Talk:Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis

Some of the discussions at Talk:Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis may be more relevant to this page than they are to Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

2022

With the recent invasion of russian troops into the Ukraine, the article here should add a separate 2022 section, or at the least link to another wikipedia article that has these numbers. Right now you can hardly get any accurate information; for instance, I would estimate the number of dead ukraines above 300, but someone from the street just said in the local TV the number is over 15.000 - and I have no idea where that person got that number. So I tried to find out, but there are barely any reliable sources. The traditional mass media also contradict themselves a lot in this regard. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

I note the page states UK MOD are referenced as announcing details of casualties, I believe this should either be Ukraine MOD or British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). 85.255.232.50 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The casualties table notes the original source of the casualty figures, which is the UK MoD, not the Ukrainian MoD or the BBC (which only relayed the news). Figures reported by the Ukrainian government are listed separately. EkoGraf (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the semi-protection of Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. I also move that the only editors be registered editors, not anonymous IP editors.Dogru144 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now. ––FormalDude talk 03:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Official death count

Today- 14.5. 136.158.11.140 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Claimed russian dead rises to 38,300 in 17th july 2022 https://theglobalfrontier.com/ukraine-figures-in-more-than-38300-russian-soldiers-killed-since-the-beginning-of-the-invasion/ here. Dwoothy (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Alleged death of Magomed Tushayev

Regarding the claims made by Ukraine of Chechen leader M Tushayev, take into account that the information have been proven Fake. There was a discussion here.
Mr.User200 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine soldiers don't die?

Has Wikipedia became propagandistic somehow? Can someone explain why this article hide Ukraine soldiers death toll? Salim Mazari Boufares (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Questions like that don't provide concrete contributions for improving the article. If you provide some reliable sources about the numbers of deaths of Ukrainian soldiers in this conflict and read the guidelines for making an edit request and propose a specific text to add then it's quite likely that someone will do the edit thanks to your contribution. Boud (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We add figures on deaths of Ukrainian soldiers when they become available. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian military is apparently keeping their death toll a secret and hasn't publicized it. However, today, a US official provided an estimate, which we added to the casualties table. EkoGraf (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Colonel Andrei Zakharov

Only Nitter/Twitter so far? "Colonel Andrei Zakharov, commander of a #Russian tank regiment, was eliminated by the AFU in the Brovary district of #Kyiv region." (2022-03-10). Clearly this is not Andriy Zakharov nor Andrei Zaharov. May become notable once the mainstream media pick this up. Boud (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of Russian and Ukrainian casualty claims

Fellow editor Neutrality has requested that the analysis of Russian and Ukrainian claims on casualties by a team at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden be removed from the article on the basis of WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS. I am of the opinion that no reason has been shown for the analysis to be disregarded. It has been properly attributed (to a top ranked research and education institution). I have suggested that, if the real issue is actually balancing, we can expand the paragraph with other views by other researchers/analysts, for the sake of showing all sides POV, and the Uppsala analysis would remain as one of a number. An analysis by the New York Times has also already been included in the paragraph and others can be added as well. Possibly those like this one [1] by CNN. I am asking any fellow editors that have been involved in the article and on the issue of this war's casualties to express their opinion in what way we could improve/expand the paragraph and assist in doing so if possible. Pinging some that have shown interest in the topic to see if we can resolve the issue. Mr.User200 Poklane Phiarc Cinderella157 KD0710 N8wilson Looking forward to the discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with the paragraph staying as is. There is a large discrepancy between the numbers of casualties from all sources and it should have something to clarify why that might be so that we can promote clarity.

Additionally, I don’t feel the claim is out of place or disagreed with, as many RS have documented the differences in casualty reports. Though they don’t overtly say “it’s because of propaganda,” it is clear that the numbers aren’t believed to be fully accurate. KD0710 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep This edit removed the content with this summary: challenging this content as undue weight - one random researcher and the wording is very broad. Get consensus if you'd like to push for inclusion. The statement is summarised from Why is it so hard to get accurate death tolls in the Russia-Ukraine war? at Fortune.com (Fortune (magazine) quoting a researcher directly engaged in analysing casualty figures from the invasion. It may be a news source but news sources are pretty much what we have to work with in this stage of the invasion. This particular source would appear to be in good standing. The article is saying that both sides are playing up opponents losses and downplaying their own. Anybody with any experience would expect this to probably be the case in an active conflict. Nobody is expecting reliable figures from Russia but I am seeing some perceptions that Ukraine is above this. The statement that was removed might seem a little imbalanced unless you take this into account but it is not UNDUE in the circumstance since it explains why, in the case of the Ukraine, when no real explanation is required in the case of Russia. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BALANCE. At least as long as RSs do not agree on casualty figure claims. NPOV guides that in such cases we describe differing viewpoints with attribution and - per "balance" - make use of "sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." That's exactly what this source does. The source's claims should stay. --N8_wilson 14:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would remove this as clearly WP:UNDUE. It's a random researcher making a very broad claim of a "Ukrainian misinformation campaign." We already explain, through other sources, that figures tend to be low/high depending on who the source is; I see no reason why we need to accord so much weight to a single quote from a single article. Neutrality^talk 16:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the source is a clear third opinion in matter of losses and claims, US estimates of Russian losses are as biased as Belarusian estimates of Ukrainian losses. Indeed, I will add that the US estimates of losses should be removed from both armies.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

“Only those with articles”

User:Mr.User200 is removing casualties with the edit summary “only those with articles,”[2][3] list members with references that show they are notable. What’s with that? This is a list of casualties, not a list of articles or a disambiguation page. And the absence of an article is not an indicator of notability. —Michael Z. 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Notability (people), cant add persons that are known from one single event, in this case dying in the war while having a high military rank.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Matter of notability, only notable people should be listed (not every possible officer). EkoGraf (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As a technical point of information: WP:N clearly indicates that the notability guideline applies only to the article topic and not the article content. Best I can tell, WP:LISTBIO is the more appropriate guidance in this case.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that there's probably a better way to summarize this information in prose. We don't need the date, location, method, rank, or even name for most casualties. Perhaps list specific details of the most noteworthy, names of those with significant rank, and a summary number that describes others. There's always that nice hatnote to the list article. --N8_wilson 03:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As already mentioned, WP:BIO is for “whether a given topic warrants its own article,” and not about list membership. Relevant guideline is WP:LISTBIO and WP:CSC even states that one common kind of list is of subjects that fail WP:BIO.

