Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

• No Anas Azeem 2005 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean no? They were not asking a question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Um, yes they were: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? EEng 07:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah - I see how this could be slightly confusing EEng. For any future editors as well...

  This section heading is a link into the archives. If you click it you'll see the original question was asked on Feb 27th, discussed extensively, and closed as "no consensus" on March 6. The link provides easy reference, and keeps the (already discussed) question visible on the main talk page rather than just buried in the archives.

  If you have the same question, or to open a new question/RfC on this topic, please familiarize yourself —at a minimum— with the summary of the previous discussion. --N8 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I'm easily confused. EEng 20:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the preceding discussion, I changed the heading. Hopefully EEng#s is less confused. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

biological weapons

The article currently states:

"Chinese diplomats, government agencies, and state-controlled media in China have used the war as an opportunity to deploy anti-American propaganda, and amplified conspiracy theories created by Russia such as the false claims of US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine."

The absence of US biological weapons in Ukraine is stated as fact. However, it isn't really since there is no independent confirmation of the truth of this absence. So, instead, it is rather simply an assertion by the US and Ukraine governments, which has the contrary assertion by the Russia government. Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here.

There are some reasons to be suspicious of the US–Ukraine assertions:

(1) Reuters reported that World Health Organization recommended that Ukraine destroy "destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population..." and that "Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO." (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/) Obviously, this does not mean that what referred to here by the WHO are actually biological weapons. But, it could plausibly be weapons. The public has no way to know at this time.

(2) Victoria Nuland in answering questions from Congress said that there was an effort to "prevent materials from Ukraine’s biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands." Now, whether these materials are biological weapons or something else is unknown to the public, but they could plausibly be weapons. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-10/u-s-hits-china-for-pushing-russia-s-preposterous-lab-theory)

(3) The US government has a history of secretly testing biological warfare techniques on its own US population in earlier decades. So, it may be reasonable for some folks to suspect US assertions about this a priori.

At the very least, you need to use words like allegedly false, etc. in this article when we have no way knowing which country is making false statements. – ishwar  (speak) 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about claimes by China, please see COVID-19_misinformation#Accusations_by_China, etc. It is intentional disinformation per multiple RS, and it should be described as such on WP pages. Speaking about the publications in Reuters and others, they only say that Ukraine conducted biological research with pathogens, nothing more. That is done in every country, nothing special. To the contrary, UN said there was no any info about WMD in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We base everything on what reliable sources say. There have been no reliable sources that have found any evidence that any biochemical weapons exist in Ukraine and a vast majority affirm that they don’t. If you have anything to the contrary, please post. KD0710 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The RS cited says it is disinformation and a conspiracy theory. I'm not too keen on giving apparent credence–by casting doubt–to (what RS describe as) Russian disinformation. Your analysis above is OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analysis nor original research (it's not research at all). If one aims for Wikipedia to be impartial, the article merely needs to state (a) Russia–China allegations of biological weapons, (b) US–Ukraine denial of said allegations, (c) US-Ukraine counter-allegation of Russia–China disinformation concerning previously stated weapon allegation, (d) no evidence of anything. Everything else including the truth of any of these allegations is simply unknown at present.

As it reads now, the article is claiming that Russia–China are making false statements. But, we do not know if they are false. All we know is that the concerned parties are making denials. (I guess we also know that the sources are aligned with US/Ukraine.)

It's good to use reliable sources. I'm in complete agreement with that. However, the source(s) yall are relying upon itself has a source, which in fact are the parties accused of having weapons. If that's ok with yall, fine. Then, leave it as is. However, I do point out inherent bias in doing so. – ishwar  (speak) 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that pathogens housed in Ukraine's laboratories could plausibly be weapons is a majestic leap in OR. Pious Brother (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here." this is a misunderstanding that crops up from time to time in articles around this. WP:NPOV does not mean that you take opposing viewpoints and present the midpoint (which would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you do it), or that opposing viewpoints must be given equal weight and credence simply because they are opposing (WP:BALANCE). Phiarc (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I will invoke wp:blp, we cannot imply someone has done something until it is proven they have. So until independent investigation shows Ukiriane has been deploying WMD (of any kind) we have to make it clear such a claim lacks any credible evidence. So we can either say "woth out any credible evidence" or just they they do not have them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial to state that the claim that there are US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine is false. The claim has been thoroughly debunked, and therefore there is no need for any vagueness here. BeŻet (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a second to contemplate Russia's accusation. Russia accused the United States of creating weapon labs in Ukraine, directly on the border with Russia to make a coronavirus type disease that will target a specific race. Why would the US ever open bio weapons labs in such a preposterous location you might ask? Well, the Russians answered this as well, it's because the US was planning to send the virus in to Russia on infected bats. Jajaja, after we've all had a nice chuckle on what has to be one of the most bizarre accusations to have ever been articulated not only in the UN but in the entire city of New York, I think we can agree that this accusation is in many ways the definition of WP:FRINGE. We have the New York Times which straight up calls it non-sense, that's more than good enough for me. To comply with the edit you've requested of saying that it's possible we'd need at least The New Yorker and the New England Journal of Medicine corroborating it, because otherwise the accusation is comically absurd. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not take a false balance position halfway between the truth and a lie. Reliable sources say these are propaganda allegations based on no evidence, dredged up from propaganda repeated multiple times over the last eight years. —Michael Z. 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an example of a reliable source on this:

• Donie O'Sullivan, “Analysis: Russia and QAnon have the same false conspiracy theory about Ukraine,” CNN, March 10, 2022.

