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)

I agree with what you are proposing. There is no need to add a second source if the table reflects figures cited in the article. It would be redundant and serve no real purpose or give additional value. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:49, 20 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)

To put this in perspective the most recent really good number for total casualties in all categories is 500,000. That is the NYT August 18 and the article gets quite a bit more granular from there, including the high death rate amoung Russian generals. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The numbers in the casualties table seem to add up to roughly 500,000 as well. 502,000 to 532,000 if my math is right. That is military KIA + WIA + civilians killed (no data on civilian wounded). Although the 42,000 civilian dead are only up to 21 May 2023.

Thanks for making the change, the lead is in any case definitely better now. One thing I would still also change would be to remove the mention of "both sides". That I see as problematic because the fighting and killing is taking place virtually exclusively on Ukrainian territory. The current phrasing can give the impression there were "tens of thousands" of people killed in Russia, which is definitely not true.

Indeed one might say that the entire war is about enforcing borders that are internationally recognized and changing them with force can't be tolerated or accepted. In fact, I'm sure someone reputable enough has said that.

ShouldIHide (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I have been updating numbers further down the page; I have not changed the lede yet. I do see that another editor has made a change there, and slso a separate issue with it though; I just added something about 6.6 internal refugees to the humanitarian section, where it should have been mentioned if it was going to be in the lede, but I see now that the lede says 8 and I don't know where they got that number. Will look some more, but just because the lede is supposed to be a summary, that doesn't need references doesn't mean that the claims in the lede shouldn't be verifiable. I think though that given the date on my number and the one on the 8 million number that it is likely that they are both true. Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would change specifically in the lead the part " tens of thousands on both sides" to simply: "more than 100,000 deaths". The more important part being to remove the "both sides" altogether for the reason provided many times now. People are dying in Ukraine, not on "both sides" (not in Russia).

Do the sources not support the "more than 100,000 deaths"? I was under the impression that they quite clearly do. Russian military killed alone are reported as 120,000 now. [thats [User:ShouldIHide|ShouldIHide]] (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

the question is whether the New York Times front page story for August 18 2020 is considered a reliablw source. As previously noted, the CBCGuardian and Le Monde have all written stories based on the numbers in that article, and that is just where I stopped looking, so *those [ublications rely on the NYT story, and they are each themselves all reliable sources with a long history of getting stuff right. I think peeople are leery of the number because it is so much bigger than the last one,but that was a long time agoandthey have had Bakhmut since then, and frankly if the NYT is not a reliable source for a big miliary story,it's hard to say who else would be. Yes I know they have messed up badly once or twice, but nonetheless. Don't we all. it's still themost reliabel thing that is like ly to be found to upWould there even still be such a thing as a reliable source? I am going to be completely sure of the sources in the casulty section before I express any opiniom about the numbers, but if you are impatient you can askabout it at the Reliable Sources noticeboard or even start an RfC. I consider it a really dumb question to have to get an opinian on butI can't imzge anyone at RSN saying that this is NOT a reliable source, even for an explosive little nugget like this. That is what I know and I am mostly interested in how far the go by sources people will go to ignore this source. If you have to go to RSN you should have a text already written out, because when they are doing theit job right over there they won't say anything without seeing the souce, tstatement it's sourcing and the article that this is for. This is what I can tell you about this. In my opinion, if the unimpeachable source says 500,000, we should say 500,000 and not 100,000. That is a total numwber for everyone involved with the UKRAININA ARMY PLAU EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH THE rUSSIAN aEMY TWe go by sources, right? I have already been to RSN a couple of times for Militarnyi (sp?) and Amnesty International press releases.

oh and by the way RSN said that while there was nothing wrong with Amnesty International's compiled data, a press release issued by one official in one office is not a reliable source, and good thing too, because that press release was being uawd to source an error of fact. Russia did not commit a war crime by invadng Ukraine, because a war ccrime can only be committed by an individual. This is why the lede to this article used to say that Russian committed a "crime of agression, byt that may not be the right word for everything that Russia does. Bombing a power grid would perhaps be a violation of the Hague Convention, maybe. iff the power plant was not a military target.I have not tackled that one yet, but it came up in the section on the section on strikes against civilian infrastructure, and I think I found "volation of the Hague Convention" in another source, but I wanted to look into it some more and get a better source. There are a couple of other statements about Russia committing war crimes, which would also be wrong and were also as best I can rememeber may also have been sourced to individual agency officials. Sorry to dumot this here, but it is something that remains to be done.Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

First to touch on just this one point... I'm still confused why we can't (?) say in the lead what is in any case said later on in the article and is properly sourced enough to be stated there ('Casualties').