Until there are objections based on guidelines or clear consensus, I will restore the items. I still maintain the list section should clearly state the WP:LISTCRITERIA, and in the meantime every inclusion should have an inline source. —Michael Z. 13:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• It would obviously be excessive to list, say, every single soldier killed in the war, but for categories here that have a limited scope, I agree it's reasonable to list those who might not pass WP:BIO. It looks rather silly right now for the article to list only one person under foreign journalists killed in the 2022 invasion, when there are in fact at least three others. It's extra-silly that some of those people are listed at Deaths in 2022 but not here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Casualties According to Ukraine

The total number of Russian casualties according to Ukraine seems mysteriously absent. However, there are 2 Russian media sources in the information table claiming very few Russian casualties. Seems like a lot of pro-Putin propaganda going on.Peerreviewededitor (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian claims regarding Russian casualties are presented in the text of the article. As per an editor consensus established at the start of the 2014 war, figures claimed by belligerents regarding their enemies losses are not to be included in the infobox and tables due to the high possibility of the figures being propaganda, but they are not to be totally excluded and are to be mentioned in the main body of the article in prose/text form. In line with this, Russian claims of Ukrainian losses have also been only presented in text form. A more recent consensus has also reaffirmed this, with the amendment that the claimed figures would be presented in the table of the 2022 invasion article. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

2014 was eight years ago. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't remember any such consensus nor do I see any sort of discussion to that effect on this talk page. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Eight years ago or not, consensus was reached after a long edit war as far as I recall and has been maintained since. The agreement was reached at the War in Donbas article's talk page, but it was agreed that the agreement encompasses this article as well which was ultimately born out of those discussions. And as I mentioned above, it was reaffirmed recently at the invasion article's talk page with the consensus condition that the beligerents' claims of their enemies losses would be included in the invasion article's table. EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian commander run over by own troops

This story has circulated on social media and non-RS tabloids, but now The Times has the story that Colonel Yury Medvedev, who commanded 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, was deliberately killed by his own men who ran him over in a tank.[4] It says he died and this was claimed by Ukraine and confirmed by Western intelligence. But it doesn't have date of death, date of running over, so I have omitted it for now. But I think it should be included in Russian casualties. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of Russian civilian journalists killed in Donbas pre-'22

On 18 March I removed the claim that "11 Russian journalists" (implicitly civilian journalists, given the section heading) had been killed in Donbas prior to the 2022 invasion. In a subsequent dummy edit I explained:

Samelyuk, Lakomov, Korenchenkov, and Vyachalo were (para)military. No RS call the first two journalists. Some do for the second two, so I've added them to the military journalist sublist at List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but they still don't count as civilians. Can't verify Ivanova or Lipneva; non-RS suggest the latter may be a hoax.

A few days later, EkoGraf added that claim back (even less correctly, since not everyone on the list is Russian and one of the Russians was included in the entry above). I've removed it again, and will now expound on the problems with that source (section "Раздел 5", starts at number 3,041, may be easier to find viewing the HTML source).

The biggest issue is: The source doesn't claim that! Nothing in the list says that these are civilian journalists, just that they're journalists. Several are acknowledged to have been serving in military roles when they died. But taking them point-by-point:

• The five Russians that the Committee to Protect Journalists [5] and this list are in agreement on are Klyan (#7), Mironov (#10), Stelin (#11), Voloshin (#4), and Kornelyuk (#6).
• Andrea Rochelli (#1) was not Russian and is counted in his own entry with Mironov.
• Anna Samelyuk (#2) was press secretary to Alexei Mozgovoi and was killed when he was assassinated. No reliable sources that I could find refer to Samelyuk as a journalist. Even if she was one, she was a journalist working with a militia, no more a civilian than Mozgovoi himself.
• Andrei Vyachalo (#3) and Sergei Korenchenkov (#5) were journalists (although some dispute calling them that), but by no means civilians, part of the DPR forces' "Information Corps". See List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War § Sergei Korenchenkov and Andrei Vyachalo
• I was unable to find anything in reliable sources verifying that a journalist named Tatiana Ivanova (#4) was killed in Donbas, let alone that she was a civilian.
• Reviewing this a second time around, I'm slightly less sure on Maksim Lakomov (#8)... Seems he was a journalist before the war, but became a propagandist during it? Or at least a military journalist. I don't know, there might be a case to call him a military journalist like Vyachalo and Korenchenkov, but he doesn't seem to have been a civilian
• There appears to be a factual dispute as to whether anyone named Elena Lipneva (#9) was killed in Donbas

So I don't see how we can say, based on reliable sources, that any more than seven civilian journalists (five Russian, one Italian, one Ukrainian) were killed in Donbas prior to 2022. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Ukraine Russian volunteers

With the news of pro-Ukrainian Russian volunteers (the "Freedom for Russia Legion"), should there also be an additional mention of the alleged deaths of two Russian militants from Pravy Sektor who fought for Ukraine near Kharkov and died? According to telegram source, the information allegedly came from pro-ukr russian and ukrainian nationalist militias about the two sons of a man named Oleg Butusin, Roman and Leonid, who wore RONA patches went missing and were confirmed dead by their father. Would these two casualties count as Russian foreign volunteers and added to the chart alongside the Georgian, Italian, and Belarusian counterpart?

Or because they technically come from a beligerent background, they cannot be counted separately? MSTVD (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If they were Russian citizens yes, but reliable source needed. EkoGraf (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So far there was a reddit post of a video of their father mourning them and photographs of the two brothers in uniforms so far, would need to look more 146.111.30.159 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Would need better source, reddit not considered a verifiable source by WP. EkoGraf (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Some articles say that their father immigrated from Russia and took the sons with him in 2014 [6]. Telegram posts I assume are in the same category? [7] Here's the reddit post mentioned MSTVD (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Any interests or updates on this?--MSTVD (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

In section '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine', the 'Total casualties' table: Change the Ukrainian estimate for Ukrainian casualties from '1,300 killed, 3,825 wounded' to '1,300 killed' Change the Russian estimate for Russian casualties from '1,351 killed' to '1,351 killed, 3,825 wounded'

The Russian estimate seems to have been transcribed to the Ukrainian forces. The Russian source lists 3825 wounded for Russian forces. The Ukrainian source did not give a number of wounded. This update will reflect the data seen on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Russian casualty source: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/03/25/Russian-army-says-1-351-soldiers-killed-in-Ukraine 2001:18E8:2:106C:F000:0:0:577 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

based on nato calculations and chechen war aftermath, the total russian deaths came out as ~4600 for march ~30. if we add up inactivity between now and then, its probably ~5000. there was a video made about this formula by HistoryLegends. the number of casualties is ~~20000 based on nato 1:3 formula 5.15.183.84 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Alleged death.

