were killed in total starting from 2014 ending in 2022 (as mentioned and sourced by the info box anyways)
2022-2025 saw: Full on DIRECT war between the two states. Hundreds of thousands killed on both sides.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict terminology, it uses the term “conflict” to refer to the series of conflicts that occurred between the Palestinian side & the Israeli side since the beginning of the long-running conflict between them. This includes small scale wars (like the 2012 & 2021 Gaza wars), includes uprisings (like the Palestinian intifadas), includes other distinct events, such as the Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, and so on. It would be wrong to call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article “The Israeli-Palestinian war”. And it’s the same for the Russo-Ukrainian war. (OFF TOPIC: Who the hell even calls it the “RUSSO” ukrainian war?) Idk2716639 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Forgot to mention the short annexation of Crimea in 2014, which occurred simultaneously with the donbas war’s outbreak. Idk2716639 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can say to "Idk2716639" concerning the message published on "JULY/17/2025" at "14:03 UTC". Even if it was not a "conventional warfare" between 2014-2022. It was the first phase of the conflict. It was a "hybrid warfare" between 2014-2022. We're now in the second phase that is in the same time "conventional" and "hybrid". Phases can be divided in subphases. When a conflict is ongoing. This is less easy to work on these articles than for those who are over. This is a bit like if we were historians of a ongoing conflict. Generally , historians are working on events that are over. We aren't historians. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren’t historians i agree. But historians and news articles agree with the points i provided. Idk2716639 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think to a point in particular ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those who want to know who call it "Russo-Ukrainian war" if we stand only on English language. Read my message published on "JULY/07/2025" at "00:46". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimea was annexed in 2014. That Russia still occupies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We sensibly don't call the article about the Russian occupation of Crimea "Russian invasion of Crimea". FOARP (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right but there are a main difference between "Crimea" and the majority of others territories of Ukraine accorded to international law. The invasion of Crimea is terminated since 2014 (Conquered) and this territory is under Russian occupation accorded to international law. I did mentionned international law to be more accurate. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"International law", particularly editor interpretations of it, is not what we base our coverage on. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We base coverage accorded to what "reliable sources" say. You did said it implictly on your message published on "JULY/21/2025" at "08:17 UTC" and this is true. This is not my interpretation that international law consider that "Crimea" is under Russian occupation. Read "Russian annexation of Crimea" as redacted in "JULY/17/2025" at "01:03 UTC" , there are sources that consider it illegal under international law. The subject of this thread is the title of articles "Russo-Ukrainian War" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" , we should not forget this and avoid to go on the edges to stay on the center. I think that we're going on the edges instead of the center. I think really that this thread is unhappily going to nowhere. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that titles are a trivial topic but I think that the question need to be treated. Few editors involved , I fear that the better choice for all of us is to resign. I think really that we're unable to get a consensus now. I hope that in the future there would be more interested editors. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A state of war has existed between Russia and Ukraine since February 2014, where Russian armed forces occupied parts of Ukraine. This is not changed by the fact that the intensity of this war increased with Russia's all-out offensive in February 2022. As such the current naming and overall scope of the article is correct as it stands. Lklundin (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The events of 24 February 2022 are widely considered to have been the beginning of a new war, and the term Russia-Ukraine war is most commonly understood to mean the period between 2022-2025. There exist alternative interpretations like the one you laid out above, but just because they are more inclusive does not mean they are necessarily preferable when it comes to determining the article titles. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who says a “state of war” existed since 2014? Barely any countries use this terminology anymore. If a “state of war” existed in 2014, then it was stopped by the minsk agreement of 2015. Furthermore, Russia has denied in the first couple years of the war since 2022 that it was in a, what you like to call, “a state of war”. Relying on this terminology complicates everything Idk2716639 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well Russia said it isn't a war, but a special military operation meant to be over before the coffee gets cold, given the amazing progress we're making here, maybe we should just cave into the Russian rhetoric and rename this article "The Little Green Men Ukrainian Crisis" and the Russian invasion of Ukraine into "Special Military Operation".