And that would be saying "more than 100,000 deaths" instead of "tens of thousands on both sides".

I personally would accept "more than 200,000 deaths" as well, or "more than 500,000 casualties". I would also accept having "estimated" in there because yes, they are estimates (everything is). The only reason I've so far stuck with the lower-end 100,000 is that some others don't seem to be willing to accept anything except "tens of thousands".

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the relevant policy: Routine calculations

WP:CALC

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.

Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.

That is why it is nice when a source keeps you from having to argue about this, becuae some -- not all mind you, but some -- definitely will arguw for the sake of arguing. Therefore I want to be very clear about the sources and the numbers

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)

to whom it may concern: the table for *confirmed* deaths has been verified against its sources. I commented out the Mediazona source because come on, that's an estimate. If it isn't already in the estimates table I will put it there. Whether there are better or more updated sources is now the question, and in the next table, which I have not finished yet, under "estimates", as far as I can tell the most recent authoritative-sounding numbers are from the NYT on August 18 2023. But I guess somebody is going to oppose using one American source for everything, so do we have recent casualty figures from a source other than the military of a combattant country? British generals or German cabinet ministers? I have the Mediazona article as a source, for one, if it isn't already there.

TL:DR A suffusion of carnage. That NYT article says that Russian wounded often have to evacuate themselves on foot and are left behind if they cannot, so I would call that validation for your 1:1 ratio. I think they just took the paywall down for that article. In any event I just read it all the way through and it is worth the read Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The US estimates have also at times even lagged behind other ones. I remember quite a while ago, might've even been last year, Russian casualties were already estimated at 180,000 according to I believe the Norwegian chief of defence. This was months before the US (Pentagon, I think) announced figures in that general range.

Cross-checking this stuff might require some digging but probably not impossible at all. Unless there are people who will oppose French, Swedish, Australian intel or really whatever else as "just NATO propaganda", which unfortunately also is not impossible at all.

What's good about the current US estimates is that, at least for the military side, they cover both Russian and Ukrainian forces and they're for the same time period. So it's coherent.

As discussed previously, civilian casualty numbers are probably imprecise and outdated. I can't imagine there would only be X number killed, surely there are wounded on the civilian side as well. Bombs and flying shrapnel don't check whether anyones wearing a uniform.

ShouldIHide (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

feel free to post some sources here. Out of morbid curiosity I looked at the sourcing for what was there in the confirmed casualty table, and there were a lot of problems with incoherent numbers and I am pretty sure there is another big one in the table for estimates, which is why I am currently on some other sourcing. It looks like 8 million internally displaced Ukrainians was a total for 2022 and 5.1 is the number of currently displaced as of a couple of weeks ago but I am still not completely certain of that. I threw out the Euromaidan Press number because it was so much higher that everyone else's, but realistically they probably have better contacts in the local morgues. You are right to note that the NYT's 500,000 number is total military deaths and does not include civilians; I meant to come back and correct that comment. Meanwhile, don't mind me, I am just out in the weeds here trying to figure this out. We may wind up with a little more material than due in the casualties section while I work on this. Once we come up with good summaries we can always spin off some historical detail, but my plan is to finish checking what is in the casualties section, then update it as best I can -- which I am starting -- then propose something with the lede. It's actually an interesting case study in what's probably true and what can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of wikipedia. I added a number to the table from the OHCHR for Ukrainian civilians btw. It's the best updated number I have found so far. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 18 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.

It is mentioned in the counteroffensive article, yeah. HappyWith (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

I think I was the one who inserted that image - could have worded it better. Honestly, we should probably replace it anyway - plenty more iconic and relevant images to choose from, like the destroyed Kakhovka Dam. I think I just chose that one because it was the first one I could find that was somewhat relevant to the section. HappyWith (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I remember the first says of the invasion as somewhat rushed also; that is sort of what I was trying to convey about the background section in the discussion about that. For whatever reason I read "tanks" as the armored vehicle, though; thank you for the confirmation about the counteroffensive article and I wonder if you can confirm that these were storage tanks for chemicals at industrial sites? I appreciate the comment about the image; I feel pretty much the same except about the Bucha massacre, which I would like to discuss if someone wants to remove it, since I've encountered denial of that event. Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The source for the image is this facebook post by the Ukrainian military. Plugged into google translate, they’re saying something like:

"WARNING! In the Luhansk region, the occupation forces carried out an airstrike on a chemical plant. As a result, hazardous substances were released in the city of Severodonetsk due to hitting a tank with nitric acid."