The alleged death of Russian General Mordecai have not be taken into account since the primary source, a Ukrainian Government Facebook thread was reverted and there is evidence of the Russian General alive. I have take into account the criteria used in the List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

But the source that he's alive is from Russian State TV, which can't really be trusted at all due to propaganda, and every other news article still believes that he is dead. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not in any rush whatsoever. Wait until we have reliable sources. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Laughable that US Estimates of Russian Dead are "OK" given the rules as explained

My reliably sourced claim by the Russian military of the number of Ukrainian soldiers who have died was reverted out of the table based on a "decision" that only self-admission of casualties would be permitted to avoid propaganda claims.

Fair enough. But then I look at the table and see that it's full of USA and NATO claims about Russian dead. Are people seriously arguing that the USA and NATO are *not* a party to the conflict on the side of the Ukrainians? After all we know that there are nearly daily press briefings about how the USA is helping the Ukraine, long lists of weapons and munitions that the USA is providing.

It can hardly be the case that the USA *in not a party to this conflict*.

What is being created with these gamed rules is turning Wikipeida itself into a propaganda outlet, where a little "information laundering" allows all sorts of Ukraine propaganda claims to be reported as facts, while equivalent Russian claims are censored.

Wikipedia should do better than be just another outlet for USA/NATO/Ukraine propaganda. We have plenty of those in the West already.

ZeroXero (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced.

The Russian police lost people during first hours of poorly prepared invasion . This source is Russian, not NATO. [https://khakasia.info/2022/04/04/otkazniki-ili-pochemu-11-bojczov-omon-rosgvardii-po-hakasii-otkazalis-ot-uchastiya-v-speczoperaczii-v-ukraine/?ref=tjournal.ru Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally Russian soldiers were misinformed, kept during weeks in deplorable conditions.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin 'Significant looses' Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

NATO estimates are lower than Ukrainian ones https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?IR=T, so 'USA/NATO/Ukraine propaganda' is also a form of propaganda.

Both Chechen wars were researched by Russian journalists and activists and the Russian army lost many soldiers.

First 'The official figure for Russian military deaths was 5,732'

Second '7,268–7,476'.

Independent estimates were higher.

Corruption and poor command still exist.Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian number is 1351, March 25. The number does not include policemen nor Donbas soldiers.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

'My reliably sourced claim by the Russian military' - in Russia informing about facts is punished with prison (till 14 years). Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia lists about 80 dead commanders.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Readovka

"The Newspaper for Kremlin Readovka accidentally published data from the Russian Defense Ministry about the country’s real losses in the war with Ukraine. According to this medium, in a secret meeting the number of 13,414 Russian soldiers killed, while some 7,000 would be missing." Too early to add but the topic should be monitored also in non-English RS.

• https://cvvnews.com/a-pro-kremlin-outlet-reports-13414-dead-russian-soldiers-and-7000-missing/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20220421195045/vk.com/wall-163061027_2109268

WikiHannibal (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

As you say, too early to be added and not verified by RS. Also, situation seems familiar to the earlier situation with that one Russian tabloid allegedly publishing by accident a larger Russian death toll, only to be removed afterwards and stating it was hacked. Consensus was due to the dubiousness of the source, as well as the possibility of the hack, that the information is not verifiable for inclusion. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2022

The casualties claims needs to include the data provided by the MOD of Russia, as it is the most reliable source. Their data is double checked and not just estimated. Otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of appearing as just another tool of war propaganda in favor of western interventionism. 46.85.158.75 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Its already included in both the table and the text below it. EkoGraf (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me guess, this article is heavily biased towards Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.93.7 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Victims over time

The article reports nearly 14000 deaths in the war in Donbas between Apr 2014 and Dec 2021, but no info is given on when did those deaths happen within that time frame. It would be relevant to know whether they were mainly at the beginning or at a later stage in the conflict, and whether the Minsk agreements had an impact on that or not. --Savig (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The source confirms 365 of the 3,404 civilian deaths occurred between 2016 and 2021 (less than 10 percent). Based on this and the Ukrainian and DPR's end-of-year reports on combat losses it can be concluded most of the deaths took place in the first two years of the war between 2014 and 2015 when major combat took place before the Minsk agreements. So yes it seems they did have an impact. Maybe write something about that? EkoGraf (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I have added this info to the relevant section. --Savig (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Kulyk

Can someone please add him? Ukrainian former national cycling coach Alexander Kulyk died on 1 March 2022 in a mission evacuating people from Kyiv.

References

Semi-Protected edit request

Can someone please add:

• On 22 April, Ukrainian Premier League footballer Artur Hrytsenko (FC Lviv and FC Karpaty Lviv) who served the 95th Air Assault Brigade was killed in the Battle of Kharkiv.

• On 27 February, Ukrainian veteran Oleksiy Seniuk was killed by Russian Armed Forces in the Siege of Chernihiv.

• On 17 March, Ukrainian water polo player Yevhen Obedinsky, died in the Siege of Mariupol.

• On 4 May, Ukrainian Jewish Holocaust survivor Vanda Obiedkova, died in the Siege of Mariupol.

Thanks, 82.174.61.58 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ive merged the 4 seperate edit requests by the same IP into 1 for convenience. Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done See diff. I accepted the foreign-language sources in good faith, and corrected the date for Vanda Obiedkova to 4 April per the source. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit for Foreign Military Casualties in the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine

Add a foreign military casualty in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine (note that the definition of a casualty is something that takes a soldier out of service, so a missing soldier should count as a casualty.) A source for two British soldier killed and missing in the war is provided below: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/28/briton-killed-ukraine-russia-war 2603:7000:2200:631:B14F:63B8:8E0A:CB18 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The missing soldier was mentioned initially in the relevant table. However, subsequently, the missing soldier showed up alive and in Russian captivity, so the mention of the missing soldier was removed and the source for his capture was provided in the edit summary. EkoGraf (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are only Russian (biased) sources only used to account for Russian casualties?

United nations, US, and European sources should also be included. Russian media is essentially untrustworthy. 174.95.88.130 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

United Nations figures on Russian casualties do not exist. We are already including figures according to the US and UK (European). The "Russian media" that we are using (BBC News Russian and Meduza) are both pro-Russian opposition media outlets. Claims by the Ukrainian government on Russian casualties are also presented. And for the sake of balance and neutrality as per WP guidelines, self-reported casualty figures by Russia and the DPR/LPR are also presented, as per previous editor consensus at the main article talk page. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

US/Western estimates of Russian losses have been removed from the table. The US estimated 7,000-15,000 dead in mid-March, which is multiple times higher than the present admitted number of dead Russians by Russian news sources. We should include those estimates, as we do for Ukraine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have re-added a western number from the same article we sourced the Ukrainian dead number from in the NYT. However, estimates vary a lot. The US claimed 7,000-15,000 in mid-March and over 10,000 by the end of March. The numbers are, obviously, not very precise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, we are already including both US and UK estimates. The US estimate from mid-March was removed because the figure became outdated when the US made a new more up-to-date estimate at the end of March. The newer figure was then included in the table. The 7,000-10,000 dead per Western Intelligence estimates mentioned in the mid-April NYT article is obviously referring to the old (outdated) estimates by the US from mid-March. As per WP guidelines, we replace outdated information, with newer info. Estimates from late March and late April (10,000 per US & 15,000 per UK) are now already included in the table. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the "Russian number" comes from Russian officials reported by Russian media. I'm that case the OP should be aware of that also, there a difference, the United Nations only have released numbers of killed Ukrainian civilians.