 —Michael Z. 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw this discussion yesterday and then I saw pundits promoting this conspiracy theory on my Twitter feed this morning [1] [2], so I created Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory. CutePeach (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest saying something like "baseless", "unfounded" or "without any credible evidence", or using words directly from a source. If sources say they're propaganda allegations based on no evidence, as someone says above, then Wikipedia should convey that, not exaggerate it as if we could know it's false. We need to be precise with our wording. If sources actually say it's false (maybe they've visited every lab in the country, etc.?) then it may be OK to say it's false, but if there are more reliable sources saying things like lacking credible evidence, we should go with that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox too big

Phiarc reports that the infobox, when viewed on a mobile device is about eight screens long! It is partly due to excessive detail. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE this should be an at-a-glance summary of a summary article. We don't write the article in the infobox - WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Dropdowns might look good on a PC but they don't work on mobiles. As Moxy observes, our readers just aren't going to read the article if they can't get past the infobox. We need to be more ruthless in trimming content in the infobox to the most important. Just because the infobox has a parameter doesn't mean we have to use them. The infobox documentation says many parameters are optional. What might have be done in other articles does not necessarily represent best practice unless these are our best quality articles. Even then, we must consider the specifics and circumstances and the comparability of events before comparing how our best articles might set a benchmark of best practice in this case. Our duty is to our readers.

Some thoughts:

• Images We don't need a montage of six images. For a long time, we only had the map.
• Dynamic map It tells us alot but the legend symbols could be shrunk or omitted since it is pretty self-evident and has its own integrated legend.
• Status Of course it is ongoing. The open date tells us that. Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus. Duh, it's an invasion. It's all superfluous. Some significant links could be integrated into the caption of the map.
• Territorial changes Redundant - the map shows us that.
• Strengths We don't have to give a breakdown of the Ukrainian forces in detail. This breakdown could be given in a note, which I believe is mobile compatible. Notes could also be used in other instances.
• Casualties and losses

• This probably takes the most space.
• We have a section in the article for this. Report summarised info from that section into the infobox and link to that section for details. Report a range or an average.
• We are reporting three different sources in the infobox. Ukraine and Russian sources aren't independent. We could report just the independent source while linking to the section for more detail.
• Donetsk PR: We don't need to report this in the infobox. Do away with the flag icons. Report total losses on either side. Use a note if necessary to give detail.
• Material losses

• These significantly add to length in mobile devices since the lists don't collapse.
• These aren't all that significant such that they need to be listed in a summary of a summary. If anything, use a link.

• Civilian casualties/refugees

• Don't individually report multiple sources. See above and dealing with military casualties.
• Reduce superfluous text (eg OHCHR estimates that the real figures are considerably higher - the source is given as a ref it doesn't need to be repeated; use a note if necessary).
• Foreign civilian casualties: Tragic but not so significant in the totality of civilian casualties. We don't have to report everything in an infobox.

These may be hard decisions but decisions that need to be made for the benefit of our readers. These are my observations on how the issue might be addressed but there needs to be a consensus on how to progress this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I concur with your observations. Especially for "Casualties and losses", I think it is better to write the detailed information in sections of this article (or different article if becoming too long) and just put a link in the infobox, like "See Section..." P1221 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREE - The length of this info box is gigantic and contains entirely too much information. My biggest problem is that there are entirely too many lines for casualties (make it a range, with detailed info in the article) and the material losses. This is a war and material losses are not generally what is most notable about the event, therefore don't belong in this info box. If you want to add those losses to individual battles info boxes (as long as they are relevant) fine. KD0710 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree - we need to stop with this ridiculous idea of writing articles in infoboxes. It's a readability issue due to how they function on mobiles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most obvious issues. With regards to materiel losses, we should do what many RS do and just report the total figure (X aircraft, tanks and ...), and leave full detail for the actual article. We don't need entire rows dedicated to each of "1 An-26, 3 Su-27, 1 MiG-29, 1 patrol vessel, 1 frigate (scuttled to prevent capture)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The easiest thing to do would be to kick all the detailed casualty figures either into a footnote, or into the "Casualties" section. There could be a simple overview in the infobox, and an internal link for details. This would trim things down considerably. The more controversial option is to go back to just a map in the infobox - all of those images take up a lot of room. I'd argue that 6 is too many anyway even if we want to keep some - give the images room to breath, they'll be too small to read with so many, so set a hard cap of 3 or 4 if kept at all. SnowFire (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think images we can live with, but maybe we should drop the captions (or make text size smaller) on mobiles only, and let people click the image if they want more info. Mobile and desktop design is not meant to be parallel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The images are OK, though on mobile they expand into a long series of still-small images, one per row, for some reason. On Iraq war it stays as a collage, which would be preferable here as well. Though I would advise against emulating the other aspects of the Iraq war infobox, on my phone that's seventeen screens - going to be tired from scrolling before even getting to the article! In the infobox here the caption gets expanded in a weird way on mobile; each item is suddenly its own paragraph with top and bottom margins. Phiarc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Technical note: the reason the Iraq war montage stays together is because it's all one image (File:Iraq War montage.png), whereas this article uses the template {{multiple images}} and is made up of multiple individual images. Levivich 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an alternative template that retains the layout on mobile? Baking things into files hampers editing, and there will surely be a lot of editing on this for some time to come... Phiarc (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The mobile layout was discussed/changed a few years ago at Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 2##mobile (stop using inline styles), I lack the technical skills to know if there's a better or different way to do it. WP:COLLAGETIPS mentions {{Image array}}; not sure if that template renders any differently on mobile. Levivich 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image array renders as an HTML table and can't support the "masonry" style layout we're using here. I went ahead and made the collage into a single image, which is arguably a bad solution because you can click on an image and get to the large version and commons page directly, but fixes the bad layout on mobile which is where most of the readers are. For some reason it appeared OK at first but lost transparency after reloading. Very strange. Hence reverted. Phiarc (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

