Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine

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.

---

The heading above is a link to the RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.

See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

RfC on Belarus in the infobox

Whether Belarus should continue to be reported in the infobox as supporting (or like) Russia. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This RfC is opened in light of a recent RfC that specifically deprecates the use of supported by under the belligerent field of Template:Infobox military conflict and because the reporting of Belarus in the infobox as supporting Russia has now been directly challenged by others, directly citing that supported by is now deprecated. As a note, the addition of other countries in support of either Russia or Ukraine is a well settled matter in that there have been several RfCs affirming that other counties and/or NATO should not be recorded. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In most other contexts this would be mere quibbling, but I would like it to be recorded that (in your own words above) All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". followed by a consensus to postpone further rounds of review is not precisely the same thing as a well settled matter in that there have been several RfCs affirming that other counties and/or NATO should not be recorded.

Regardless, I agree with you that there is no compelling reason to have any instances of "Supported by:" on this page.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Belarus provided direct military assistance in the form of basing, and transit. Russia even launched missile attacks from its soil. This is rather more than just "support" and raised (to my mind) to the level of belligerent status. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It think your justification above is the reason why Belarus is in the infobox at all (while e.g. US, Poland etcetera are not even if they provide weapons to Ukraine). For belligerent the Belarus army should have been engaged in military contact with Ukraine (in my view), that is actual fighting by Belarus armed personnel. There does not seem to be any reports on that. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I am not alone [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what point you want to make with that source, the only Belarusian fighting described there is of Belarusian volunteers fighting on the side of Ukraine. Arnoutf (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention it’s a POV think tank source with a polemical tone. Seems to be rendering Belarusian ангельцы / Russian англичане as "Englishmen" rather than a more usual near-synonym for effect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of all third parties, Belarus is by far the most involved one; of course it should stay in the "supported by" section. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The recent RfC specifically deprecated the use of "supported by". To be a belligerent means to engage in the fighting. Supplying weapons to one side or the other or both does not count. Allowing one side or the other to transit your territory or use it as a base area does not count. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Belarus should be remain in the infobox as a substantial contributor to the war on Russia’s side and violator of international laws against aggression, threat of force, crimes against war-affected civilians, and genocide.

Belarus’s involvement is short of participation in armed conflict, but it is concrete and goes beyond rhetorical political support, and it goes beyond the activities of trade and donations, including provision of financial, and humanitarian aid, training, dual-use and military equipment, and weapons. All of those things routinely take place in peacetime and none of them create a state of armed conflict. All of these things are the right of Ukraine and its allies according to the UN Charter art. 51.

Belarus’s involvement includes crimes that can only be a part of war:

• Allowing the use of its airspace, soil, and 1,100-km border to invade Ukraine, to launch strikes, and conduct infiltrations against Ukraine over 18 months, and to threaten further invasion and attacks, pinning Ukrainian troops to prevent them from participating in the counteroffensive, and forcing Ukrainian air-defence to cover a much larger region. This is a violation of international law that falls under the UN’s definition of aggression (art. 3f).[2]
• Participating in Russia’s nuclear threats against Ukraine by claiming that Russian nuclear weapons are being moved to Belarusian soil and would be used in a conflict.[3] This is while Russian nuclear bombers launch strikes from Belarusian airspace against civilian targets all over Ukraine. This is a violation of international law.
• Participating in the war crime of kidnapping Ukrainian children,[4][5][6][7] a genocidal act according to the Genocide Convention and reliable sources.[8][9] This is a violation of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

But not under the extremely broad write-in heading of “Supported by.” For example, Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War:xiv–xv has a map with the legend “Supports Russia” indicating Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela, where the phrase refers to political support. As a state subject to Russian coercion and not fully free and independent[10][11][12] (ISW has called Belarus de-facto occupied since its 2022 constitutional amendment),[13][14] it should be nested under Russia along with the DLNR puppet states. —Michael Z. 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [edited.]

• I agree with Slatersteven and Mzajac, while Belarus may not be directly engaged in the fighting its role is far beyond that of a mere supporter of Russia's invasion. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree Belarus' role is larger than that of e.g. Iran (supporting Russia) or Poland (supporting Ukraine). That is why Belarus is mentioned at all, and those (dozens of) other countries that support either party are not.
  • For the proposed status belligerent however, the question remains (and is unanswered) whether Belarus is actually a belligerent. I would say no as the Belarus army does not fight it fulfils the definition of being a Non-belligerent. Of course I am open to people providing secondary legal sources that argue Belarus actually is a belligerent under the definition of international law, to change my opinion. But no such sources have been provide here. Arnoutf (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• As others above have noted, Belarus has supported Russia, but, in my view hasn't really actively engaged enough to be counted as a "belligerent". Ideally, it would be listed as a "supporter" in the infobox, but apparently that just got deprecated. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, the use of 'supported by' is deprecated, but not prohibited. The closer noted that there are ... some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted, though that these are rare instances and that ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. The question here is whether or not this is one of those times. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  One of the main reasons cited to remove is that the continued inclusion of Belarus while various other countries, who have provided copious amounts of intelligence, mass "donations" of weaponry, and large-scale specialized training, are omitted is sketchy in terms of NPOV, and contrary to general practice prior to deprecation. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the central argument of your response seems to be equating wrongness/illegality with the material facts of support. The obvious corollary would be that the purpose of the infobox and the broader article is to publicize Russia's illegal aggression. WP is not a platform for information warfare, no matter how righteous the cause.

Besides, as we all know, almost all of the facts are on Ukraine's side so why the **** can't we just present the facts in an unvarnished, encyclopedic manner?