Regarding the British and US claims of Russian military deaths: In my opinion to this date(mid May) are 1) outdated, 2) Partisan and could be considered if there are no other figure for Russian losses. Mr.User200 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In any case, all of the currently included estimates were previously agreed upon through talk page consensus at the invasion's main article talk page after extensive discussions. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

Another volunteer from Belarus who had fought for Ukrainian side was killed in Donbass: https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1525222369329037315 or https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1525075865901613056 . The death toll from Belarus should be 4 Cristi767 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That would make it three? That is also under the Foreign civilians heading. Additionally, I believe you can edit this page yourself? Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated properly. EkoGraf (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record Stop reinstating non-current flags on the article and table. We should use officials flags when reporting the Bielorrusian nationals on civilians and foreign fighters.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, we list countries of origins, not political statements. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request for Time Period of Reported Russian Casualties

I wish to bring up for consideration that the time period for the reported casualties of "Russian and allied forces" within the "Total casualties" table might be more informative/accurate if it reflected the date of the original article cited within the current document being used as the source.

While the news article, currently (as of May 24 2022) being used as a source for this figure, was indeed released on May 23rd 2022 (Citation 80 - https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/russian-death-toll-worsen-in-ukraine-war_uk_628b5776e4b0cda85db2ed7b). If one reads this article, they will note that it relies on a link to another article as it's source for the casualty figures. Clicking through to this article (by the same Publisher - HuffPost UK Politics) reveals that the figure of 15,000 killed was previously published on April 25th, 2022 (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/russia-troops-killed-ukraine-war_uk_6266b659e4b0d07748639839). Given that this figure only reflects the situation up until April 25, 2022 it seems inaccurate to suggest via the time period that this figure was valid as of May 23, 2022. Perhaps, it may also be prudent to change the source cited for this figure to this earlier news article. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.151.159 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The UK actually claimed the 15,000 dead figure two times, both on April 25th and on May 23rd in its daily MoD briefings. For the past month, we were citing the April 25th estimate and set that as the date of the claim. However, we are now citing to the new more up-to-date estimate which was made on May 23rd. EkoGraf (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Foreign casualties - Kyrgyzstan

I made an update about some foreign casualties from Kyrgyzstan based on those sources: https://akipress.com/news:672165:Former_police_special_task_officer_told_his_family_he_went_to_U_S__for_work_but_was_fatally_wounded_in_Ukraine// https://adcmemorial.org/en/news/migrants-from-central-asian-countries-got-involved-in-russias-war-against-ukraine/ https://rus.azattyk.org/a/31897909.html

However, it was reverted by User:EkoGraf because: These are Kyrgyz who hold Russian citizenship and fought as part of the regular Russian military. This section is reserved only for foreign citizens (non-Ukrainian and non-Russian)

But not all of them hold Russian citizenship (only one of them is mention to hold Russian citizenship - the third one from the second source). Also, it looks like all of them were or will be buried in Kyrgyzstan. For example, for the one refereed in the third link (I used google translate) we have this statement from his brother: "He left for Russia about two years ago. When he went to Ukraine, I can't say. But he went voluntarily. He died in the city of Rubizhne, Luhansk region. The body of the brother was brought from Moscow, the funeral took place on June 3. He was a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, he had no plans to obtain Russian citizenship, said Islan Polotov." Also, the source says: There is information about the voluntary participation in the warfare of migrants who hope to receive Russian citizenship in exchange for military service.

@EkoGraf, please take a closer look, because at least some of them meet the criteria to be added on that section (in my opinion, all of them).Cristi767 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment:Hello all, just wanted to add to the discussion on criteria for foreign casualties. I don't think Russian or Ukrainian citizenship is good reason to exclude casualties because the countries can offer citizenship for service and give it either before or after they serve. I think the criteria should be "fighters who traveled from their home country to fight in this war". In this case it seemed to me the sources indicated they were recruited into service and given citizenship to fight in Ukraine, so I'd advocate their inclusion.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree.

Another strong criteria could be the country where the bodies were repatriated and buried. In some case the fighters indeed have dual citizenship (former USSR republics citizens), but they are taken to their homeland where their relatives/families lives, when killed. Not to Russia.

For example i found this source https://www.rferl.org/a/tajiks-killed-fighting-ukraine/31767197.html claiming on March 23 that, in all, the bodies of at least four Tajik men who were killed while fighting alongside Russian armed forces in Ukraine had been repatriated to Tajikistan. I think we should count them as foreign casualties despite the fact that some of them might have a dual citizenship. Cristi767 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Foreign fighters casualties

Now that more foreign losses are being reported, could we add two new colums to the table? in adition to the killed another two captured and missing are needed. Any thoughts? Mr.User200 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If a significant number of those appears, sure. For now seems only three nationalities captured and two nationalities missing. Would wait a bit for the list to get larger. EkoGraf (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Any reason why we have casualties according to "Russian government" and "Donetsk PR" but not independent numbers or those from the Ukrainian ministry of defense? Volunteer Marek 21:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

IStories looks like an OSINT source. Those are of varying quality. Is it reliable here? Also, note that this is also only "explicitly confirmed" deaths Volunteer Marek 21:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Most recent independent numbers are there (US estimate from June 15). We replace the older ones. As for Ukrainian MoD claims, they are presented in text/prose form as I explained it above and at your talk page. IStories' figures were recently included [8] in an article by Business Insider which shows a level of notability/reliability considered towards it. Plus, their figures are almost identical to those published by the joint project of BBC News Russian/Meduza. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason why they shouldn't be in the table since that's what most readers will look at. Likewise, writing "4,100+ killed" (which you then actually changed to "4,100" without the plus and stuck the crucial info into a footnote, and that in a misleading way) completely mischaracterizes the sources. A person looking at it will think "oh so it's maybe 4,200". But the "+" means that all other estimates are an order of magnitude higher. We're talking that "+" being bigger than four or five times the given number! If you're going to use these OSINT "these are the deaths we confirmed by name" numbers then you have to present them for what they really are. Volunteer Marek 00:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding claims of ones enemy losses, like I said at your talk page, I would not object their inclusion but first so everything is procedurally sound we reach a talk page agreement among multiple editors before proceeding. As for the "+", like I already commented on your talk page, I do not object to replacing the "+" indicator with a note including explanatory text. But your edit here [9] reverted a lot more than just the issue of the note like I commented on your talk page. Also, there was no "misleading" intention, I would ask you (like I did in many of our other arguments in the past) to stick to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. I recommended to you to rewrite the footnote as you see fit. What I wrote was simply a beginning so we could continue on improving the information. I also attempted to write a universal footnote for both confirmed UN and BBC/Meduza/IStories figures. But since you wanted more concrete wording regarding the BBC/Meduza/IStories ones, I have now separated them. EkoGraf (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Until the move permanently solidified at the Invasion article's talk page, I have temporarily moved the belligerent's claims of enemy casualties from text/prose form into the table as per your request. EkoGraf (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. You keep tucking away crucial info into a footnote and adding stuff to the footnote that does not come from sources. Where in the world do you get the "actual number of deaths possibly 40-60% higher"? It's not here. It's not here either.

