Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

"Russia did say:" or "According to Russia:"--which is most simple?[change source]

Please see [1]. (In my view, "according" is not Simple - but "Russia did say", is simple; It is arguably the simplest of the two.) 89.8.121.228 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with either 'Russia said' or 'Russia has said' --Creol(talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia" is not a person. Quotes should be accurately attributed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Jimbo Wales has said that it is okay to say things in a simple way, if one can. (I don't have a source.)--"Russia's view is that " bla-bla; That is my suggestion. (The post at "22:21", is fine with me. Disclaimer: I have never worked as a High School teacher of English.--High school students should not be writing 'Russia said' or 'Russia has said'. For sure! 89.8.90.226 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From post "14:24, 4", I want to continue: "Russian authorities say ...". That is okay English (for high school students also), in my view. 89.8.132.27 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Acc."[change source]

"acc." is (arguably) not simple.--It might look like the word "account/ bank account". 89.8.175.174 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it. Be bold. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions[change source]

Shouldn't the sanctions have their own page? (perhaps a list?) Asking before creation since the page is of importance at the time. (perhaps a protection could do sooner or later) 💠Ely - Talk💠 04:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe anyone can first start the section "Sanctions". (At some time the article will be locked, or the sanctions paragraph will be too big. We shall overcome, when that time comes.) 89.8.119.201 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of explicit brakets[change source]

I've been noticing that 89.8 insists on making the following text visible:

["Ukraine square", or]

There is no reason for these brackets and creates visible brackets. Could someone justifiably explain why there are these brackets because I apparently "have not read our Manual of Style" as our dear lord and savior 89.8 insists.

Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[change source]

A general guideline is all countries lie in wartime. U.K. had massive PR in wartime with censorship and control of the press and radio. Editors should not be so naive as to think "their" side speaks the truth. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is some flaws in the logic of user:Macdonald-ross: Russia Today writes in English - however there are only a limited number of people who might rate them with Encyclopedia Britannica.--About the invasion, we should have consensus about what we keep in the article, and we should have consensus about what we keep out of the article.--The wikipedia project started by Jimbo Wales, does not have a prohibition (or bias) to sources in languages which are not English.--User:Macdonald-ross seems to be correct about writing about a war as it unfolds, is problematic.--His suggested remedies do not seem to be rooted in Wikipedia guidelines.--The tag "additional citation needed" is sometimes convenient to used.--Sometimes it can be convenient to move contested text, to the article's talk page. 89.8.136.124 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP, it isw quite obvious that during the conflict, each side will only report its view (which is usually heavily distorted in favor of that side). After the conflict, the winner will rewrite the story, and dictate its vuews. In some cases, historians may look into the conflict much later, and perhaps add a more unbiased view. Depending on the strength of pressure groups, there may be topic bans on certain subjects. I currently do not know if we can have an unbiased view on both world wars, the vietnam war, or other conflicts of the 20th/21st century. Eptalon (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting of foreign soldiers[change source]

I have not yet seen interesting estimates by okay sources.--It would maybe be preferable if we found an okay source that gives estimates about the non-Ukrainian component of those fighting for Ukraine, and the non-Russian component of those fighting for Russia. 89.8.136.124 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ IP from Norway: Of course, you are right. But let me make a linguistic digression to enlighten you a bit (though I am not a native speaker). You sentence can be rephrased to be more grammatical and natural:
It might be preferable if we found a good source (...).
Regards from Poland :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could https://www.foxnews.com/world/foreign-volunteers-ukrainian-citizenship-fight-russia-govt be good? kolva | chat? 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My scripts say that it's not a great source and is highlighting it with orange, fox is known to be a little biased. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how about https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/foreign-fighters-ukraine-await-weapons-chaos-war-83452681 but its reaching a little kolva | chat? 13:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better. Also, the comments are hilarious. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your last word (at 13:22 today) stands in contrast to four words: Mariupol Theatre Air Strike.--One still has good faith in your edits. 89.8.157.238 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I don't understand. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, user:Kolva. I have used the source, (but not because of the numbers).--I am guessing that the sources we need, are the ones which say something like: country X is one of the largest contributors of foreign soldiers or foreign military recruits to the Ukrainian side; the numbers (from that country) already there is ...".--From my small country, I have only seen estimates of how many are thought to be on their way to Ukraine. 89.8.157.238 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity?[change source]

I am reading this and just thinking THIS IS NOT SIMPLE. Can someone more experienced (I keep hearing the name MrMeAndMrMe so maybe you?) [Unsigned edit by user:JacobTheRox.]