With the current set of changes (as far as I can tell: replaced breakdown of civilian casualties with a link, totalized equipment losses, removed obvious list of in "Status", removed "Territorial changes", removed wagner group) the infobox length has decreased by about 20-25 % Phiarc (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What do people think about turning infobox casualties into a range (i.e. 498-12,000+ killed) and then collapsing who is giving each end of the range into a footnote? BSMRD (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This should happen. It takes into consideration all reports and gives an overview. KD0710 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox&diff=1077116453&oldid=1077114202 I'm not sure about efn though - might as well move this into the casualties section and use a proper link. This has the added advantage that there is just one place for a detailed breakdown of losses. Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to merge all data from the detailed casualty breakdowns in the infobox in the main casualty article which is transcluded into this article as well. Now we've got the claimed ranges in the infobox with the relatively prominent link directly below to "casualties and humanitarian impact". The equipment loses were condensed in the meantime as well. We're now down to five screens on my phone from over eight initially. If we get the image collage sorted out I think it's a manageable size and it is also readable now, so it actually serves WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE now. Phiarc (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be helpful - we'd end up with massive ranges which are effectively WP:SYNTH, as no individual source would support the entire range. Jr8825 • Talk 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Jr8825. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how some "strongly agree" claiming this infobox is too big. Perhaps you haven't seen Syrian civil war infobox. With this, infobox barely tells anything. Also as claimed by ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) I do not see any consensus here. Maybe just delete the pictures on the infobox, instead we could add more useful information that are unneeded according certain users. This isn't about aestethics, it's about providing information. Removing half of the infobox doesn't help anything. Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, moving the claims/figures and sources/references to efn has made them invisible to the readers, leaving unsourced claimed figures which are un-attributed in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution to partially cut down, at least in regards to casualty figures, is to follow a consensus that was established years ago at the start of the war in 2014 to include only figures on self-admitted losses or figures on losses reported by a third party in the infobox and casualty tables, so to avoid potentially presenting propaganda claims as fact. Consensus was also not to exclude propaganda claims entirely, but to present them in the main body of the article. Thus, the Ukrainian and Russian claims of the their enemies casualties can be presented in the main text. This would cut down the info in the infobox a bit, we could also still leave a link towards a casualty section so readers could read the potential propaganda claims by the belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that so we can put it in the FAQ (Q3) - "Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine"? Phiarc (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I just finished updating both Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox and the casualties section, leaving a link in the infobox towards the casualties section so people can see the other claims made by the belligerents regarding their enemies losses. I also added a note (visible only to editors) to update the claims made by Russia and Ukraine [3]. You can change it if you think it needs additional adjustment and can use the link for the Q3. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What about just moving all casualty data entirely out of IB into prose with a link indicating "disputed", "differing reports", "estimates vary", etc.? ...at least until RSs agree after some fog of war has cleared. I don't see why we should trust either side for accuracy - even in their own numbers - during an active conflict so closely linked with misinformation and propaganda. Even some allegedly neutral third party sources (particularly state sources) would have reason to allow for inaccuracies until the conflict resolves. WP:V is clear that when reliable sources disagree the article stays neutral using attribution. If we can't be accurate, attribute claims succinctly, or maintain npov in such a small space, we shouldn't gamble on which one source to use as a summary; we should point readers to where they can get proper context. After all, the best true summary of the prose is arguably "disputed". --N8 01:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point. I think obviously, something there is preferable, but can we trust the sources to be accurate? I’m not sure. I think we can count out Ukraine’s data as well as Russia’s. Perhaps the U.S. or U.K. might be the best option at this point if any numbers are included KD0710 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur on a couple points; viewed on my mobile, the Syrian civil war infobox is ridiculously wide, taking up about ¾ width of the page, leaving the lead to be sandwiched to the far left, with only one or two words per line! As for length, it's about a 1.5 screens long. Also agree that on this page, the infobox, while at normal width and less than a screen in length, could still stand to lose a few of images. (imo) - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that your example is not a best practice. It's longer than any campaign in World War II. It is pretty obvious that it goes past summarizing key features of the page's subject. KD0710 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because another article also has issues doesn't mean we should let them pertrude into even more articles. We can't fix all the issues with every article on this talk page. But I agree that a lot of 'modern' conflicts have infobox (and general article) issues, particularly with regards to excessive details, and I raised this at the MILHIST project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I'm using a smartphone to view this article and the infobox fits on one screen with room to spare, no scrolling required. Perhaps there has been extensive cuts made, can you link to a diff where the infobox was "eight screens long"? And I'm also curious; what mobile device you're viewing this on? Thanks - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm using an iPhone SE (1st generation) (which is one of the smaller smartphones one might be using in 2022). Here's how the current revision looks, which is still trimmed down in various places: File:Russian invasion infobox size iPhone SE.png. Checking on my other phone, a much bigger iPhone SE (2nd generation), it's still 5.5 screens, though now the images stay in their layout, which saves a lot of space. (Using the desktop version on mobile, yes, it only takes on screen - but that's because the page is zoomed so far out that you can't read anything) Phiarc (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

wolf, I think you’re still using the desktop version of Wikipedia, even though you’re on a smartphone. I also usually use desktop view when I’m reading WP on mobile, and the infobox size is the same for me as it is for you. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article page, there should be a button called “mobile view” that will switch you over to the actual mobile site, and you should be able to see. Hope that helps HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: you are partly right, but in this case mostly wrong. I read WP in mobile view, (which is the preset for me), and only switch to desktop when I'm editing. As I was editing this talk page, I was in desktop mode when I looked at the infobox, so it was the size I stated. But even now, after checking it in mobile view, the infobox is only about 3 screen lengths, which is about the same size as the Normandy landings infobox (as an example). (And fyi, I'm using a Galaxy S10+, which I thought was getting old until Phiarc mentioned that they were rocking a 1st gen iPhone SE). - wolf 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would think it is fair to say that there is a rough consensus that the infobox is too long and it should be reduced. Predictably, there is some disagreement on how this might best be achieved in particular instances. Most notably, there is the matter of casualties. We need to thrash out some of the specifics. I see that a discussion has started at #Causalities. It would be good if we could keep related discussions centralised rather than having multiple parallel discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with casualties in infobox

Note: the initial part of this section has been moved from #Causalities for continuity. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how most people use the wikipedia pages but I personally first dart to the casualties section of the infobox, and then the map, and then read other relevant data. I think the casualties section should be kept as: 1 - self reported 2 - enemy reported and 3 - third party RS (like UK or US) and they should all be visible. That's just my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of discusion