Please stop putting in your own original research into this article. Volunteer Marek 01:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It's not OR, its per the source [10]. Quote (in English) - "Thus, we can assume that the list of confirmed losses maintained by the BBC may contain at least 40-60% fewer names of the dead than actually buried in Russia." Or to put it in other words, the actuall number is possibly 40-60% higher. If you wish to use the same wording verbatim instead go ahead. Anyway, unlike others, I do not add stuff without sources. And I would ask (the second time during this argument at least) to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. EkoGraf (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

at least

buried in Russia

It's OR. Volunteer Marek 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I actually do not even understand your last argument "at least buried in Russia". Like I said, if you want to reword it please do so. EkoGraf (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The source says "at least 40-60% higher". You turned that into " possibly 40-60% higher."

The source says these are only those "buried in Russia". Not all Russian dead have been buried in Russia. Many of them were left on battlefield etc.

Turning this into "possibly 40-60% higher dead", when other sources give numbers that are at least 100% higher is original research. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: First, the source actually also says "may contain at least". Which in my native language also similarly translates to "probably". And per WP guidelines we are to write freely in our own words based on the references and not copy-paste it. As for the "buried in Russia" + "left on the battlefield" + "other sources give numbers that are at least 100% higher", that IS actually OR (combining several different sources of information). Anyway, I (again) went ahead as per your request [11] and removed the text you were (again) uncomfortable with. Instead of trying to talk to me like I'm your enemy, you could possibly try and take a less hostile stance, while I am trying to find a compromise solution. I have seen the current discussion regarding your behavior with other fellow editors at the noticeboard. And although I don't support such kinds of acts, you being dragged out onto the noticeboard in that way, I can understand other editors if they have less patience than me when trying to resolve an issue with you. Thus once again I ask you to try and communicate with me towards resolving all outstanding issues. EkoGraf (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you cannot change "at least" to "possibly" since those two phrases mean completely different thing. You can't cherry pick a sentence about a subset of casualties and pretend these are entire casualties. I am simply removing this stuff as this isn't actual "casualties" or "killed". This is "some proportion of those dead who were buried in Russia that were confirmed by name". THIS is the kind of stuff you put in text, not in a table. The table should have basic estimates of actual "killed" from main parties. Volunteer Marek 02:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That is all your own personal opinion and as you said earlier about the Ukrainian claims there is no reason not to include them. So please leave your personal opinions aside and lets find a compromise solution, which I have been trying to do all night, instead of forcing your own opinion through. EkoGraf (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, come on, the very next sentence is "According to British intelligence, by mid-June, Russia had lost about 20,000 people in Ukraine. According to the General Staff of Ukraine, the death toll of the Russian military has exceeded 34,000". Why not use those numbers rather than just these "fraction of those buried in Russia verified by name"? Volunteer Marek 02:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Like I said, combination of several different sources (British intelligence, Ukrainian military, etc) to make a conclusion is personal OR. Also, those are all estimates and claims, not confirmed numbers, unlike those by the BBC News/Meduza project and IStories. So, all estimated, claimed or confirmed numbers need to be presented. EkoGraf (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not combining anything! I'm saying that if you're going to include "killed" then include "killed" - per British intelligence, etc - not "a portion of those buried within Russia identified by name". Volunteer Marek 02:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The British estimate was substituted because a newer US estimate showed up. It is simple as that. But if you are so insistent on including the older British estimate that's fine. EkoGraf (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You also used this "possibly 40-60% higher" for the IStories source (it still hasn't been clarified whether that's reliable or not), even though that sources doesn't say anything like that. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That was a leftover from my earlier attempt at a universal note for all the "confirmed" figures. Missed it. Anyway, like I said above, I have removed the mention of 40-60 percent so the note now corresponds in language to both BBC News/Meduza and IStories with language you requested. EkoGraf (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Final compromise attempt. Now virtually almost everything you wanted is written in [12], including the British estimate, although I tried finding the original report and outside of that BBC News couldn't find it. The closest I did was a report by the Guardian from June 9, citing a "western official" saying the estimate is 15,000-20,000. But anyway, added the one you asked for. EkoGraf (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are still insistent on the issue of the confirmed by names deaths, I would ask you please not remove them, as per WP guidelines on maintaining a status quo, until other editors have had a chance to voice their opinion. Like I said, these numbers have been reported on by RS such as BBC News, Business Insider, Moscow Times, etc. Also, the differents between what has been estimated/claimed with what has been confirmed needs to be presented, regardless what you or me thing about the figures. Going to ping all editors who have been previously involved on such or similar issues so they can have a chance to express their opinion. @Cinderella157:@KD0710:@N8wilson:@Viewsridge:@Jr8825:@PilotSheng:@PilotSheng:@Mr.User200:@Pincrete:@Slatersteven: EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave it in the form it is now, for now. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What we should include "Russian claims" (and only thiers, not client states), "Ukrainan claims" (dito). As to others, I am unsure why one source should be used over another, so maybe list all the third-party estimates. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem is there are no Russian claims. The last ones were given more than three months ago and even then they only talked about the losses of the Russian Armed Forces, not those of Rosgvardiya, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

thousands of deaths???