While I have to admire your honesty, this is part of a long-standing and apparently intractable pattern and the scale of it gives rise to such serious concerns that alternate routes toward an attempted solution of these concerns might be called for.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re wrong. The central argument is that Belarus’s actions are integrally tied into the war. If you’re committing war crimes against Ukraine you’re involved in the war on Ukraine. If you’re committing war crimes in Belarus, then the war is in Belarus, not only in Ukraine, in Russia, and in the international waters of the Black Sea.

Please assume good faith. Or if you must, then better to conduct character assassination at ANI than here.  —Michael Z. 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Tied to the war can still be support, not being belligerent. I really think we need a reliable secondary source for any claims that Belarus is actually at war (in which case I would agree with their belligerence classification). Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

NATO's involvement includes legitimate acts that can only be a part of war, as well. If, hypothetically, the partnerships were flipped, I think you would be making essentially the same arguments. And as I’ve said, we are concerned with material acts and material facts, not questions of legality.

As for your response regarding conduct… AGF is hardly relevant. I and others have raised these and similar concerns repeatedly and taken together, many of your actions could be construed as disruptive. And as you know, the drama board would be a last resort; there are plenty of intermediate possibilities and nobody wants a mess. All I'm asking, really, is that you chill a bit and think twice or even thrice before initiating things that could potentially end up affecting NPOV. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you chill, take a break from your drama board, and concentrate on the subject instead of me.  —Michael Z. 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• As other editors have noted Belarus is not actively engaged in fighting and thus is cannot be considered as a belligerent. As the "supported by" section of military info boxes is being deprecated it should be removed from this info box as well. Of course, readers can learn about the nuances of supporters in the article text. BogLogs (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that’s not even true as stated. True, Belarusian forces are not engaged in fighting. But the territory of the state, Belarus, is actively engaged in fighting as belligerent forces cross its border in attacks and withdrawals, and are positioned on its territory to pin Ukrainian forces, and as long-range weapons are launched from and cross its territory and borders.  —Michael Z. 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've made your point, and you've been told that's not enough. Drop the stick. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  For those interested in the legal issues, see Schaller, Christian (21 August 2023). "When aid or assistance in the use of force turns into an indirect use of force". Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. doi:10.1080/20531702.2023.2249347. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think Hawkeye7 has already given you the response that your repeated claims have earned. However if you can provide any good sources that directly call Belarus a belligerent in the conflict they can be considered. Also not to be mean or anything but I think you should really think about what RadioactiveBoulevardier was saying to you, it will probably help you and your role on wikipedia in the long run. BogLogs (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought I was making a subtly different point. Sorry.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Belarus should stay in the infobox, its direct involvement in the invasion is unprecedented compared to any other country through free use of its land for transport and missile launches into Ukraine, not to mention less direct but still significant aspects such as allowing itself to be a host for Russian nuclear weapons, hosting of Wagner etc. Whatever wonder decision the editors who spend their time on template guidelines came up with, this is an instance where it's highly appropriate. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would keep them as a supporter, but not (yet) as a belligerent. Belarus has mostly played a supporting role in the conflict with minimal involvement. If they join Russia in the invasion though by sending a larger chunk of their army into there, I would support belligerent status. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would support the current version in the infobox - as it is. Not only it has supported Russia, but it provided its territory to attack Ukraine, which does qualify it as a co-belligerent according to international criteria. This is also consistent with Belarus being a part of the Union State with Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a source for your claim that at state allowing its territory to be used qualifies it as a co-belligerent according to international criteria? This would affect a lot of other infoboxes, making Japan a belligerent in the Korean War, Greece a belligerent in the Gallipoli campaign, and Iran, Iceland and Portugal belligerents in World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This is something complex and highly debatable. See this, this and links provided in these sources. They make a difference between "neutrality" and "qualified neutrality". For example, a country (like USA) that provides weapons for a purpose of self-defense to a victim of unjustified aggression may consider itself neutral in the "qualified sense". My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that legal status is the definition of "supported by"? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I would not be against keeping Belarus and mentioning that in a note (depending on the wording), provided that "qualified neutral" supporters of Ukraine are also listed as such. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What does that mean?

After Belarus, the most involved state would be Iran, shipping drones and sending technical advisors into occupied territory, to attack Ukrainians in Ukraine with long-range loitering munitions. I suppose “qualified neutral” would be North Korea, shipping ammunition while Russia is attacking Ukrainians in Ukraine in defiance of international sanctions, but this is really normal trade. Then maybe Armenia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and other states that bust sanctions over the aggressive of invasion of Ukraine. States shipping weapons to Ukraine with restrictions on use outside Ukrainian territory are actually less than neutral, and should not be added at all.  —Michael Z. 23:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

States imposing sanction on Russia are "qualified neutral"; neutrality would require that they impose sanctions on Ukraine as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about Belarus. Per 2 sources linked above, this country is not neutral (qualified or not) and must be included. Some other countries - this is something debatable (I personally think that USA is not neutral and involved, again per sources above), but this thread is about Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. While the usage of sanctions and training in favor of Ukraine or arms supplies to Russia and Ukraine by different countries creates a discussion about qualified neutrality, Belarus' uniqueness in being the location where the bulk of Russian forces launched the full-scale invasion, along with the permanent presence of Russian troops in Belarus [15].