• The body of the article has been edited to include info from the infobox.
• There appears to be a rough consensus to reduce the size of this section but some uncertainty on how best to do this.
• There is an acknowledgement that belligerent sources are likely to both overreport opponents casualties and underreport their own.
• There is some complaint that info placed in a note is not readily seen.
• There is an assertion that reporting a range not supported by a single reference is WP:SYNTH. {note: this is incorrect. This is quite permissible as would be simple addition or subtraction per WP:CALC).
• It was noted that massive ranges are unhelpful.
• Some reference is made to how the issue has been dealt with at Russo-Ukrainian War.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I think it might be best to leave casualty data exclusively in prose until we have source agreement, I would add that along with WP:CALC, "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" also seems to allow enough flexibility to use an inclusive range (lowest min - highest max) with citations if it reaches consensus. --N8 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments We have an article section for casualties. The infobox should summarise that section - not duplicate it. Some options I can see are:

1. We could note that reports vary and link to the article section. If it is too hard to come up with a simple summary, this is a reasonable option IMHO. (per N8wilson above?)
2. We could state the extreme ranges, and link to the article section. It is intrinsically clear that the reports vary because of the extremely wide range.
3. We have two partisan sources which are questionable and a third source. We could report the US source on the basis that it is "more" independent than the two partisan sources; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section.
4. We could report own losses and the independent source as separate entries per the Russo-Ukrainian War. This still leaves a fairly large section and IMHO not the best solution.
5. We could report "greater than X" where X is the lowest figure; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section. It is a conservative approach but not substantially better than relying upon the independent source.

I would tend to options 1 or 3, largely because they are most consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence

All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed.

Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more.

Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them.

That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.72.97 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. 152.207.223.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. EkoGraf (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian."

So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated.

Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin.

Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians.

Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

even that is what the site says (but the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates. yes, tanks are easier to tell apart, as well as some types of light vehicles and transports/freighters, and if there are casualties form one of the involved sides associated with it, more can be believable. but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2, BTR, BRDM, with little or no modification just for an exterior photo (some of its major modifications are internal)? How can you confirm or count the equipment and weapons that the Russian army captures or recovers in its advance? neither they nor anyone is publishing photos and serial numbers. Again, drawings and marks made a posteriori (not from the factory or officers of a combat unit) cannot be taken as reliable evidence, since anyone can do it. The numbers closest to reality may be known at the end, whatever it may be, when the dust settles, in some investigation on the subject. For now, all the numbers in all cases are estimates, manipulated information or pure disinformation. such as the cases of friendly fire, missfire, accidents, false flags, and so on that have been seen, which may only be known in detail later. right now I prefer to go with the US estimates, even despite the bias they surely have. 152.207.223.3 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is nonexistent. First you can cast all the poorly reasoned doubt on Oryx's visual index you like, but that still does not change that it is the best source we have as it is the only one providing first hand evidence from a neutral source being worked on by at least 2 people with experience doing this going back to the Syrian Civil war. Not their first rodeo. "but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2", many different ways, probably well over 60% of the destroyed vehicles still have paint or other give away markings that make them Russian, or will have other vehicles less destroyed from the same post of images showing it was part of Russian convoy, also the nature of the destroyed vehicle often tells you what it was destroyed by, like a Javelin or NLAW. Other has discarded Russian MRE, combat gear/clothing, or bodies. Hell, roughly 1/3rd of more of vehicles are obviously Russian since they are intact and were abandoned. And again, after 32 years of independent modification most of these can readily be told apart and Ukraine has a variety of its own unique BTR models while Russia has developed many of its own variants over the last 32 years. In reality the vehicles which they even really 'share' that could be confused for one over the other is fraction of the total vehicles on Oryx's visual index. Indeed even scrolling down the list and paying attention to the flags you'd notice over 50% of the list has a RUSSIAN flag and not a soviet flag because that model/variant did not exist during Soviet times. Your entire argument either shows a lack of understanding and careful examination of Oryx's visual index or just lack of understanding on the topic in general. I will again say no issue you have with the visual index is a substitute for not having a better first hand source of evidence you can cite in an argument regarding which casualty figures are most accurate. The visual index supports the Ukranian MoD figures for vehicles destroyed; by extension of that and their strong track record of other credible claims thus far their figure of over 13,500 Russians dead is most accurate and should be reflected in the Info box or in the actual table instead of buried like footnote while blatant Russian state lies are 3 times more prominently featured in the article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's buried in the paragraph, 4th sentence in, and omitted from the table above, on top of being removed from the infobox. It's a really bad look if this is by design. Like its been said, its in a place very few people would look. It took me multiple tries to even find it by glancing. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 02:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As a 3rd party the US estimate is actually considered a more reliable source than a claim made by one of the belligerents, especially of their enemies losses. Also, the US makes fairly regular updates (every week or so), while Ukraine actually made no updates to Russian casualties for eight days, nor their own for more than two weeks. In addition, RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims are not considered reliable. In any case, we have provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the US is a 3rd party its estimates are completely inferior to an actual first hand visual index of Russian losses like https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html. That visual index best supports the Ukrainians figures. This is just fact from the best neutral source we have with the most direct firsthand evidence. Nothing from the US or any other source can be considered more informed than a first hand visual index of Russian losses since you literally have no idea to what extent they have access to information, their methodology, or the resources they are even allocating to the task. Meanwhile, you can't really argue with photographs and videos that are verified to be new and in Ukraine. It is ridiculous that the article effectively hides the most accurate figures supported by first hand evidence and gives such prominence to clearly false figures that have no support of their own. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated"

So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently.

Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

End of discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence. Please continue.