Please give an example of something that is "not simple, of the highest degree". 89.8.92.4 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to discussion (before anyone takes the info to a new article)[change source]

  • "*Bayraktar TB2, combat unmanned aerial vehicles against Russian troops. In January prior to the invasion, the spokesperson for the air force command Lt. Col. Yuri Ignat confirmed that "Ukraine has approximately 20 Bayraktar drones".[1] On February 24, the day of invasion, the People's Militia of the Luhansk People’s Republic claimed it shot down two TB2 drones near the city of Luhansk.[2] On February 27, the Ukraine’s air force confirmed two strikes by TB2 on Russian convoys in the Kherson and Zhytomyr regions.[3] According to video footage released by the armed forces, TB2 drones destroyed several Russian military vehicles including surface-to-air missile systems.[4] The drone also reportedly destroyed two Russian fuel trains.[5][6] On March 2, Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov announced the arrival of additional TB2 drones.[7]"

Is "More Russian soldiers" (, written somewhat) out of clear context?[change source]

"More Russian soldiers came to the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine on 21 February 2022."--Comment: there is no mention of Russian soldiers, before that part of the (lede, of) the article.--Maybe something is needed earlier in the article: extra information? Clarification? 2001:2020:327:8F43:6406:53C1:170F:E2AC (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[change source]

  1. ↑ David Axe (2022-02-08). "Ukraine Reportedly Has 20 TB-2 Drones. They Might Not Matter In A Wider War With Russia". Forbes.com. Retrieved 4 March 2022.
  2. ↑ "Ukraine's Turkish-made Bayraktar drones shot down – Russia". Aero Time Hub. 24 February 2022.
  3. ↑ "Ukraine credits Turkish drones with eviscerating Russian tanks and armor in their first use in a major conflict". Business Insider. 28 February 2022.
  4. ↑ "Ukraine's Secret Weapon Against Russia: Turkish Drones". Time. 1 March 2022.
  5. ↑ "A cheap drone is giving Ukraine's military an edge against Russia". Quartz. 3 March 2022.
  6. ↑ "Ukraine Says It Used Turkish-Made Drones to Hit Russian Targets". Wall Street Journal. 27 February 2022.
  7. ↑ "Ukraine receives new batch of Bayraktar TB-2 drones from Turkey". Aero Time Hub. 2 March 2022.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.170.28 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[change source]

Regarding edit at 21.44 today: in part the text came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon. 89.8.146.17 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truth?[change source]

Sections that (have the most hurt, or) are hurting the most?[change source]

Which three sections are strong candidates for needing much added text (or many added points)? 46.15.84.92 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on privacy[change source]

Hello all, thank you for taking interest in this subject. I know that there are laws in Russia that put sanctions on people expressing certain opinions on this conflict. Likely there are similar restrictions in Ukraine. I would therefore advise anyone editing the page (or this talk page) to use their Wikipedia account. If you edit as an IP, it is easy to check where the IP is from, for pretty much anyone. If you edit as a logged-in user, this information is private, and there are restrictions on revealing it, on those who can see it (so-called Checkusers)

So for your own protection, do not edit this as an IP. Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References 170 error[change source]

Number 170 reference is displaying an error. Can someone correct this? Adamdaley (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough English (or maybe not)[change source]

" said "credible reports that Russian soldiers are currently holding the staff of the Chernobyl facilities hostage."'"--I am not sure how to (tweek) or fix the sentence/period. 46.15.3.112 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have simplified it to be more easily understandable and fixed a grammar issue involving it. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the IP user that's updating this article[change source]

Can you please try to avoid excessive use of brackets, ellipses, quotes, and semicolons? Instead of using semicolons, it's better to split up the sentences. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title at En-wiki is now "Russian invasion of Ukraine"[change source]

Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Should Simple-wiki also change its title? That would be fine by me. 2001:2020:327:8F43:F9CB:320F:7113:8479 (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A simple move will do it. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 02:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=9498434"