Arguing about Belarus's importance to be infobox-worthy also negates the point of the infobox: "of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Belarus is notably much more involved in supporting Russia by a long shot than any other Russian allies or supporters, and excluding it from the infobox doesn't give a precise overlook of the belligerents in the war. Jebiguess (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Russia is sanctioned for the crime of aggression (among other things). Ukraine is rightfully defending itself according to the UN Charter art. 51. Please provide sources if you make seemingly outlandish statements about punishing the victim.  —Michael Z. 02:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This not an accurate representation of what Hawkeye7 said. It is a fallacious straw man argument. Misrepresenting what others have said is also inherently WP:UNCIVIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how I misrepresented what they said, because I don’t know what you mean.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, which states are these neutral ones that have sanctioned Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 03:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 made no outlandish statements about punishing the victim (seemingly or otherwise). They simply pointed out that to be a true neutral, a state that imposed sanctions of Russia would also need to apply sanctions of Ukraine. The corollary of this, is that any state imposing sanctions on Russia alone is a qualified neutral. To assert (seemingly or otherwise) that they made outlandish statements about punishing the victim is a clear misrepresentation and a straw man argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you share the source of the definition of these categories “true neutral” and “qualified neutral,” or are they made up? Are there any states that have sanctioned both Ukraine and Russia out of neutrality? It seems that the following declared neutral states are on Russia’s “unfriendly countries” list, mainly because they participated in sanctions against Russia and/or Belarus: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Singapore, and Switzerland. Other neutral states have also sanctioned Russia, including Ireland, Malta, and Moldova. If none of these are “true neutral,” then who is?  —Michael Z. 18:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See "Strict" versus "Qualified" Neutrality for the definition and doctrine of qualified neutrality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Apropos of the restrictions on use outside Ukraine, I’d just like to point out more explicitly than before that donating weapons gratis is generally not considered “less than neutral”. On the fairly rare occasions that such transfers take place in peacetime, the security of the recipient is always of specific interest of the donor (e.g. many Cold War cases), which would qualify as support. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, depending on the situation, providing weapons, geo-fenced weapons, ammunition, counterbattery radar, vehicles, helmets, blankets, and first aid kits is like providing food, digging machinery, and water purifiers. Okay. None of those things make a state a legal belligerent in either peacetime or war. There is already a broader consensus not to put this under “Belligerents” in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 14:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

European Parliament just passed a resolution about Belarus’s involvement in the war.

• Ivan Borysenko, “Lukashenko must answer for aggression against Ukraine alongside Putin — EU parliament,” NV (MSN).

 —Michael Z. 23:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Full text of the resolution: “European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2023 on relations with Belarus.”

This means that there is more international recognition, jointly by 27 EU members, of Belarus’s involvement in the war and resulting legal culpability for “the crime of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide committed against Ukraine,” and an increased impetus and enabling to take measures to prosecute these crimes on the parts of governments and the International Criminal Court.  —Michael Z. 15:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Institute for the Study of War said on October 11, 2022, “Belarus remains a co-belligerent in Russia’s war against Ukraine, nonetheless. Belarus materially supports Russian offensives in Ukraine and provides Russian forces with havens from which to attack Ukraine with precision munitions.”[16] On December 11 it wrote “The Belarusian regime’s support for the Russian invasion has made Belarus a cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko offered Belarusian territory to Russian forces for the initial staging of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Belarusian territory offered critical ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to the Russian Armed Forces in their failed drive on Kyiv and their subsequent withdrawal from northern Ukraine. ISW has previously assessed that Belarus materially supports Russian offensives in Ukraine and provides Russian forces with secure territory and airspace from which to attack Ukraine with high-precision weapons.”[17] Today it wrote “ISW continues to assess that Belarus is a co-belligerent in the war and is involved in the deportation of Ukrainian children.”[18] —Michael Z. 05:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Again with the tone, POV, especially in lead

This has been discussed at least twice before and an edit was even reverted for whatever reason.

The lead has for a long time said "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." This is completely vague statement, without a citation for any source. And just remove the "both sides", it's completely unnecessary and potentially misleading.

First of all, the estimated death toll from Feb 2022 to May 2023 is already 112,000. So forget "tens of thousands" and say it like it is. Well over a hundred thousand.

Total casualties, military only, during that same time: 380,000. Almost certainly over 400,000 now, three months later. Huge numbers.

Humanitarian concerns such as how many civilians were "internally displaced" or what kind of "refugee crisis" the invasion caused should be slightly further down. It should not read like "well, something happened and now there's a refugee crisis". People being "displaced" is quite a different type of crisis compared to people being killed.

In contrast to the above, there are several sources provided indicating this is "the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2." Please do change the lead to reflect that. If you have something against this wording, then please do tell what do you suggest instead. In any case, underplaying this conflict is not acceptable. Forget what-aboutism and other deflection tactics, it makes no difference if some other conflict also had possibly roughly similar numbers of casualties. That doesn't make this conflict any smaller than it is. ShouldIHide (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the Casualties section of the article, the US estimates of civilian and military deaths alone add up to 112,000, for example. The confirmed deaths add up to over 63,000, and all of those sources say there are certainly more. All analyses of war casualties say that the number of wounded is larger than dead, by anywhere from 1.5 to 10 times.

I think any reasonable reading of estimates must tell us that there are likely well over 100k deaths and hundreds of thousands of casualties. The article should say what the sources say is likely: that the number of casualties is not known with certainty but is likely in the hundreds of thousands.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

When broadly describing numbers, we should use the appropriate order of magnitude. Accordingly, just because a number is (slightly) over 200,000 we should not describe it as hundreds of thousands. Its order of magnitude is still 10⁴ and it is appropriately described as tens of thousands. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Says who?  —Michael Z. 02:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it wrong to describe a number over 200,000 as “over 200,000”?  —Michael Z. 02:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read the linked article - order of magnitude. To say, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands is describing an order of magnitude. There is a clearly defined and widely accepted basis for ascribing an order of magnitude to numbers. I did not say anything like [it is] wrong to describe a number over 200,000 as “over 200,000”. Please do not insinuate that I did, since it is a misrepresentation. Also, we have had this discussion before (changing to hundreds of thousands). What of substance has changed that we should revisit it again. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say you did. Your constantly being touchy and wilfully misrepresenting everything as an attack is disruptive.