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

I agree reporting multiple sources bloats the info box while obscuring the facts. Report the most accurate estimate for each side, and list the rationale and sources in the casualty section if people want more info. As it stands the info box has some of the worst/most inaccurate sources while being bloated and confusing with different casualty sources often saying radically different things. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims (as belligerents) are not considered reliable. And there is an ongoing discussion to potentially cite only 3rd party RS estimates in the infobox, while expanding on the belligerents' claims in the casualties section. We have also provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The assertion that Ukrainian sources are the "most accurate" for either their own or Russian losses and the basis for making this assertion is wandering deep into WP:OR. WP:RS specifically deals with independence of sources. Neither belligerent sources are independent. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a summary an not everything. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The only real assertion is that Oryx's visual index, a neutral source with experience in what they do going back years, is the best first hand source of what the real scale of the losses are. Any other source is merely words with zero methodology, reasoning, or facts of any kind regards who it is from. As far as I can see that is an irrefutable fact. The photographic evidence is going to win vs tweets by some US gov channel from the other side of the planet from the conflict with no evidence or info of any kind for its basis. It just so happens Oryx's visual index best supports the Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian casualties unless somehow people think the website has managed to get OVER 1 photo of every 1.6 Russian vehicles destroyed. Also, taking note of the fact Ukrainian official MoD claims have a strong track record of being relatively accurate thus far in the war does make them a reliable source on the topic as a simple fact without bias being a factor. It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. = WP:OR But, the current Oryx figure is 1380 v Ukraine (2741) - nearly twice. The US figure of 7,000+ v Ukraine 13,500 (killed as of 7 March per table in article) has the same order of difference (ie about two times). Guess that just blew that argument out of the water. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting in a warzone with operational security measures for people in the military, and where civilians don't go outside very often and are being evacuated from high intensity conflict zones, that we would have a photo of every destroyed vehicle in the conflict in real time? Because that is what you would basically have to be suggesting to say that the Ukrainians MoD figures are not the ones best supported by the Oryx visual index. Keeping in mind almost all the photos are up close of people walking up to destroyed vehicles only after fighting has well died down in that location and that many areas of Ukraine are experiencing internet blackouts so cannot upload such media. Even the lowest ratio I can feasibly imagine, that of about 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles destroyed, would yield a figure of 2,130 vehicles as of Orxy's most recent figure of 1420 vehicles, IE even with the lowest realistic ratio 1.5 to 1 ratio Oryx still would support the Ukrainian MoD claims being 77.71% accurate which would clearly be superior to any other figure provided by any source on the page. Never mind a more realistic ratio of 2 to 1 would basically mean Ukrainian MoD claims are effectively right on the money. The ratio could well be 3 to 1 or more and certainly that is vastly more likely than it being below 1.5 to 1. I seriously cannot fathom how you or anyone can think anything was remotely 'blown out of the water' by any stretch of the imagination. You basically have to submit a rational argument for why it is reasonable to believe we have MORE THAN 1 photo for every 1.5 Russian vehicles destroyed which given all the reasons listed above it is extremely unlikely either you nor anyone will ever be able to do persuasively. Really the damaging outlandish aspect to any argument you or anyone makes against the accuracy of the Ukranians numbers relative to Oryx's visual index is that WE DO NOT need some crazy high ratio of photos to actual destroyed vehicles to prove them correct, and indeed the Ukrainian claims could actually be low by the standards of actual lost equipment relative to real time internet photos of said lost equipment in any other conflict thus far in the digital age. People are simply not paying proper import the scale of destruction of Russian forces we are seeing in photographic evidence which even without years of aggregation of older conflicts is surpassing the catalogue of photographic evidence of virtually every other conflict I can think of in terms of destroyed vehicles and equipment sans maybe WWII and we are only in the 3rd week. Take for example Oryx's visual documentation of ISIS tanks in 2014; we know ISIS had about 109 tanks at one point or another. Oryx's only managed to visually index 35, less than 1 in 3, or about 32.11%. I'm in fact being CONSERVATIVE when I suggest the ratio is to 2 to 1 in Ukraine. Even by that CONSERVATIVE estimate the Ukrainian figures are clearly the most accurate. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could ever debate otherwise, much less ever think they could blow anything here 'out of the water' in any convincing manner whatsoever. The figures in this article must change to lend proper weight to the most accurate figures and less prominently feature some of the most offensively bogus numbers that instead somehow get to sit in the info box to misinform every casual reader of the article. To the benefit of the Russian state I might add as it helps to obscure the true cost of the war from Russians readers.

172.91.72.97 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of TLDNR discussion moved here (the discussion has continued since it was initially moved): The gist of the main proponent is that the Ukrainian figures are the most accurate for human casualties. Their rational is based on an asserted correlation for equipment losses between Ukrainian reports and reports in an Oryx article. They would assert that the Ukrainian equipment loss figures (for both sides) are "accurate" and therefore, that the Ukrainian figures for human casualties (both sides) are the most accurate. Much of the discussion has digressed to a discussion of equipment losses with a main opponent questioning the "accuracy" of the Oryx source. One editor notes that a third-party source is considered more reliable. One would only use belligerent sources. There is a reference to "burying" information in the article and another that would support Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties be in the infobox (with a reference to censorship). One observes they would go to the "casualties" section. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: came across this article: Why is it so hard to get accurate death tolls in the Russia-Ukraine war? that starts: Despite the world’s attention being focused on Russia’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine, key information still remains unclear⁠—in particular, the numbers of people who have been killed. I am not a subscriber so I can't see more but I would guess that the thesis of the article is Fog of war. If anybody has fuller access, they might give some more detail. It is probably relevent to this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why barely even mentioned : I get that some people here mistrust or want to hide the UA official claims but at this point they're close to completely removed. Not just in the infobox but also here : 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact , it's barely glimpsed over as if to borderline hide it . Meanwhile there's claims of some old 'consensus' to keep them out yet I haven't seen a proper vote on the matter. If self-reporting is completely off the tables then I suggest we also remove it from the following articles :

2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

Kargil_War

Eritrean–Ethiopian War

Tigray War

etc etc .

Why am I sounding disingenuous ? Because it seems deliberately hidden .It's one thing to not post a single side's numbers but it's a completely different thing to borderline completely removed that side's claim , especially when there's already the precedent of self-claims to be available in the infobox. Romdwolf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the numbers where removed from the table was because the person who added them (i.e. me) was unaware of the local consensus of the casualties article, which is where that table came from (it was not part of this article, just included). EkoGraf copied the table into this article and hence was able to add the UA numbers back in as of a few hours ago. Phiarc (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with images

Summary

• Various WP:P&G touch on the use of images generally and specifically in an infobox/lead.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.
• Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Also: The lead image in an infobox should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. - though this mainly deals with width.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. And: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

• For the initial life of the article, the map was the sole image until a collage was added. (I don't recall any specific discussion re this though there have been some minor changes to the overall collage.)
• In mobile devices, the collage presents as individual images that "stack" and significantly add to the infobox length. Some experiments have been made to change this but without success.
• Examples where the images don't stack, it is because the image is actually a single image file, rather than a collection of image files.
• It has been observed that the map is a more important image than the collage (ie it should be retained over use of the collage).
• Comments would generally reduce the number of images (or their captions) - even down to a single image.