I don’t know if there's any independent confirmation - I just took the original caption from whatever source wiki article I found the image in, if I remember correctly. HappyWith (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated klishchiivka

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

As above, there are sources for this and detail already written at the article on the village or town or whatecer. Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The 'Background' section contains largely irrelevant or confusing content

For some reason, the 'Background' section talks, in great detail, about the Soviet Union, NATO and what may or may not have been unofficially talked about way back when. The Soviet Union has not existed for over 30 years.

The section seems to try to portray the "Russian viewpoint" to the extent that it seemingly gives it some amount of legitimacy (which it objectively doesn't have). This viewpoint typically portrays NATO as a country or NATO and USA being the same thing and portraying both of them (especially USA) as some sort of "threat" to Russia. None of which is founded in reality.

The problem is, Russia's own stated grounds for this "special military operation" were first of all things like alleged oppression of "Russians"/Russian language speaking groups and even "genocide" and "nazism", in Ukraine. This has absolutely nothing to do with NATO or what Soviet diplomats discussed with anyone in 1990.

Almost the entire 'Background' section could be removed, since actually most of the relevant information (to this conflict) is in the next section, titled 'Prelude'. This is again aimed at removing unnecessary both-sidesism.

Thoughts?

ShouldIHide (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

First off, if so, expansion and revision is the answer, not cutting or purging.

I’m gonna be the devil’s advocate here (as I not infrequently am) and say that while the current revision seems more or less fine, if anything it is a bit incoherent (and at one point the manner of selection of sources looks slightly irregular).

More importantly, the premise of the OP is highly flawed. Claiming “objective” statements or “reality”, when one isn’t talking about a hard physical fact, is unencyclopedic and rhetorical, or even polemical.

It’s easy through the lens of hindsight, after Russia has engaged in an unjustified invasion and pretty flagrant war crimes, to retroactively rewrite one’s understanding of everything that happened prior to 2015 or so. In fact, this would be a normal human psychological response (literally covered this in comm studies last week).

If the time frame covered in the background section is evaluated on its own, before the more recent cycles of increasing Russian escalation, the picture gets more complicated. Also, some things (including a few hard verifiable facts) pop out that may be uncomfortable for the side that in 2023 happens to be the victim of large-scale aggression and, correspondingly, enjoys overwhelming, even blind, support.

Also, and I sincerely wish I did not have to point this out, there is a…less than fully accurate narrative going around that both the 2014 and 2021–22 behavior were “senseless” and “unprovoked”. While WP shouldn’t take Russian mouthpieces at anything approaching face value, to throw the realist-school perspective out the window would be troubling and introduce a large yet subtle bias.

And it’s not as if there isn’t a wealth of independent, expert RS providing realist analyses. Some editors may (I think this did occur once or twice before) instinctively evaluate those, within the framework of their own personal views, as “sympathetic”, but most of them are nothing of the sort.

One way to go about it could be to actively seek out sources from among the billion or so Anglophones who don’t belong to a major power bloc that’s invested in the matter. And actually, the general demurral (in one case an explicit refusal by a single heavyweight editor, contrary to the guidance of the WP:PERENNIAL list) about this is more troubling to me than anything else, because of the wide-ranging implications such practices continue to have in general on WP.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

All that said, I do think there’s room for expansion about all the internal processes in Ukraine. The current revision hardly endorses the Russian POV, but sure, there is a bit of a spotlight on Russian actions and motivations, which to an extent might seem to devalue the agency of the Ukrainian people and government.

In fact, over this whole topic area, a lot of that is poorly documented. The operations of Ukraine’s democratic system, various bits of executive decision making, grassroots responses to the Russian menace, etc. is often treated rather opaquely.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Offhand I disagree, but I have been distracted for the past several hours by another issue that I came here to post about, and didn't re-read before I made this post (although I will do that if you or someone else thinks it would be helpful) The article began as an extension of the article and has been through some splits, spinoffs and reorganizations since then. It needed to, based on how hard it was to keep this article to a reasonable size while covering 2014 to the present. My point is that I may have read it too many times and possibly wrote some of the text myself, so it is entirely plausible that I do not see certain flaws in the explanation.