Try to notice what I am contributing: I don’t know if your example is real or not, but there’s a clearly more precise way to rephrase it that completely sidesteps the argument and judgment call about orders of magnitude.  —Michael Z. 13:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What was said, where it was said and when it was said is a matter of record. I would see your response here as gaslighting. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I see other editors below are alluding to the exact same point.  —Michael Z. 13:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Arguing about the mathematical concept of order of magnitude, here is pointless. It is irrelevant, as you point out.

Saying "more than 100,000" instead would be very clear, it's more precise than the current phrasing and I see no reason why this change is not made.

Also this is not new information. The source for 112,000 deaths (between Feb 2022 and May 2023) is in the article already. The change I'm suggesting is for this information to be in the lead.

There have been 112,000 deaths in Ukraine, not tens of thousands on "both sides".

Do we need to have "consensus", and from "both sides", to state in the article a simple matter of fact? In a world where there are people whose day job is to oppose things (or deflect, or engage in what-aboutism etc.) online? ShouldIHide (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any discussion about changing anything specifically to "hundreds of thousands" which would imply many hundreds of thousands.

By the way, the mathematical concept of order of magnitude is not a matter of opinion. Things in mathematics are not "widely accepted", they are proven, they are fact.

The suggestion is to change "tens of thousands" to "more than 100,000". ShouldIHide (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are asking, where has there been another discussion relating to "tens of thousans" please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_13#Hundreds_of_thousands here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking that. This is not about (however many) "hundreds" of anything.

The suggestion is to change the wording "tens of thousands" to "more than 100,000".

More than one hundred thousand. Is the suggestion clear now? ShouldIHide (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The order of magnitude of any number 100,000 or larger is 10⁵. This very simply is larger than "tens of thousands" (10⁴), speaking either broadly or more specifically. ShouldIHide (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the problem was last time, sources do not support 100,000's of dead, they still only support 10,000's of dead. Casaulties and dead are not synonymous (as 63,000 is not even 100,000). Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Like said, the estimated ("US Estimate" in article) deaths add up to 112,000.

The moment a number exceeds 100,000 indeed the magnitude exceeds "tens of thousands". For numbers over 100,000 the order of magnitude is 10^5, not 10^4. It's not that wrong to describe it as "dozens" (or whatever, really) either but that certainly wouldn't be the most "appropriate" like discussed above.

So the term "tens of thousands" could simply be replaced with "over 100,000". The reference, in that sentence, to "both sides" should just be removed because as it stands you could get the impression there were significant deaths or casualties in Russia which is not the case. Thus the "both sides" is potentially very misleading. The deaths and casualties have occurred practically exclusively in Ukraine.

I suggest to simply change that sentence to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths." even if you won't agree on anything else.

Source for "largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2" has been provided twice within the last month, along with many other sources by other commenters. This is certainly a very notable piece of information and worthy of mention. Not only because of number of casualties but other reasons as well. For example this is not a civil war, insurgency or just a local conflict. The UN cannot intervene because Russia has veto power etc. The stakes are a lot higher than most of us would like.

So in addition, I would change that sentence actually to "The invasion is the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2 and has caused more than 100,000 deaths." (a much higher number of total casualties could be mentioned if you like.)

I looked briefly at how to make an actual edit request but the syntax on how to do that was confusing and the help pages I could find did not explain how exactly to do any of that properly... so for now I'm asking more knowledgeable users to make changes.

ShouldIHide (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request (which will not be done without first getting wp:consensus) or RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not an RfC question. RfCs are not appropriate for questions of fact since facts are facts regardless of the opinions of RfC respondants who may be trying to help but will almost never do any reading before opining. I agree that "tens of thousands" could be 30,000 and should probably change. On the other hand "hundreds of thousands" could be 900,000. So if the current number is 200,00, which I am taking on faith from the above discussion since it's been a while since I edited this article, probably the most neutral representation would be "more than (number) as of (date)". And +1 on minimizing the conflict. Elinruby (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the top of this page "...editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests..." (my emphasis).

I'm not requesting anyone's "comments" on whether or not 112,000 is a larger number than 100,000. I'm requesting someone to actually make this edit because I can not do it myself.

So if you don't mind me asking, who are you to say what "will not be done"? Best regards. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion: note that the war has lead to more than a hundred thousand casualties (back up by the main body). Note high Ukrainian civilian casualties separately, as Russian civilian casualties are low. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think indicating the corresponding ranges of numbers ("estimated", rather than "confirmed") in the infobox would be good. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no simple "range of numbers" that can be reported or would be appropriate to report in an infobox. There is no consensus in sources we can rely upon. That is why a consensus was reached not to report casualties in the infobox while the conflict is ongoing. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

oh this is an infobox question. In that case I agree that this is too complicated for that format and we should send readers to an appropriate section where sufficient context is given. Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not an infobox question. I started this topic and I suggested making a change in the lead. I have suggested this twice before as well.

At least change the sentence "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths."