Even though the WP:P&G wasn't raised through the preceding discussion, I thought it appropriate to add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About images... Never been a fan of the collage approach because we end up with lots of small images instead of one image that is clearly visible. Kind of like collages in city articles.... mini images are useless on a phone... that now represent 70% of our viewership....they also cause a scrolling nightmare losing us readers. Here's a similar discussion COVID-19 info box images RfC.Moxy- 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy, I'm also not a fan of the collage. Go with the map only. - wolf 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment With reference to the images in the collage, none of the images meet with P&G on images generally and in the infobox specifically. At best, they tell us we have arrived at a page about a war but not which one. Compare this with the image at Normandy landing, which one could describe as iconic. I doubt we could find an image rising to this level. The collage is therefore largely aesthetic. It is also problematic for mobile users per above. Even on a PC, it takes about one-third of a screen for no particularly useful purpose. I could live with an image that was one row of the collage, taking the same height it does presently and constructed as a single file so that it doesn't stack when displayed on mobile devices. I don't disagree with Moxy and Thewolfchild WRT size and ability to see detail but I don't know if it matters that much if there purpose is purely aesthetic. I would support no photo images because of the size they add without any significant value (per P&G). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Removed collage based on rough consensus here and in main thread. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think leaving just the map is fine. If we need an "iconic" image though, the strongest candidate I can put forth for now is something from c:Category:2022 Russian Invasion Z-shaped markings on military vehicles. AFAIK these markings on military vehicles are uniquely associated with this topic. --N8 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, I appreciate your comment but let's see where this goes before we start preempting which images we use. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, not preempting; just good faith discussion. If indeed we want to see where this goes I think it's productive to explore the possibility that an iconic image might be available to improve the article - a la Normandy landing as you pointed out above. --N8 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, as I said, "I appreciate your comment". but it is almost WP:BEANS. Hope that makes sense. :) Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism and xenophobia against refugees at the train and borders needs to be included in the refugee session

In late February, it was reported that in the previous days, the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service at the border posts near Medyka and Shehyni had not allowed non-Ukrainians (many of them foreign students in the country) to cross the border into neighboring nations. [1,2] claiming that priority was being given to citizens to cross the first citizens. Ukraine's foreign minister said that there were no restrictions on the departure of foreign nationals and that the border force was instructed to foreigners who allowed all citizens to leave foreigners. According to Ukraine's Sandhu, Aid's general secretary, students fighting to fight the Khas border were protected from violence and "their crosses with verbal supporters to try to fight the violence". [3] Similar discrimination was reported by Africans who tried to leave.[4,5]

1 «Per le persone che non sono bianche è più difficile fuggire dall'Ucraina» [For people who are not white it is more difficult to escape from Ukraine]. Il Post (em italiano). 3 de março de 2022. Consultado em 3 de março de 2022
2 «Nigeria urges respect towards Africans at Ukrainian border – News». Al Jazeera. 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
3 Waldie, Paul; York, Geoffrey (27 de fevereiro de 2022). «Africans and Asians fleeing Ukraine subjected to racial discrimination by border guards». The Globe and Mail. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
4 Russia Attacks Ukraine Capital. NDTV 24x7. 12 de março de 2021. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022 – via YouTube
5 «Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing Ukraine». The Independent. 1 de março de 2022. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:5BA8:80A8:DDBF:813:BD37:1BEB (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 

Hi, this portion is covered here: Ukrainian_refugee_crisis#Alleged_racism. P1221 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is for the invasion. The treatment of refugees should be included on that page and not this. KD0710 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think racism deserves a brief mention in this article. This article has a four-paragraph subsection on refugees, and racism is a significant fraction of the refugee article. I think there's room in this article for at least a short sentence such as "There are allegations, disputed by some, of racism in the treatment of refugees." which summarizes three paragraphs in the refugee article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

“Significant fraction”? Determined by an online word counter, the entire “Alleged racism” section is slightly less than 1% of the article. —Michael Z. 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that small, though less than I thought. I was looking at the table of contents where it's quite prominent -- 2 of 9 subsections. Online word counters can be deceiving, counting symbols like square brackets and stuff as significant numbers of words and ending up with way more words than the actual number of words in the article. I looked through the refugee article and counted the equivalent of 45 paragraphs, counting very small paragraphs as half a paragraph each. The racism part is 3 substantial paragraphs, making it about one-fifteenth of the article, or maybe more. By another method: the whole refugee article has about 12 screenfuls of text on my screen, and the racism part is nearly 1 screenful, making it nearly one-twelfth. I count 9 sentences in the refugee part of this article, several of them about double the short sentence I proposed, so I think it's proportional. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Alleged racial discrimination" section of the refugee article is a lot more than 1%. It's more like 15%, between one-sixth and one-seventh. I counted lines of text in the whole article, counting partial lines as 0 if less than a half or 1 if more than half. I got 182 lines for the whole article. (Others may get different counts depending on display font size etc.) For the discrimination section I got 28 lines (in 6 paragraphs, 2 subsections). That's actually an underestimate for the discrimination section because the lines weren't shortened by images. Based on that I estimated about 3300 words in the whole article, 500 words in the discrimination section. So I think there's definitely room in this article for a sentence about discrimination such as the one I proposed above. What do others think? (By the way, this talk page section got accidentally archived, then was restored.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Separatist republic demonyms