Tens of thousands.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian boys who fought for Ukraine

Can thess be used as a reference source for the two Russian-born brothers who died fighting for Ukraine? And added to the foreign casualty count https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-brothers-chernihiv/31788858.html#:~:text=Roman%20and%20Leonid%20Butusin%20were,Ukrainians%2C%22%20said%20one%20mourner. https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russian-soldiers-vladimir-putin-roman-butusin-leonid-butusin-1695138 MSTVD (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter claim of additional three foreign fighters killed

A Twitter account report a image with the portraits of killed foreign fighters. Most seems to be already at the article, with their proper sources BTW, however regarding the alleged second German foreign fighter, some internet sites recall posts from telegram and Twitter that Daniel Gerliani was a German citizen that died while fighting for Ukraine.1 Look the photo of him carrying a rocket launcher. That person died according to Ukrainian media, however Ukraine have denied that he was a German citizen. In short he was a natural born Ukrainian.2. I have reverted the claim.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! That leaves an additional American and Frenchman unexplained. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Third Frenchman added with Ukr source, regarding the other American, cant find any source.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Saw, great, thanks! I also added an update regarding foreigners fighting in the Russian Army. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request (Prisoners)

Are "Ukrainian Prisoners" prisoners held by Ukraine or Ukrainians held by the Russians? And vice versa, obviously? 2A00:23C5:6E0D:8E01:7620:F67:A82B:54FA (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualities according to US, UK, and other third parties

All such estimate use the word "Russians", e.g. "Some 15,000 Russians have died in the five-month-old invasion of Ukraine, the US and British spy chiefs said"[13], "The Russians have probably taken 70 or 80,000 casualties in less than six months,"[14]. Therefore they are supposed to include PMK Wagner, but not DPR & LPR. This should be marked in the table. The difference is important, as DPR & LPR reportedly mobilize everyone they can and suffer huge losses. Urod (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would add the interest of Russia to recrute 137.000 people, seemingly connected to the Ukrainian-Russian-War to replenish the lost soldiers by desertion, retirement, wounded or death. --2003:DF:A704:3159:7C88:8BD4:2829:9FFE (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Typo

"On 13 March, Aliaksiej Skoblia, Belorusian volunteer..." Should be "Belarusian" instead. 188.195.216.162 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

DPR's claim of Ukrainians killed is absurd

I feel like the DPR's claim of 193,000+ Ukrainians killed or wounded is just absurd, as that's around about the number of active troops that Ukraine had pre-invasion, which would not only be impossible in just 6 months, but if it were true, then the Ukrainian lines would've already collapsed, which is obviously not the case. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of our personal opinions about a belligerent's claims, we include both sides claims of their enemies' losses, just like we include Ukraine's claims of Russian losses, even though 3rd party neutral sources consider them unreliable and inflated. EkoGraf (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I know, but I do feel like Ukraine's claim of Russian losses is more plausible than this. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I never encountered any 3rd party neutral sources which would explicitly call Ukrainian estimates "unreliable and inflated". The difference between Ukrainian and USA estimates are probably due to DPR and LPR which are not counted by the USA but counted by Ukrainians, see my comment above and the link [15]. Urod (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, given how ridiculous these claims are this would indeed be a violation of WP:PRIMARY - you'd need SEVERAL secondary sources reporting on this. Volunteer Marek 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As per WP's policy on neutrality, we present all sides claims, regardless if some may consider one or the other ridiculous. In regards to Ukraine's estimate, this was heavily discussed at one point months ago and agreed a number of RS consider both sides are engaging in potentially unreliable and inflated claims. Thus, we agreed that an emphasis would be made that both sides engage in unreliable propaganda claims. If we remove one side's claims, we should be removing the others' as well. The source for the 193,000 DPR claim isn't coming from them directly, but TASS (secondary source) which relayed the information. I have also added another secondary source which relayed the information (Independent Australia). PS VM, I replaced the source you added for Ukraine's claim of Russian casualties which you cited to Ukraine's Ministry of Defense with a Ukrainian news outlet, a bit more secondary and its updated regularly each day. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but come on, common sense still applies. These numbers are simply ridiculous even by Russian propaganda standards. Volunteer Marek 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, not up to us to decide what is ridiculous and what is not, that's POV editing. Many would say Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties are ridiculous. And a non-primary secondary source has been provided for Russia's claim. Most proper solution as per WP's policy on neutrality is to present both claims and let the readers decide on their own what to trust, and not for us to tell them what to read. Either include both claims or none at all. If not inserted in the tables, the next most proper way in my opinion would be to move both claims to text form in a first paragraph bellow the table. The figures can also be bolded so to be noticeable. But anyway, like I said, I have no energy anymore to argue with you. If you want it to be unbalanced in favor of one (Ukrainian) POV then ok. EkoGraf (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Between, I'm considering removing the figure documented by "Important Stories", since it seems they are at this point lagging behind BBC News and Mediazone in their documentation of Russian fatalities somewhat. Before they were more or less the same, but not anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This one I agree with. Volunteer Marek 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

On the section that says Pro Russian Ukranian civilians please can you change the section about Oleksiy Zhuravko and put: * On 25 September 2022, Oleksiy Zhuravko, a former member of the Ukranian Parliament, died in a Ukrainian airstrike on Kherson during the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive..

Also on the section above this one about Oleksii Kovalov, please can you remove the words "the People's Deputy" and keep it as "a member of the Ukrainian Parliament", so that it matches all the other names. 92.2.149.55 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC) 92.2.149.55 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

 Already done Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

I was looking to see a tabulation of the number of prisoners of war held by each side. While I see a table of the prisoner of war exchanges, I do not see a similar table of prisoners of war held as a function of time. I am sure that this data exists somewhere, maybe the IFRC keeps track of this data? In any case, a table with date in the first column, showing the number of prisoners held by each side (possibly broken down by RU, DPR and LPR) would be useful information.
Enquire (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

PoW exchanges are tabulated, this is important. However, to put that in context it would be perhaps more important to tabulate the number of men and women who remain as PoWs - both known and suspected, since we may not have access to full and accurate information).

Does anyone know of any sources of data on this?

Enquire (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Please fix alphabetical order

This is a small edit: R comes before U (foreign civilian deaths). 84.198.208.133 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Foreign civilian deaths

Do we include civilians killed, for example, in Ukrainian shelling of Belgorod region? (It seems like every two weeks, 3 or 4 civilians are killed by Ukrainian shelling of Belgorod) or the plane crash into the building? If so, I'll put them in. Let's talk about it PilotSheng (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Add 111 to the Kharkiv Oblast section of the Civilian Casualties in 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Add 35 to Ukrainian Forces Casualties in the 2022 Russia Invasion of Ukraine Source: https://twitter.com/vital_ovchar/status/1583150192945086464 JacobiLevin12 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not a reliable source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Questionable information for Azerbaijan

Someone recently changed Azerbaijan fighter deaths from 6 to 21. Exact names of fighters were also added but not found anywhere in citation. Also, one of the added articles mentions that the Azerbaijani fighter was a citizen of Ukraine, so not sure why listed under Azerbaijan? I don't think this list based on ethnicity.