There are further changes that should be made but seeing as this really simple matter of fact kind of change seems to be somehow controversial for some reason, I don't want to discuss anything else right now. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, the thread is about the lead. I was responding to My very best wishes, who would also add information into the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

OK? Then leaving aside the infobox question for the moment, what is the issue with updating the number? Apparently there is a source that says it is more than 100,000? If that's an estimate, then we say so, no? If it's no doubt higher, it sounds like this can be sourced as well. Even though this is the lede we are talking about and we don't source statements in the lede, I am spelling out that according to the above discussion, there seem to be sources for this. I am not seeing the problem. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not (however) the only estimate, and we can't imply it is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

/me stares: feel free to explain what you are talking about. Other estimates? Which, where, source? Elinruby (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at the table "Estimated and claimed casualties"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

have you looked at the source you asked for? If you think it somehow isn't RS, there's a little thing we like to caLL attribution that should address your concern, ie "According to the New York Times, US estimates put Russian dead at x". I have closed the window now but I believe the number was 112,000. But as you should very well know. NYT *is* RS and we would be updating this in the body. But you asked for a source even though one is already there: here is another. You are welcome. Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I've been trying to emphasize in many of my posts here. The source for "more than 100,000 deaths" has been there for months now. In the previous discussions there were about ten additional sources supporting this claim.

There is nothing that I can see that would prevent this change from being made. I don't even honestly see that many counter-arguments here but still for some reason the change has not been made.

I urge anyone who can, to make this change. Still claiming "tens of thousands" is incredibly misleading when the real number of deaths according to RS is over 200,000 now. The scale of this conflict can not be allowed to be underplayed in what is it, the second sentence of the lead?

Please, make the change.

ShouldIHide (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

[19] seems to confirm over 100,000 dead Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

These RS all believe the NYT report. But if there is another estimate, fine, we report that also.

• "Russia’s military casualties are approaching 300,000, the officials claimed, with as many as 120,000 killed in action." [20]
• "Russia is said to have 120,000 dead (out of 300,000 total casualties) and Ukraine 70,000 dead (out of 200,000)." [21]
• "Russia's military casualties are approaching 300,000, including as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injuries, the newspaper reported. Ukrainian deaths were close to 70,000, with 100,000 to 120,000 wounded, it added"[22] Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Scroll up Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We give a reage in the body, but "The invasion has killed more than one hundred thousand" is referring directly to the text in the lede, so what are we talking about? Discusions need to be focused, not discussing separate issues. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

well yeah, which is why I don't know why you are second-guessing the sources. You have another estimate, produce it and update that too. But the RS are quite clear that its over 100,000, so why would we not say so? Specifics in body, summary in lede. That's how these things are done. Elinruby (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem in adding an "estimated" qualifier somewhere in there, if you prefer.

The main problem is that "tens of thousands" is severely underplaying the real number of deaths that are now (according to the newer estimates) not just well over 100,000 but well over 200,000. (old to new estimates: 112,000 -> 232,000)

These 120,000 additional deaths in only about 2 months should also be a pretty clear sign to everyone about the magnitude of this war, and further supporting the (already reliably sourced) statement that this is indeed legitimately "the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2." which I also suggested to be added as a very notable piece of information.

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying it is not the only source, so we can't use it alone. This is about saying something in the lede as fact, its not its an estimate. Nor is 112,000 "100,000's" its is 10,000'S". So not I do not think it can be used to say anything more than "and higher estimate put the casualties at over 100,000". 10:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

ShouldIHide, you would clarify and narrow your OP. My understanding is that the sentence in the lead that presently reads, The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides would be amended to read, The invasion has killed more than one hundred thousand. Please confirm. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggested changing "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths."

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the war is not over, and we do not really know how many have been killed maybe just remove the line from the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

why would we do that? Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia, and this is not even vaguely encyclopedic, as it will (by wars end) be way off. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your argument would have us strip information from hundreds if not thousands of articles, starting with census and economic data. It is usual to add a date. We go by sources. Sources say over 100,000 and and probably higher. We update articles sometimes. It happens. Elinruby (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And some say lower, we do not know, so either we remove it or we say "between x and Y", or we leave it unchanged as 100,000 must be 10,000's. I have no more to add, and so I oppose any chan get expect removal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, source? Elinruby (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

100,000 is indeed in the "hundreds of thousands" range by definition. Yes, it is "only" one hundred thousand but the range or order of magnitude is "hundreds of thousands". This is a simple fact.

There is however nothing preventing changing the "tens of thousands on both sides" to "more than 100,000".

We do know because casualties well exceeding 100,000 have been listed in the "casualties" section in the same article for a long time now, with accepted aka reliable sources. The estimates have very recently even been updated and they now add up to a total 232,000. What the sources imply is likely, is definitely "more than 100,000" because in fact it is now "more than 200,000".

More than 200,000 deaths. ShouldIHide (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument to remove something. Everything is always off. Every single casualty figure in Wikipedia is an estimate at a certain time with a certain precision. Including the best, latest figures according to reliable sources is encyclopedic.  —Michael Z. 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. Like I said above, there is nothing wrong with providing ranges of numbers per multiple RS in the lead and infobox, just as on many other pages. Yes, the numbers must be based on most recent publications. Yes, there is no consensus about any single number, and it will never be. The numbers are estimated or claimed, but they are reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is also a clearer picture of the magnitude in quotations like this: “According to the latest casualty estimates, Ukraine has lost 200,000 soldiers killed or wounded, and Russia a staggering 300,000.”[23]  —Michael Z. 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No doubts, the losses by both sides exceed 0.5 million. That could be stated somewhere in the lead. Other than that, the numbers are highly imprecise to say the least. Perhaps it was a good idea not to show them in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I also very much agree with this.