So please be fresh eyes. What seems extraneous or seems like it is making excuses for Putin? Or is unclear or irrelevant? I promise I will not argue with you about this; if you are still finding the explanation scattered and confusing after working on the article then you are probably right that a casual reader would think the same, and that is something that we should fix. So far I have been very focused on the references and am only now in some sections trying to improve on what was there. The referencing is light but that doesn't matter if the text is from an other article and we decide it isn't needed.

So, from memory: In 2014 the Ukrainians were pretty outraged at being called Nazis and all of the attendant gaslighting. Some of those quotes may seem tedious now, or overly strident. The endorsement of the President of Moldavia or foreign minister of France probably seemed a lot more important to a government fresh from a revolution that was striving for international recognition than it does today. almost a decade later when it is proving that it is worthy to join NATO.

The mind of Putin is important in this story though; if he and the Russian military sincerely believe, however irrationally, that the West is trying to destroy Russia and that they therefore are in an existential fight, then that has consequences and we should explain it, since, for example, that consideration would make it very unlikely that Russia would engage in good faith negotiation, as Germany was at one point suggesting to . If you have specific suggestions, go ahead and put them here or even just make the changes to the article. I am not sure how closely other editors are following but I would call this exchange a tentative agreement, and due notice that some edit to the section may happen that is less obviously necessary than the references I have been looking at. I will comment some more when I have refreshed myself on what is in the Background versus the Prelude section. As I recall Background covers 2014 to 2022, which I do think should be summarized, although probably not as exhaustively covered as it is now, with links to spun-off materials if appropriate. There may very well be leftover text that would be better used in the article about the 2014 to 2022 frozen war. Whereas "Prelude" was more about the 2021 buildups along the border as I recall, and also as I recall the referencing was spotty, as if those sections maybe came from the lede of another article. TL:DR Sure, sorta. Let's get specific. I disagree that material about Putin is necessarily undue -- that whole mythology about Kievan Rus' seems to have be central to his thinking, the same way Hitler's beliefs about the Aryans were to him. If you want to just get started, go ahead and do that. If you want me to do something staring from checking the sources that are there, that is the more inarguable approach and I will have some time to do that that after I get done auditing the Casualty section. I am tentatively in favor of a rewrite of the early history section(s)with the caveats expressed above and am ok with addressing it through either of the approaches mentioned above. Elinruby (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We do have to give the Russian viewpoint and note (as we do) that it is flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We give not give “the Russian viewpoint.” We should relate significant facts and analysis that reliable sources report about, Kremlin, Russian government and media domestic and foreign propaganda and disinformation, speculative Kremlin motivations, Statements by prominent Russian and Western pro- and anti-war figures, about Russian public opinion, &c. There’s a very important distinction.  —Michael Z. 20:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the "Russian viewpoint" is that Ukraine can absolutely not be allowed to join NATO and that it is justifiable to take military action, seize the entire country in order to not let that happen. Do you think we should at all give anyone the impression that this might be justifiable?

Anyway, like I said, what I meant was that these particular very long-winded explanations of the Russian or Soviet governments mindset and handshake deals in 1990 don't belong here. Most of it could be combined with what's in the 'Prelude', removed, shortened or moved to another article for anyone who's interested in that much more detail.

I do think having the Russian reasoning for starting the SMO is absolutely relevant, I simply think this current 'Background' section is too long and contains a significant amount of information of questionable relevance (and reliability).

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail in one go...

What I think is that the text I was talking about, it doesn't necessarily belong in this article.

A lot of it is otherwise relevant and very interesting, but like said, for example alleged unofficial handshake deals in 1990 (!) are pretty far removed for what's going on now. ShouldIHide (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

after taking a look: Yes this is all about the actual start of the war in 2014, but tried to cram too much into the section and prove too many points imho. I was not around this article when 2014 was spun off but I remember length being a problem and trimming and trimmng as new facts were added. I assume we cover the leadup to Euromaidan somewhere? Also I am pretty sure that: "In 1999, Russia signed the Charter for European Security, which affirmed the "right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance"." was intended to prove the perfidity of Putin ditto the remark about it not being his business whether Ukraine NATO. I also think that Mink was important, especially the part about the parties believing that the agreement said different things but I think we should summarize that rather than define Normandy Format, Vladimir Socor, Sergei Glazyev, Viktor Yanukovych, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Bucharest Memorandum or Greater-Russia Irredentism necessarily. I also think that "the Russian government endorsed an article by former president Dmitry Medvedev arguing that it was pointless to deal with Ukraine, claiming it was a "vassal" of the United States.[37]" is rather pointy.