I restored old information which actually talk about deceased Azerbaijani fighters being returned to Azerbaijan, I think that's more reliable than other article that talks about larger numbers without any documentation or names. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As per WP guidelines unreliability needs to be established. If you are questioning QIRIM News's report of 20 dying as of October 20th, then you need to provide a basis that the source is unreliable. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that requires us to list only those whose names have been announced. @Mr.User200 properly sourced all of the information. Further, as was discussed months ago, we are not listing just foreign citizens killed in the conflict, but also foreign-born Ukrainian or Russian citizens. For example, the two Russians and one of the British killed also held Ukrainian citizenship, while almost all of the South Ossetians, Tajiks, Kyrgyz and so on also held Russian citizenship since they were members of the regular Russian military. EkoGraf (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That someone was the one that in first place considered and begun to update Azerbaijan national losses. Also the source is Qirim a Ukrainian media currently in operations outside Crimea. Is not a Russian source, regarding the names I will reintroduce them but with their proper sources.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The names come from the entries of the FB page of the Rada of Azerbaijanis in Ukraine, translated from Ukrainian and Azerbaijani, as well as other sources. Literal translation from the page:

1) Azerbaijani Safarov Ali Gasan ogli, a native of the city of Heranboy, who lives in Poltava, died for the territorial integrity and freedom of Ukraine! Eternal memory and glory to Heroes! Another compatriot took a martyr’s death for the territorial integrity and freedom of Ukraine. He died during the mortar shelling of the Luhansk front. He has a son and daughter living in Krivoy Rog. Our Martyr’s brother is now fighting in the direction of Bakhmut! God will rest his soul. Glory to Ukraine! Media report

2) In battles for the liberation of the Luhansk region from the Russian occupiers died our compatriot Mamedov Ruslan Gusein oglie. Ruslan Mamedov was born on 15.09.1984, was a well-known representative of the Azerbaijani diaspora of Kharkiv region, an active participant of many events of the “Dostlug” company aimed at strengthening and developing multilateral friendly relations between Ukraine and Azerbaijan. We express the most sincere and deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of our countryman and fearless warrior, who gave his life for the freedom and territorial integrity of Ukraine, Mamedov Ruslan Hussein ogli. Light memory and eternal glory to the Heroes of Ukraine! Media report

3) Junior Lieutenant of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Nakhid Ibisov (native of Sabirabad district of Azerbaijan) heroically died reflecting Russian aggression towards the Kherson region.Eternal memory to Heroes! Allah rəhmət eləsin! Link

4) The 191st day since the beginning of a full-scale Russian military invasion of Ukraine in battles with the invaders killed the warrior of the Ukrainian army of Azerbaijani origin Aliyev Rustam Ramazan oglu! Eternal Glory to Heroes! Media report

5) Ukraine lost another brave defender of Azerbaijani origin in battles. Kerim Gulamov, who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine after the beginning of Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, participated in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. He was born in Obukhov, and for the last few years lived in Irpen. Kerim worked as a presenter on the Ukrainian music channel M1. Ruhu şad olsun! Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes! Glory to the Armed Forces! Media report

6) Another Azerbaijani hero died in battles for the liberation of Ukraine. Mamedov Fuad Farhad oglu died in battles for the city of Konstantinovka in Donetsk region. The farewell ceremony took place in the Kyiv mosque. May God mercy all our martyrs.Media report

7)Vahid Azim Oglu Azizov Media report

8)Elnur Elshan Oglu Hasanov Link

9)Elshad Agalov Link

10)Huseynov Said Vasif Oglu Link
Mr.User200 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So those names come from a Facebook page? According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Facebook, Twitter etc are not good sources and are self-published, so better not add that back.

I am still confused about this: "we are not listing just foreign citizens killed in the conflict, but also foreign-born Ukrainian or Russian citizens". I think title should somehow reflect this. You should not call Ukrainian citizens "foreign" just because they were born somewhere else. So must be clarified that it is foreign or foreign-born. Whatever was discussed months ago is not apparent to readers anywhere. Criteria should be fully disclosed on the article and explained instead of trusting someone person's inside knowledge. If that's the definition of "foreign" you support, burden to have clarification should be on users that support such unusual definition.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP Guideline WP:SOCIALMEDIA we can use them as long as:"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" so as long as they are not speaking about a third party we can use them, in this case as a note for further detail of those deaths.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Added media links for every name.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

The table of Total casualties in section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for Russian forces it correctly states 7,822 killed (conf. minimum by names), however the time period in the next collumn is wrong, it state until 13 October 2022, but on the source webpage you can see that the number 7,822 killed is valid for period until 21 October 2022. 185.22.214.62 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. EkoGraf (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest US estimates