What are the demonyms for the separatist republics? Are there even demonyms? Donetsk/Luhansk, Donetskian/Luhanskian, DPR/LPR? I've seen Donetsian used for the DPR, but there isn't an equivalent for the LPR. Curbon7 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Donetsian would be someone from the Donets River region. Demonyms aren’t used for these because they are relatively obscure, lack legitimacy, and don’t have defined boundaries. The people who run them identify as Russians and Ukrainians. There may be a regional identity for the Donbas but that would include DLNR people and their adversaries (until the big invasion, the DLNR occupied about a third of the Donbas). —Michael Z. 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it’s important to differentiate residents of the city of Donetsk and its de jure province, the Donetsk oblast, from people under the Russian proxy rule imposed by the illegal Donetsk People’s Republic (Likewise Luhansk, Luhansk oblast, and the Luhansk People’s Republic).  —Michael Z. 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The government of Russia doesn't say Donetsk People's Republic is illegal. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of DNR and LNR soldiers

Are the Numbers for DNR and LNR soldiers not a way to small? They have conscription now (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/27/stay-hidden-or-get-drafted) and have a population of approximately 3.7 Mio. So, if only ten percent of the males would be forced in the Army that would be about 180000 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BB8:268:EEAE:D7C5:12AA:5020:CCA8 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find a RS that you believe has updated info. KD0710 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Independent Source for Equipment Losses

I know that there's been a back and forth about the reliability of using Russian/Ukrainian Ministries of Defense for numbers of losses, and because of this a preference for independent 3rd party sources. On account of this I'd like to recommend Oryx. It has detailed and confirmed listings of equipment losses on both sides see here. The website is trusted and used by Reliable Sources such as The Economist see here and as such gives us an excellent 3rd party source for equipment losses for both sides. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Russias mercenaries from Syria and Libya

According to the "Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine" Russia has approved the recruitment of 16,000 Middle East mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine. Source date is from the 13. march.
Today the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, that "Russian officers" had approved the recuitment of 22,000 Syrians and another 18,000 Syrians are being checked by Wagner Group. So in total 40,000 from syria alone might be drafted. Anyway, at the moment, is is rather unclear how many mercs there are fighting for russia, thats why I wouldnt mention those syrians in the infobox. ----LennBr (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think someone should add all three of these countries as belligerents since those volunteers hail from those three countries. --66.234.79.226 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as there are also volunteers from various other countries fighting on the Ukrainian side. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of template {{current}}

Hello. I would like to propose removal of the template {{current}}, as its usage within this article appears to be against the guidelines set by the template itself.
Here are the main guidelines, transcluded from Template:Current/doc, for, your convenience:

• Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used on those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news).
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer.
• If you would like an article on a significant current event to be noticed, please see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.

Check main (article) namespace links

In my estimation, the usage on this page does not meet the point 3 and 4. While point 2 provides for some leeway, we are three weeks away from the moment this news broke. If there is some major change in the news, such as, hopefully, a peace accord, the template may be reinstated, but right now, it is no longer relevant for usage on this page. I have already removed it previously, but the template was reinstated, so I'm bringing it here to complete the WP:BRD cycle. Thanks. Melmann 07:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - Based on your points, I tend to agree with you. My only concern is that major changes can happen in a relatively short amount of time, but perhaps we reinstate the tag should we have that issue in the future. KD0710 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the page meets point 3, because the recent news articles represent new developments in the conflict, such as NBC and The New York Times. Is there prior precedent for keeping the current template during ongoing conflicts? ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive tour of many major conflicts listed at List of ongoing armed conflicts yields none that have the template, including ones that have recently seen major developments or escalations such as Tigray War, Panjshir conflict, or Islamic State–Taliban conflict. In my experience, it is rare for Template:Current to survive much longer than 24 to 48 hours, so this article is already very much an outlier. My understanding is that Template:Current is generally used when we expect a huge surge of page visits, such as breaking news, but we haven't quite gotten our ducks in the row yet with the coverage lacking pretty fundamental parts. The article as it is now, while it can obviously be better, is fair coverage of the topic as we understand it right now.
In any case, if there was a major turn in the conflict, such as Kyiv falling or peace accords being signed, I would most certainly support reinstating the template. Melmann 16:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the template has fulfilled its purpose, based on my past experience of how long {{current}} tends to be present on articles. Also noting the last 50 edits atm go back over 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melmann: thanks for raising this here per BRD. It was me who initially reverted the removal two days ago, as I felt a discussion would be better first. I think the template still has some limited utility (per point 2, as you point out), but on the whole I think your analysis is fair and I don't object to removing the tag. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Since we have consensus, I'm removing the template. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 16:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

just take it

is this already here ? https://onemileatatime.com/news/putin-russian-airlines-steal-foreign-aircraft/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=One%20Mile%20at%20a%20Time&utm_content=Putin%20Allows%20Russian%20Airlines%20To%20Steal%20Foreign%20Aircraft&fbclid=IwAR3t95xpZ9K3EPwOn_fHIJPEkveC-VhD1HMTE8RF7P6DYtPMqVobrdifhKs --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It would likely be more appropriate for Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. KD0710 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

for me is the same, you write somewhere in this wiki... --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian military numbers

The source for the Ukrainian military numbers (paramilitary, reserve etc.) is from the book "The Military Balance 2021" (pp.208-209). Looking for Russian statistics on the same book (pp 190-191) we see that Russia has approximately 554,000 Paramilitary and 2,000,000 in Reserves.

Since the current statistics for Russia seem to be based on U.S. intelligence, I think two approachable options could be followed:

- Exclude Ukrainian paramilitary/reserve numbers, OR

- Include Russian paramilitary/reserve numbers according to The Military Balance 2021

I prefer the second option because Ukrainian paramilitary/reserves shouldn't be excluded. Meanwhile, the Russian paramilitary and reserve forces should be mentioned. Darer101 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is as far as we can tell all of Ukraine'ss military are directly involved, but not all of Russia's (yet). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian military is fully committed to this conflict, with all reservists have been called into active duty. To my knowledge, the Russian military probably hasn't mobilized all of their paramilitary/reserve forces to this conflict. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We include reservists for Ukraine because those reserves are committed. We likewise DON'T include Russia's reserves, because their reserves are NOT committed. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Voznesensk

