Talk:China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Use of CGTN sources

While I agree that CGTN is can be generally regarded as an unreliable source, I don't believe that any of the statements under the "Chinese state media" section are unsubstantiated (refer to the content of linked articles and videos).

Deprecated sources can be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, according to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cren translator (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Please consider starting discussions on the talk page instead of simply removing sections of text from other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cren translator (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article needs an update

The article needs an update. Please include the recent statements from Chinese authorities in October. 84.127.85.203 (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Which statements? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed

"The Chinese government refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, repeated Russian propaganda and disinformation about the war[...]". Claiming that everyone that doesn't support Kiev is spreading "Russian propaganda" and "disinformation" (by now, these have become laughable terms), is quite one-sided and typical for the way Western media has reported on the conflict in Ukraine. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

China during the Russo-Ukrainian War → China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine – The Russian invasion of Ukraine article was recently renamed at this RM nomination. Not sure I would have favored that name but that was the consensus and this article should follow suit so readers know this was--arguably--the same war. (Also, "and the" is more common than "during the" for other articles under Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine by country.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging all participants from the related CFD nomination, regardless of iVote: @Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson, and Amigao:. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, "during" is just a wrong word, as it implies all events in China since the Russian invasion started irrespective of whether they are related to the invasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think anyone will interpret this article as about an entire period of China’s history. The proposed renaming has a much bigger significance than altering a preposition.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  By implication I am also fine with Category:China and the Russo-Ukrainian War if that is what most of the discussion is about. I still maintain that it should be "and" instead of "during" because it is about how China relates to the war, rather than what happened in China during the war. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that it is also United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, not United States during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And there is Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Category:Belarus in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a couple of others. The category tree should be looked at, possibly with a move to or creation of a parent Category:Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because at least a few of the articles’ scope transcends the February 2022 invasion.  —Michael Z. 14:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support — rare instance where we need to rename based upon matching its category.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title covers events since 2014, the proposed one since 2022. I support the former option as 2014-2022 events are clearly interrelated with the 2022-present and if the latter have an article, why should the former not have one? Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. On the surface, the nominator’s rationale doesn’t make sense because the article about the nine-year Russo-Ukrainian War was not renamed. Although this article is currently restricted to material from the 13-month Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is an incomplete start-class article and even the addition of a “Background” section would increase its scope. For example, it should really cover the Russia-China agreement about “limitless partnership” signed in the week before the invasion.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support per above and for consistency. The inclusion of a background section does not change that the article is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Mellk (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Support as this is specifically about China and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, not a broad treatment of events from 2014 onward. Amigao (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Support precisely per Amigao Red Slash 01:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support per @Amigao: - Jjpachano (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unreasonable revert

Amigao, I find your accusation here spurious. Go through the article history, I've added more content than removed. Most changes were verified with existing sources. The only major removal was about India, which I find too unrelated.

"Other commentators have stated that the Chinese response to the invasion has played a role in shaping the Indian response. Tanvi Madan of the Brookings Institution has argued that one of India's "foreign policy objectives is to keep Russia from getting even closer to China."

CurryCity (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence The Chinese government has been criticized for failing to condemn the invasion and impose sanctions on Russia has very weak support. The only source mentions only Janet Yellen, who did not criticize but "warned" China. CurryCity (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Netizens?

Why is the fact that “some chinese netizens have taken a pro-Russia stance” even mentioned. Is the fact that a few Chinese(there are over a billion of them.)twitter users like Putin supposed to be indicative of Chinese foreign policy? 72.218.62.58 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indicative of very little, since anyone including people outside China can create Chinese social media accounts to astroturf and influence comments. Considering that a few companies have polled real people in China for their opinions on the Ukraine war, the mentioning of netizens—especially regarding comments on Ukrainian women which are near-impossible to verify the prevalence of—only serve to fuel enmity between China and Ukraine, not encourage support in China for Ukrainians.

Then again, that is probably what USA and several of its allies are aiming for, as it could help isolate China. (Of course, that is only if enough people in the Global South cared about the Ukraine war which to the great disappointment of US allies, has not been the case.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding "ambivalent" in the lead

There have been a number of recent lead changes back and forth, with some of them focused on use of the word "ambivalent" in the first sentence. I strongly discourage the use of vague and fluffy characterizations like "ambivalent". It is better to use concrete descriptions of policy positions or actions, especially to keep the lead NPOV compliant (for example, where we write that China condemns sanctions on Russia but Chinese companies largely comply with them -- this is the correct approach).

I haven't been able to closely follow the other changes so I don't have a broader view beyond a strong position that we should avoid "ambivalent" and instead describe the situation more concretely. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)