In this case, we should report the most recent numbers that are based on reliable sources.

Our own guesses or speculation don't even matter, what matters is what's published in reliable sources and thus can be verified. And we have that. ShouldIHide (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I took a critical look at the Casualties section. The NYT article is already there but only for the Russian casualties for some reason. It was late in my time zone so I just added an update template for the Ukrainian and civilian deaths, though on reflection I am not sure if the NYT source covered civilians. However the total of the most recent numbers in each category still exceeds 100,000 afaict. I get that some may question American numbers, but this is a matter than can be discussed, no? I would be inclined to agree with My very best wishes. There are three categories; two sets of numbers (+British?) would be six figures and three (+British +German or Australian?) would be nine, which seems like too much for the infobox and maybe for the lede too. But if you throw out the top and bottom numbers and report a range, expanded on in the body, that seems doable to me. Question: there are rows in that table for numbers through January 2023. Is there a reason for those to still be there? In any event, I support updating the table. If people prefer a range rather than "more than 100,000" then I would support that as an improvement Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not as simple as some editors would present. Firstly, we are dealing with estimates. Estimates are not facts (ie confirmed). Despite what one editor would say, not [e]very single casualty figure in Wikipedia is an estimate. If we write into the lead something like what is proposed, it should explicitly include that it is an estimate. Anything written in the lead must be supported by the body of the article and be clearly supported and readily apparent to the reader. If the NYT report is the primary basis for asserting >100,000 killed, then the casualty section does not clearly indicate this, in that the tabulation splits this figure in three. In such a case, either the body should be amended and/or the statement in the lead accompanied by a citation. I also see some cofusion over the reliability of sources. While the NYT is considered "reliable" it is nonetheless within the context of WP:NEWSORG, which inherently sets limitations. The NYT attributes the report to a "US official". The report is reliable as to who said it and as to what they said. The information, however, is a primary source for what is attributed. I see there is presently only one recent report that gives an estimate for the total killed (NYT). I would not oppose an amendment to the lead reading The invasion is estimated to have killed more than one hundred thousand provided there is a citation accompanying this and/or the body of the article is edited to clearly support the statement. However, I do not see a need to change the existing wording nor would I oppose striking the existing sentence since all we can say with any confidence is that a lot of people have been killed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which wars’ casualty figures are not either estimates or confirmed casualty lists which are known to be incomplete? We must accept that many or most facts have a level of precision that is not infinite.  —Michael Z. 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For any war involving Australia, there are quite accurate records of casualties. There is a distinction between an estimation and a measurement. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No Australian medical officer ever made a bad entry and no clerk ever made a transcription error. No Ozzie boo-boo remains unrecorded. Maybe they’re more precise, but your claim that they are perfect is likely wrong.  —Michael Z. 23:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You would appear to miss the main point of what I have said, and that is that we should not conflate what is actually measured (counted) with an estimation that is based on inferences. Though yes, our MOs and chaplains are quite particular about who they consign to the ground, while our platoon sergeants are quite particular about accounting for where their soldiers are. Also, since we are dealing with what is a matter of statistics, precision and accuracy are not interchangeable terms. Please note the change to "quite accurate" which means, the accuracy has a high confidence limit. An estimate might have a confidence limit of tens of percent. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So you are then now opposed to conflating estimates with "actual" casualties? Do I understand this correctly? Is this the basis for your opposition?

This is a valid point to consider. However for one this was not the reason people were previously opposing the change. Instead they tried for example to claim an incorrect order of magnitude for numbers in the 100,000+ range and argue about that. Stuff that had nothing to do with estimated vs. "confirmed" casualties.

However. Wikipedia is absolutely full of "estimates", in different forms. Basically verifiability on here is more important than "the truth". If we only reported what is simple scientific fact, this entire article couldn't exist. All of it is just based on what do the sources say.

There isn't now, and there is never going to be a source available that will with 100% certainty tell the exact sum of every single confirmed death. There isn't one for World War 2 either for example, those figures are also estimates.

Regardless, what we then do is go with the best information we have. We don't here, we don't ever have "the truth" available to us, we go with what the reliable sources suggest to be most likely.

When a casual reader reads the "tens of thousands" in the current article, they are left with an impression of the casualties that is 10 times lower than the actual current estimate. This is the core of the problem.

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ShouldIHide, I think you have probably grabbed the wrong end of the stick. You have replied to my post that is immediately above yours (indenting tells us that). My statement you replied to was made in the context of what preceded that, which was a response to Michael. My views on the subject are expressed in the initial post in this sub-thread here based on the change that I understood you to be advocating. You have now clarified this in the new subsection. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not against editing the body and have been doing so; it actually seems to need this very badly. I haven't so far in *this* section really because I have been hoping someone will answer this question: is there a reason why the casualties table includes for example figures for Sept 2022 through January 2023? Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I did some work on it back a little bit. My recollection is that there is/was a general reluctance to remove anything sourced and/or people have just not considered removing dated information. As for myself, you are welcome to take the razor to it. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the reply. I think it would be less confusing to do so, but this should be done carefully due in part to some of the concerns that you have expressed. At the moment I am somewhat distracted a need to prepare for an important RL event on Thursday. I did just remove one row of one table that was cited to Fox News. I intend to come back to this but it may take a few days.Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

In the current lead text, there is no explicit reference given to support the "tens of thousands on both sides" text, even though this has been very misleading for a very long time.

What I am proposing, the source for that is in the article, in the casualties table so any claim here does not need to be sourced a second time. They are already reliable sources, otherwise they would not be cited in the casualties table.

The basis for saying, in the lead, "more than 100,000 deaths" is very clear.