@Nihlus1:, regarding your edit here [16], this was already discussed some months ago among editors over at the main invasion article. The US includes all Russian-led forces in its casualty counts and it does not differentiate. This is because the DPR/LPR have been confirmed to have been integrated into the overall Russian military structure for some time now (led by regular Russian officers) even before the invasion. Further, especially since the declared annexation, the DPR/LPR forces can also be now formally considered part of the Russian military (and not just proxy forces). Additional proof that the US includes in its toll all Russian-led forces is seen here [17] where they noted their figures also include Wagner Group contractors/mercenaries (not regular military). As for the civilian toll, the exact statement by Miley (see the Associated Press (RS) report citation [18]) was that "He said as many as 40,000 Ukrainian civilians and “well over” 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the war..." He never actually said that 40,000 Ukrainian civilians were killed only. The other sources miss-quoted him. Going to ping some other editors who have been previously involved on such or similar issues so they can have a chance to express their opinion. @Cinderella157:@PilotSheng:@Mr.User200:@Pincrete: If you still insist, after the clarification, that it should be 40,000 killed, then I suggest putting it as 40,000 Ukrainian casualties and noting that some sources have cited the figure referring to both killed and wounded, while others to only killed. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The actual quote per Reuters is "You're looking at well over 100,000 Russian soldiers killed and wounded. Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side. A lot of human suffering." I can't find the exact quote for the 40,000 civilians, but your paraphrase is wrong, it wasn't connected to the 100,000 "killed and wounded." Every RS I can find, from the New York Times to Reuters to Business Insider to the BBC, specifies that he said that 40,000 were killed. As for the militia and mercenaries: the last US loss estimate might have counted Wagner, but in this one Milley specifically said "Russian soldiers." It's not really debateable. If you're quoting what he and the secondary sources actually said, the 100,000+ is just for Russians, not "Russians and also non-Russian militiamen from territories we don't acknowledge as Russian."--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, according to the Associated Press the 40,000 civilians were connected to the 100,000 "killed and wounded" and ITV News went a step further in the distinction. Now, the Washington Post has also reported [19] the 40,000 includes both killed and injured. Anyway, still, going to make a compromise edit due to the discrepancy in reporting [20] like proposed above, with three sources cited for one interpretation, and three for the other. As for the military death toll. Sources have stated that the latest figure of 100,000 is an update in regards to their previous figure of 80,000, which clearly included mercenaries as well and not just regular soldiers. At no point has the US stated it is not counting DPR/LPR servicemen in their count and like I said, editors discussed this previously and agreed the toll more than likely includes all Russian-led forces (based on the confirmed DPR/LPR integration in the Russian military structure) and their recent admission that count includes the mercenaries is further corroboration they do not count just regular servicemen. And if we are to be precise about the terminology/definition, militia are considered to be non-professional soldiers, while a mercenary is defined as a private soldier. Miley never stated he is talking about regular soldiers exclusively. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Euronews has now also referred to the figure of 40,000 as simply "casualties" [21]. Going to include it as well. EkoGraf (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press is simply wrong. I posted the full quote from Reuters, and they're not connected. 40,000 is mentioned in a separate quote, and by all RSs I can find, it was just for killed. As for the DPR/LPR militia, as as I'm aware the Americans have always distinguished between them and actual "Russian soldiers." Case in point, all the way back in 2015, the US State Department officially estimated 400-500 "Russian soldiers" died in Ukraine, at a time where the DPR/LPR militias were widely known to have lost thousands. Nothing official has ever considered the puppet militiamen to be "Russian soldiers", which is what Milley was claiming comprised the 100,000+ figure.--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying AP is wrong and Reuters is right is a personal POV. Fact is, you have AP, ITV News and the Washington Post saying he referred to both killed and injured, and Euronews which referred to the figure as "casualties" (which by definition means killed or injured), while other sources have said he meant only killed. Too much of a discrepancy, so this has been noted (that some outlets say killed and injured, while others just killed).
As for the US State Department estimate from seven years ago, its not comparable to today's count. First, they are not counting the same things. It was discussed back in 2015 by editors as well and consensus was, based on various reliable sources of the time, that the Russian servicemen that were reported killed died while fighting in the ranks/under the cover of the DPR/LPR (described as DPR/LPR volunteers by Russia). Subsequent lists of DPR/LPR losses that were published showed they included active-duty Russian servicemen.
As for today's estimate, at no point, since the start of the invasion, has the US stated their "invasion" count includes only regular Russian Army servicemen and they have never distinguished between them. At no point, have they made a separate count of DPR/LPR losses. Finally (again), the fact that in their previous estimate from August the US admitted they are counting Wagner mercenaries as well confirms they do not count just regular servicemen in their estimate. Further, at the time, when US officials admitted counting the mercenaries as well, they referred to the overall number of killed as 20,000 Russian "soldiers" (so they do consider them soldiers). Also, it should be noted that both Ukraine and the US have stated the the 1st (Donetsk) and 2nd (Luhansk) Army Corps (of the militias) have been subordinated to Russia's 8th Guards Combined Arms Army since the start of the invasion. EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Here you go [22], when the US estimate reached 15,000-20,000 killed towards the end of July it was stated their count includes all categories of combatants (regulars, militias, mercenaries). EkoGraf (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping in respect to discussion that occurred here. Per the AP, Milley is reported to say: He said as many as 40,000 Ukrainian civilians and “well over” 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the war, now in its ninth month. “Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side,” Milley added. Some of the other sources referring are behind a paywall. Casualties are KIA + WIA. Milley is painting with a broad brush: “well over” 100,000 Russian soldiers. Applying the concept of significant figures, this could mean anything up to 150,000. It is a vague statement and should be treated as such. Other US reports have indicated casualties are inclusive of forces under Russian control (ie the sum of forces opposing Ukraine). Where Milley is reported to refer to "Russian soldiers" I think this should be construed broadly rather that more narrowly such that it would only include Russian Army personnel and exclude naval, air force, paramilitary and militia forces. Even in the [unlikely] case that Milley is being very precise about who are casualties, he is being very imprecise about how many. Paramilitary and militia casualties are an order of magnitude less than the quoted figure and whether they are inclusive or exclusive of the figure quoted, the figure quoted is not significantly changed. That is how significant figures work. In other words, don't pretend we know something to a greater accuracy than we do. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

In the Foreign fighters and volunteers section a death of a citizen of Slovakia should be included. He fought on the side of Luhansk PR forces and is death was annouced in Slovakia on October 6, 2022. Below you can see several news articles confirming his death:

https://tvnoviny.sk/zahranicne/clanok/304773-v-bojoch-na-ukrajine-zahynul-slovak-bojujuci-na-strane-ruska https://dennikn.sk/minuta/3043164/ https://www.dnes24.sk/sokujuca-sprava-z-ukrajiny-vo-vojne-udajne-zomrel-slovak-ktory-bojoval-na-strane-rusov-423171 185.22.214.62 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Added, thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

For 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, change the number of Russian and Allies "losses" to 79,400. source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/11/7375901/ 2603:7000:2200:631:902F:BBF3:A5F0:285E (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Add 2 Polish civilian casualties to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (civilian deaths) Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3736711-russian-missiles-reportedly-cross-into-poland-killing-two/ JacobiLevin12 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is a highly sensitive issue that is still developing. The nature of the missile and its origin remain unclear; it is better to add these casualties when there is clear and reliable information on what happened, beyond "there is debris" and speculation. Please ping me if you decide to re-open this request at a later date. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

In the table for "Total Casualties" under "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," change the number of "Russian and allied forces" casualties estimated by the Ukrainian government from 97,270 losses to 100,400 losses. Source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/12/22/7381843/ JacobiLevin12 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side"

That is NOT a particularly strong basis to write 100,000+ casualties on. Especially since the guy's comments were about Russian casualties and he just threw that in there as an add on. Aside from falsely misrepresenting this as some kind of "official estimate" it doesn't have the "probably" - the speculative nature of the off hand remark. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So per your reasoning BBC News[23], the New York Times[24], the Guardian[25], Washington Post[26], Forbes[27], Japan Times[28], Brookings[29], Al Arabiya[30], all RS, falsely misrepresented this as 100,000 Ukrainian troops casualties or actually did not have a strong basis to report it as such? Not to mention several of them (BBC, Guardian, Washington Post) in their very headlines said the "US estimates" or "US says". He is the very top US general that exists and he was speaking in his official capacity as US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (regardless I already tried compromising by saying its a US CJCS estimate, not US estimate). And I would point out once again that notability of the estimate has been established by the very fact so much RS reported on it, that there is no basis for the estimates' exclusion. EkoGraf (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging several editors involved with the article to voice their opinion as well and potentially propose what should be done Mr.User200 PilotSheng Poklane Nihlus1. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that "Volunteer Marek" self proclaims himself to be a partisan / activist on behalf of Ukraine, and his opinion when given might be best viewed in that light.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)