Should be covered: Seizure of Crimean Parliament, Donbas, frozen war, maybe minsk in passing if that seems like a good idea. Also irredentism, which we should define and probably spend fewer quotes to refute because by now a lot of people already know. Maybe the famine in the 30s in passing and occupation in an attempt to explain the whole deNazification claim but again, these comments assume that good explanations exist for the things I am saying we can do without. Maybe we can pipe the very long title of Putin's essay for greater readability also.

Since there appear to be strong feelings about this section I am not going to unilaterally change anything here except for reference problems. Gerasimov doctrine turns out to be a misnomer based on a misunderstanding or what he said, so we shouldn't use the word, but it's still important in that this is how a Russian policy maker understands the actions of Western governments. As always, all of this is discussable and I invite additions both to the list of what can go and what should stay. Going back to references and the casualties section. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A simple method to determine the relevance of written material to the article subject is to assess whether the sources themselves are discussing the article subject. The first paragraph of the background section contains citations 11-16. Citations 11, 12 and 14 cannot be discussing this subject as they predate not only the invasion but the Russo-Ukrainian war itself. These should be removed. Citation 13 is focussed on the securing and dismantling weapons of mass destruction in the successor states of the former Soviet Union, so it too should be removed. Citations 15 and 16 may contain relevant material, but are being used for statements that aren't made coherently relevant. E.g. citation 16 is used for a statement by Putin in 2002 that isn't connected to the war or the invasion. The scope of an article or section is determined through sources, not through editor opinion. It seems quite clear that the latter rather than the former was consulted here. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've struck citation 11. That source is dated to and about the Russo-Ukrainian war. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, generally what I see as problematic here is precisely "editor opinion" and things of that nature. "Journalistic integrity", if you will.

We should look at "both sides" and try to understand why they're doing what they're doing but we should not just put in the article whatever the Russian government says.

Or well, more precisely we should hope that Reliable Sources will do proper journalism on this stuff, because ultimately that's what we will have to rely on.

This should never read like an opinion piece, I'm afraid the subject matter is "a little" too serious for that.

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And yes, your observation concerning the sources touches on exactly what I meant. Every single random statement made in 1990, 1994 or 2002, or whatever, are not connected to this military conflict.

Budapest for example is relevant but much of the other stuff is not.

Again, we need to be very careful to not give the impression there was some kind of legitimate justification for the Special Military Operation. If you all remember, it was quite universally condemned by the United Nations General Assembly.

Remember that the English Wikipedia is not read just by people in the US but around the world by both native and non-native speakers. The mainstream media landscape in let's say South Africa or India might not be dominated by CNN and NYT, it might be something very different. So we have a very distinct responsibility in what and how we represent things as objectively and truthfully as possible.

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this last comment is deeply misguided in my view. I think it speaks for itself.

@ShouldIHide, I would humbly and unironically suggest that you pause for a minute and really think deeply about why that situation might be that way. Have you considered the possibility that there might be points of view, widely held in parts of the Anglosphere, that, among other things, don’t fully embrace either side’s narrative? That those viewpoints have as much validity as your own? That they might even happen to be systemically underrepresented on WP as a whole? Many countries tend to interpret all this through the lens of their own experiences; if a South African newspaper talks of Great Powers and proxy wars, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a Russian mouthpiece (and to constantly reject it as such tends to simply deepen the South–West divide). Binary thinking is unhelpful (to be clear, I mean this bit as a caution; I haven’t noticed any clear signs of it anywhere in this discussion).

And the “we have a responsibility” line of thinking can often become an excuse for POV.

Also, ”quite universally condemned” isn’t quite accurate as a few dozen countries (including India and China) abstained, representing a large percentage of the world’s population, and of that of the English-speaking world.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Troop strength infobox for Ukraine

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive#Strengths states with reference dated 10 Sep 2023 that Ukraine has "one million" active personnel. The current infobox number (700,000) is dated well over a year ago.