Especially now that the estimates have been updated. The new estimates say Russian military deaths alone exceed 100,000 by quite a bit. The estimates for 24 Feb 2022 – August 18, 2023 support 120,000 + 70,000 military deaths, and the 42,000 dead civilians from an earlier time range. That sums up to 232,000 total deaths. So far. ShouldIHide (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume that does not include Wagner and other PMC, Rosgvardia, Kadyrovsty, FSB, &c.  —Michael Z. 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Actually, mostly I think it's understood that "Russian forces" does imply everyone who fights on that side (aka against Ukraine). That's how I would understand it if they are not separated in the estimates.

I know this is not a general discussion forum but reputable sources (high-level military officers in outside countries) reported very high Russian casualty estimates, approaching 200,000 already about a year ago. People who have followed this conflict closely have understood a long time ago that the casualties are eventually going to be incredibly high. The current estimates are not surprising at all. Fortunately for this Wikipedia thing, these estimates are also done by professional military analysts and published in reliable sources so they can very well be used here. ShouldIHide (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Make change in lead concerning death toll

The article (casualties section, "US Estimate") itself now supports a total of 232,000 deaths. (btw, on Ukrainian territory, not on "both sides".)

In the lead, change the sentence "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 200,000 deaths."

I repeat, the source for this is already in the article. This change can be easily made without any further arguments.

Thank you.

ShouldIHide (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, obviously. An estimate is not a statement of fact. We will not represent it as such. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you suggest to represent it instead?

"The invasion has so far caused an estimated 232,000 deaths." is also fine by me.

ShouldIHide (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a specific text ready as I have so far been concentrating on verifying the sources, but maybe the information is too granular for the lede. We could say something like "(source) has estimated x and y Russian and Ukrainian fighters killed , with confirmed numbers of a and b." However, that's going to impede readability and for the lede it might be better to zoom out and say something like "massive Russian and Ukrainian civilian and military casualties" THEN have some version of the casualty section that we currently have, spelling out high and low estimates, casualties versus deaths, and all the caveats about under- and over-reporting. A lot would depend on the quality of the sources, but I am verifying sources already, and now that I am past a RL distraction that was looming over my concentration before, I can put some time into this section also. To answer a question from above, I asked a Russian speaker to look at the BBC Russia source that is cited in the table and they improved the somewhat incoherent numbers. I believe that they said that that Wagner etc were included, I agree that it should be clear, if it is not, whether they are or are not.

ShouldIHide, I agree that we probably inappropriately minimize the carnage, but in order to say "over 200,000" or even "more than 100,000" we need those numbers in a source. If you want to increase the odds of an update you could compile some numbers and where you found them, and we could probably turn *that* into an actionable proposal, but much checking and discussion will have to happen before it is implemented. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I got my suggested numbers from this article itself, currently 232,000 is simply the sum of all deaths currently listed in the casualties table (US Estimate). What is the problem with using this as the basis for the suggested change in the lead as well? I don't understand this, since obviously the reported numbers are already based on reliable sources, there doesn't need to be a separate source that would say "more than 100,000" verbatim. I wouldn't be surprised if there were such sources but again, why would this change need double sourcing it?

The current "tens of thousands" is simply stated there with no explicit reference at all, it has been there probably for a year, people are completely ok with that but some are strongly opposed to simply changing that to reflect more current estimates.

I don't know if you have read anything in the archives but this has already been discussed quite a lot over the last almost two months. Something like "consensus" is impossible because there is always someone who will oppose it no matter what. They will go off arguing about things that are not at all, or only tangentially connected to the actual matter at hand. That's what we're dealing with, unfortunately.

I thank you for your work and sincerely hope this issue will be resolved properly. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ShouldIHide I understand what you are saying but I hope the people currently in the conversation can agree that we will proceed on the "best possible information".

That is certainly my intention, and while I haven't edited the topic area for a while, I spent about a year in various subpages of this one in the earlier stages of the invasion. I have faith that we will resolve any disagreements. I myself don't insist on a source that specifically says 100,000 (or whatever number) but having one would preclude the sort of thing you are describing. So no, you don't have to hide, ok? Thank you for your persistence. Elinruby (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Casualties section

In the table captioned "Estimated and claimed casualties", under "Russian forces (VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB, FSO, PMCs Wagner, Redut & others, DPR & LPR)" is an estimate of 69,600+ killed, 243,400+ wounded for 24 Feb 2022 – 23 June 2023 attributed to BBC News Russian & Mediazona.

In a separate row, under "Russian forces (VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB, FSO, PMCs Wagner, Redut & others)" the number given is 52,000+ killed, 183,300+ wounded for 24 Feb 2022 – 18 August 2023, also attributed to BBC News Russian & Mediazona and cited to the very same source.