Just wrote a draft for the Battle of Voznesensk, a battle that reportedly took place north-west of Mykolaiv and was covered by The Wall Street Journal. Would appreciate if some of y'all could take a look at it and/or help polish it up a bit. Thought it was rather important because of the strategic value that the defense held, as it stopped a Russian advance in the western Ukraine and likely stopped the Russians from seizing the neighboring power plant. --LeukonTheBosporan (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I can help edit/make suggestions. So if you need some help, you can message me on my talk page, or the Draft's talk page. For example: After a quick glance at the article, make sure you use inline citations frequently, especially after any quotes or contentious material, and to ensure text—source integrity. See: WP:INTEGRITY and WP:INTEXT for more info. And I found WP:CITEBUNDLE to be extremely helpful when there is multiple citations at the end of an text (especially when you want the text to be easy to read).Also, make sure you cite your sources properly. This is explained at WP:CS. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

LeukonTheBosporan Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualty section of article and table

At present, the casualty section of the article tabulates some of the casualty figures using particular sources, while additional information is provided in prose. It would be better balance (IMHO) if the prose material was incorporated into the table but I'm not great with tables. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What information in the prose do you wish incorporated into the table? How would you like it to appear? Fieari (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically all of the information in the paragraph immediately following the table could be tabulated. If it helps, the start date in all cases is 24 Feb, so it could be placed in the column heading instead of being repeated in each cell. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses, the table is part of the casualties article, which is written based on a compromise solution reached between editors at the start of the war back in 2014, where it was agreed that only 3rd party sourced and self-admitted casualty figures would be included in the infobox of the war's article and the casualties table, while belligerent claims of their enemies losses would be mentioned in prose due to the high possibility of propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, we are not talking about the infobox here but the table at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties. It makes no sense for some of the casualty figures to be reported in the table and some figures to be reported in prose. I don't know if I am a fan of the table being linked from Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. If anything, it should be the other way around. As that article would state at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, This is the main article for the 2022 invasion - and for the reporting of casualties. A local consensus elsewhere might guide us but does not bind us. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, and I was referring to both the 2014-present war's infobox and the tables of the 2014-present war's casualties article to which the 2014 editor consensus is applied. I did not say that consensus also applies to the 2022-invasion article (a guideline as you say maybe). As for the 2022-present invasion infobox and tables, there is a rough consensus regarding the infobox for it to be cut down, with claims of enemy losses already being moved to the casualties section and some editors currently advocating that self-admitted losses be also delegated to the casualties section, leaving only 3rd party (US) figures in the infobox, with a link to see other estimates in the casualties section. As for the table, I did not link the table from the 2014-present casualties article to the main invasion article here, that was someone else. If you want to create a table specifically for the main invasion article's casualty section, including all of the various claims, I have no objection IF other editors also agree. EkoGraf (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I think I understood your previous well enough. If my brevity was construed as censure, there was no such intention. I certainly did not think that you had linked the table. As you note, this table and the infobox are separate issues. However, as I am reading the above comments above (the infobox discussion), cross-reporting by belligerents in the article body should not be obscured but having some of it in the table and some in prose firstly, doesn't make a lot of sense and, secondly, tends to obscure what is in text where all of it could be summarised most effectively in the table. I would read that there is already a rough consensus to amend the table as I have indicated (above discussion). Indeed, I thought that it had happened but instead, it was added as prose. I now understand why as the table is linked so the addition isn't so straight forward (no criticism intended). The first step is to either reverse the link (per my previous) or sever the link - but I would think the former best unless there is push-back from the other article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, considering the casualties article falls under the 2014 discussion consensus as the general article for the 2014-present war, I would suggest to sever the link in the invasion article and make a table specifically for the casualties section of the invasion article, including all of the various claims, if all the other editors agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I would suggest WP:BRD for a reversal of the link and severing if there is then push-back. As you say, the old consensus for the 2014 article is for the infobox, not the article body and there is already a rough consensus here. Let's see if we get other comments here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the 2014 consensus was for both the 2014-present war infobox and the tables in the casualties article which was created in response to the start of the 2014-present war, with the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses being delegated to the article text and expanded on in prose. I will create a new table for this invasion article here to include all claims. EkoGraf (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Another general Killed

The following discussion 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.

---

There are reports that a fourth Russian general was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate article for dead generals - List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Ambiguous statement of a battle outcome.

In the "Eastern Front" section the statement "On the morning of 25 February, Russian Armed Forces advanced from DPR territory in the east towards Mariupol and encountered Ukrainian forces near the village of Pavlopil, where they were defeated." didn't clarify which side prevailed in that specific battle. The Eastern Ukraine offensive main article indicates a Ukrainian victory against the Russian land forces from the DPR, so if you have editing privileges please revise the sentence to indicate a Ukrainian victory in that specific battle to remove the ambiguity. Many thanks. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done P1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion and resistance

The map in the section is only showing the situation until 4/03/22! It should be updated until today, the 17-th of March! Russian troops are already in the suburbs of Kiev! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1) See the FAQ; 2) The map is not hosted on en.wiki, take up your concerns with commons.wiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

(UPA) is nationalists. It's "Ukraina for Ukrainians" they say about themselves. Are they ultranationalists or just nationalists? I mean if they are welcoming to other people from other countries with other color and not racistic? (OUN) is mentioned in their history, but seam to not be anything alike them. --92.40.174.72 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comment may be removed or refactored. If you request a edit to the article, please make your request clear and concise, preferably with reliable sources. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC) —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda"

LMAO why don't you guys have a section of Ukrainian/NATO propaganda? This article is so completely one-sided. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:85EE:CAC9:C115:A8A9 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Provide some RS talking about it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

While doing that, please see WP:SOURCE. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please shorten and de-clutter your signature ? Pixius talk 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be mention of Ukrainian propaganda for sure. Outright lies like the garrison of Snake Island dying to the last man, and the Ghost of Kiev would be a start.174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The news total casualties from UK DAILY MAIL PLEASE ADDED TO SOMEONE WHO READ ON WIKIPEDIA WITH THIS BATTLE..........

Russia has seen up to 28,000 troops killed, wounded or captured in Ukraine - around a fifth of its force - US says, as invasion 'stalls on all fronts' but shelling of cities continues. LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10622681/Ukraine-war-Russia-lost-fifth-pre-invasion-force.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenLuuDatHuynh2008 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. The community deprecated that source because of misinformation and disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)