An update also in the infobox here is certainly worth considering.

ShouldIHide (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue I have with reporting strengths in the infobox is directly comparable to why it has been decided not to report casualties in the infobox. This is an ongoing engagement. Strengths engaged vary significantly with time. They are either estimates (ie inferred) rather than concrete and/or are attributed to those engaged (not independently verified). Readers tend to view the infobox as fact. We should be presenting only good quality information in the infobox but what we have doesn't meet this standard. Such information is unlikely to exist until after the dust has settled. Even though there is somewhat comparable (by time) and relatively current figure in the ISW source, it would state [this does] not including Rosgvardia (Russian national guard) and other military units and structures; thus this number does not fully reflect Russia’s total forces involved in the war in Ukraine. There is nuance to what is being reported for which the infobox is unsuited. Existing material in the infobox under casualties is not supported by the body of the article and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It contains a level of detail, for which the infobox is not intended. I suggest there is also nuance to these other reports which the infobox does not capture - eg, the 300,000 figure for Russia is ultimately attributable to Josep Borrell in this report. It is not a figure we should report without attribution. Such reporting is best dealt with in prose. What we should have is a section for strengths but we don't. Instead, we are trying to write the article in the infobox. I suggest that we could write such information into a suitably titled section that deals with both casualties and strengths; and the strength parameter in the infobox be left blank. It is an optional field. The TOC would then function to direct the reader to the text where this is dealt with. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, so in short: you not only oppose updating, but suggest removing the existing figures.

This is off-topic, but: according to whom are Rosgvardia troops involved in the Ukraine operation, and I mean on the front lines? Off the top of my head the number of Rosgvardia members/operatives/soldiers is something like 900,000 so this would be let's say quite significant. Also would be notable because Rosgvardia are Russian internal security forces. And not just any internal security either, as far as I'm aware their purpose is to protect the President.

I haven't heard from any source anyone being involved on the Russian side except for the regular army/navy/air force (contract or reserve troops) plus Wagner, basically.

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And on-topic: just to make it clear, I'm not debating whether or not something should be in the infobox or not.

I simply said it's worth considering updating an old number because a much newer number is now available.

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

At 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive#Strengths you linked see the paragraph On 10 September, GRU spokesman Major General Vadym Skibitskyi reported ... although, not all of these are taking part in the counteroffensive.[174]. I have quoted from the cited source here. Please read what I have written. I am certainly not opposed to updating the article. I thought this was clear when I suggested an amendment to the body of the article to include reporting of strengths. However, I am opposed to the reporting of strengths in the infobox for the reasons I have detailed - and to adding yet more information there. Since you clarify you are not saying that the infobox should be changed, there is no disagreement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Violations of customary international law are not necessarily "considered war crimes"

No matter who thinks otherwise. Just a general reference for that statement, since as I recall some people do not want to believe that: [29]

but briefly, a war crime is something an individual does not a country. There were at least a couple of instances of the article making erroneous statements about this in wikivoice, sourced to press releases that don't exactly say so. I plan to copy them here so people can discuss whether we want to make such statements in the first place since they betray our wiki-ignorance, and if we do how to phrase them better. Elinruby (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• "The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of children, and genocide, issuing an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023." This was at the end of the lede.Somewhat misleading because it makes it sound like the warrant charged Putin with a war crieme. Since he is an individual this is conceivable, but the term really applies more to situations like My Lai so more likely it was for a violation of the Geneva Convention, or something like that. Needs to be check and also War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If the usage here is in fact accurate I have no objection to the text going back in. Elinruby (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  The ICC issued arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova “alleging responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children during the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” according to the article International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. The cited source directly quotes the ICC release.[30]  —Michael Z. 15:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The removed content is established and referenced under the ″International arrest warrants″ section, where the sources also mentions the investigations of war crimes. So what is the issue? --TylerBurden (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, what's the problem here? Are you seriously interposing your own OR understandings between what RS say and our ability to document what those sources say? This isn't even new information. It's from March. Putin has an arrest warrant hanging over his head. This is covered, with RS, in the body of the article and should be mentioned in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I am also a bit confused over the text removal. How, exactly, is it incorrect or misleading? Are the sources unreliable? Is the information wrong? What would you suggest be done to fix the issue? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)