I assume that the reason for the discrepancy is that the earlier set of figures includes the DPR and LPR but we should use one or the other it seems to me, for the figures to have any kind of validity. Perhaps My very best wishes or any other Russian speaker who happens to be around would be good enough to verify the numbers against the source. Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Both lines refer to the same source (currently [496]) and provide different numbers! Focusing on the BBC source [24] and quickly looking, I do not see such numbers of wounded (183 or 243 thousand) at all. It does say 69,600 killed. It does not really explain where this number came from, but based on context, this appears to be a combined number of confirmed killed in action (i.e. something for the previous table) and expected to be much lower than any actual number. It also says: "С учетом раненых общие безвозвратные потери пророссийских сил за 16 месяцев войны могут превышать 313 тыс. человек.", i.e. "total number of irreversible losses" (including wounded) of more than 313,000. As about DLR and LNR "militias", I am not sure. All people mobilized on LNR and DNR territories and the former detachments of their "militias" are included to regular Russian army and counted as such for a long time, to my knowledge. I also doubt in numbers by ref [498]. This is Fox News, and they do not link to any source where such numbers could come from. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

aha, I hadn't noticed the Fox news yet. I will tag it RS. I got the impression from Mediazona also that these were confirmed numbers. So I guess I should move this row to the table above? Unless there are better numbers out there, of course. but these are good sources even though poorly presented. And probably also delete the confusing mention of LNR and DNR in the caption? Finally, are these number through August or June, can you tell? Thanks for the Russian reading. Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you took care of it, thanks

Elinruby (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have a lot of time to check this. There are wild discrepancies in these numbers. One way to check them is to look at the wounded to killed ratios (as appears in Table 1 here). But again, such estimates, i.e. 3:1 and 5:1 for Russian and Ukraine forces, respectively [25] are questionable. Some say that it is actually closer to 1:1 for Russian forces, due poor or delayed evacuation of wounded. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't giving you homework ;) just expressing a willingness to look at other sources. I am as always just grateful for the language help. Your NIH source looks pertinent. Reading it now. Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the problem with data on Russian soldiers. The data in a typical source (e.g. [26]) are based on official Russian mortality data/statistics. However, in most cases, the bodies are left to rot, burned or placed to mass graves [27] and the soldiers are not registered as dead anywhere (they will probably became missing in action). This is done to avoid payment of money to relatives of killed soldiers. Therefore, the actual number of killed maybe several fold greater than in sources like above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read that. I haven't gotten down to the nitty-gritty of the casualty section, but there is some discussion that follows the tables. Maybe I can find a source for why the numbers would be low. I think that to a lesser extent the numbers on Ukrainian civilians may also be low for systemic reasons. I seem to remember reading that in some cases there are still bodies in the rubble. The art school in Mariupol comes to mind. I don't think we can get the numbers to be truly truly accurate, but I do think they clearly total more than 100,000. But since I am verifying I may as well wait until I have had a better look to say that for sure.

Do you know why we are keeping the historical estimates in the table? Elinruby (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Along the lines of what you said last night: [28] Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this... Everyone familiar with this subject knows that a lot (probably a majority) of Russian KIA are not registered as dead anywhere. However, many sources (like Mediazona linked above) ignore this and present the derived data as true numbers: "To be absolutely precise, we can assert with a 95% probability that the true number of casualties falls between 40,000 and 55,000". I think this is an obvious misrepresentation, one that we unfortunately multiply here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure

there have of course been many strikes against civilian infrastructure, but this section is almost entirely about whether Iran is or is not supplying drones to Russia. While this is a worthy topic -- that deserves its own section or even article -- and the drones are no doubt used to attack civilian infrastructure, there is a mismatch between the header and the content, and apparently content is needed here on what the header says the topic is. Also the section relies heavily on what looks like a blog, called Militarnyi. Do we know that this is a reliable source? Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a brief summary of main page on the subject, Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a lot going on RL but to follow up, consensus at RSN so far is that Militarnyi is not RS and in particular one editor said they misrepresent a video on the specific point in question, so I will remove those references when I come across them again, unless someone else does this first Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated village of Andriivka

Ukraine war liberated village of Andriivka 182.224.89.144 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

is this an edit request? Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Followup: I see. Ukraine claims it re-took Andriivka and Russia denies this. The strategic importance of the village is unclear to me, but the article on the village does mention this already, so calling this something for the purposes of this article should possibly be revisited in a week or so... Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Touching on this, as these sorts of announcements come up on here relatively often, I think it's worth mentioning (to everyone) that Ukraine is very big. It is considerably larger than any single EU member state (and many US states), Ukraine being for example about twice the size of Poland.

This of course has several important consequences... but one of them happens to be that liberating one "village" is not noteworthy unless indeed it is of some exceptional strategic (or other) importance. Off the top of my head there is something like 20 cities in Ukraine with population in the 100's of thousands. Now if one of those was liberated, that would be big news.

Also there are 17 (!) different places called Andriivka in Ukraine. Based on where the biggest fighting is now, I'm assuming whatever might've been liberated would be in Donetsk oblast. There, there are six different settlements with that name, the largest of them seems to have had a pre-war population of roughly 2500. Notable? I don't know. ShouldIHide (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but I like to tell the people why. And I guess it's the one where they just had some fighting, and Ukraine said it won, and Russia denied it. It is documented in some detail on the page for a village that is smaller than you imagined. If the village (decribed in source as "destroyed village") turns out to be significant because of railway capacity or something we will expand on it if that turns into something, no? But it seems to be mostly taken care of at the moment, was my point. And yes, I realize that there are a lot of child articles of this article and this would probably be for the one on the Ukrainian counteroffensive, maybe.

Nitric acid

In the environmental impact section, a photo caption says that an explosion is due to the shelling of a tank filled with nitric acid. I have questions about this.

1. How do we know this? (I am on a mobile where it is hard to switch screens without losing place. If there's a reference there, my bad and this question can probably be deemed answered)
2. Why would a tank be filled with nitric acid? Does this happen a lot?
3. If this is a deliberate booby trap, can we infer that soldiers are transporting this stuff with into battle with them?

It's a small point in the greater scheme of things, but if I am wondering this so are other readers probably Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha, never mind. I just realized that these are industrial holding tanks we are talking about here, not armored vehicles. May reword that a bit. I'll go re-read it and see Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated klishchiivka

Ukraine war liberated klishchiivka 182.224.89.144 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)