I agree this is trivial, there are numerous more productive things in this topic (which let's be real, the quality of the editing and maintenance has gotten worse and worse as capable editors move on to the next trending articles) that effort could be put into than fixating on the title. I have very little faith a move would accomplish anything other than making things even more of a mess, because as said before, this doesn't concern a single article title, but would have a domino effect across on the entire topic. Therefore, a concrete suggestion taking this into account is what is needed (which I'd be happy to support), not just "change the title because the word invasion isn't used anymore". TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's straight forward:
Russo-Ukrainian War -> Russo-Ukrainian conflict
Russian invasion of Ukraine -> Russia-Ukraine War
Article to create: Russian invasion of Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I did understood the suggestion of "FOARP" in the message published on "JULY/22/2025" at "12:14 UTC".
1."Russo-Ukrainian War" have its title changed for "Russo-Ukrainian conflict".
2."Russian invasion of Ukraine" have its title changed for "Russia-Ukraine War".
3.An article named "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is created.
Concerning "1" , I don't think it is useful. I can explain if asked.
Concerning "2" and "3". Which "reliables sources" say explicitly that "invasion" is over ?
Sources can be academic (This seems to me better concerning analysis on an armed conflict) or news coverage. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we'd necessarily need sources to explicitly state the invasion was over for item no. 2.
If most sources simply stopped using the word invasion and started using a different word, as I believe they have, I would consider that adequate justification for a move. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 06:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question. We should refer to item "no. 2". and "no. 3" to understand.
I think that we should rename "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (The second item) for another name only if sources consider explictly that invasion isn't ongoing if we want to create an article specifically about the invasion (The third item).

If we apply second item and the third. I think that sources have to say it explictly.
If we consider that invasion isn't ongoing. When was the beginning of this invasion and when was the end ?
We are writing an encyclopedia , we aren't writing an opinion piece.
If there are source that say explicitly than invasion did ended. Will all of these contain the same dates ?
What we do if we get sources considering explictly that invasion is still ongoing and that others don't consider so ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand your concerns. I personally do not consider it necessary to proceed with item no. 3 (creating a new invasion article), so I would encourage the users who have advocated for this, Foarp and Tyler Burden, to address your questions. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 08:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I think that we should rename "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (The second item) for another name only if sources consider explictly that invasion isn't ongoing" - Why? Sources appear to be using it to describe the events of February-May 2022. They do not need to explicitly declare it to be "over" in that context. As far as I know there is no source that officially declared the German invasion of the USSR to be "over", nor the German invasions of Poland, France, Yugoslavia etc. Does that mean there should be no such articles? Clearly not.
But I don't think step 3 is necessary either, just "nice to have" since we don't have any article covering the entirety of the 2022 invasion in one. If step 3 is the sticking point for you, it can simply be set aside. FOARP (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion itself is notable, even if we are going to pretend that Russia is no longer invading Ukraine, it was one of the biggest events in modern history, so yes, moving the article would require a separate article specifically about the 2022 invasion. If the claim that WP:RS describe it as February-May 2022 is correct that should be demonstrated and we'd have some kind of start. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"if we are going to pretend that Russia is no longer invading Ukraine" - We are not pretending this. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, it seems to be more a case of trying to ignore Russia's invasion before 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to that conclusion? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 19:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess the repeated claims made here that they're two separate wars rather than 2022 being a full-scale escalation by Russia of what was already an ongoing conflict since 2014.
Since we're apparently not denying that Russia is invading Ukraine, will we be adding common alternate names to this hypothetical move destination such as "also called Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine"? Because despite the WP:COMMONNAME arguments that this whole effort is based on, there are still sources using such terminology. TylerBurden (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why widely used terminology should not be mentioned within in the article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the message wrote by "FOARP" published on "JULY/24/2025" at "18:38 UTC".
The mentionned invasions relative to "Second World War" aren't ongoing.
WWII is finished. I think that we can't compare an ongoing conflict and those that aren't. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, kind of the poihnt. When this war is over then historians will look at it to determine when it started. Rather than newspapers looking to sell copy and writing headlines and clickbait. We can wait. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that we should just use the first terminology that feels right at the beginning of the conflict and never consider a title change until it ends? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ish, from 2014, this was declared a a war, until it's over we should cherry-pick media snapshots. We can't say "ahh but now the bulk of..." as we have to look at all sources from 2014 not just recent ones. So yes, let's not change a long-established name untill historians (and not the media) do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the sources added in the OP are NEWSORG. My position in the previous discussion was that we should consider good quality sources that deal with both the event commencing 2014 and the event commencing 2022 and consider haw these are being differentiated in such sources. My position is unchanged. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1302535190"