Talk:Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Latest comment: 7 days ago by Juxlos in topic “Up to 500,000” in lead

Alexander Kulyk edit

Can someone please add him? Ukrainian former national cycling coach Alexander Kulyk [uk] died on 1 March 2022 in a mission evacuating people from Kyiv.[1][2]

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024 edit

Somali mercenary was captured on or a few days before Jan. 11th, 2024 by Ukrainian forces. Edit will need to be made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Foreign_fighters under subheading "Captured foreign fighters of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" section. I personally don't want to edit this page. Supporting article with video: [1] Tryptek (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Isn't it already done though? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its already been added. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Missing in the BBC's claim edit

The article itself states: Taking this into account, the cumulative losses of forces fighting on the side of Russia in Ukraine could exceed 107,000 dead. Taking into account the seriously wounded and missing, the total losses of the pro-Russian forces could be 321,000 people. https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/c6p11rp0rzyo It would be good to note this estimate, because it means that in reality there are more than 107,000 dead Russian soldiers, according to the BBC. This would stand well alongside the lowered British estimates 88.154.35.89 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

BBC estimate already stated in the table by saying that according to them 107,000 had been killed and 214,000 wounded. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024 edit

please change "ad had had nearly 1,200 casualties" to "and had had nearly 1,200 casualties" Uhoj (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dead body should be blurred edit

Dead body that could be seen on the image should be blurred because this article and this image can literally be viewe by anyone.(including kids and teenagers) Also we all should be respectful to the fallen and their families. Their families probably will not want to show such a picture.

Regards, 31.206.143.190 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not censored. War is bad. Acroterion (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 edit

Change the date 2 of February 2023 to 2 of Fenruary 2024 in the last line of the following paragraph as the linked source stated the data was retrieved on the second of February 2024.


In terms of confirmed deaths of officers (both military and paramilitary) of both parties of war, the number, according to groups collecting that information, is very similar, with 3,114 Russian officers killed as of 2 February 2024,[95] and 3,023 Ukrainian officers killed as of 2 February 2023.[96] 195.62.90.252 (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kyiv is not part of Kyiv Oblast edit

The table includes the following data: "Kyiv Oblast | 1,620 killed | 24 February – 31 December 2022". There is also a reference directly saying "1,500+ killed in Kyiv Oblast, in formerly Russian-controlled areas,[11] while 120 were killed in Kyiv city by the end of 2022.[12] Total of 1,620 reported killed".

Under the Constitution of Ukraine, Kyiv is not part of Kyiv Oblast (like Sevastopol is not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea). It means that we need two separate lines for those two territorial units in the table: one for Kyiv Oblast, and the other one for Kyiv. Maksym Kozub (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024 edit

Please change: Aid workers Christopher Matthew Perry and Andrew Tobias Matthew Bagshaw were killed in Bakhmut, the later held dual UK and New Zealand citizenship.

To: Aid workers Christopher Matthew Parry and Andrew Tobias Matthew Bagshaw were killed in Bakhmut, the latter held dual UK and New Zealand citizenship. PhilXNOR (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done I have also removed the middle names, which were not in the citation. Jamedeus (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twitter spin off website is not RS edit

[1] This is not a reliable source. It’s a website created by some random twitter user. Outside sources like Mediazone or whatever do not “find sources reliable”. Our policy, WP:RSN does. Whether some outside source decides to use another source does not affect our policy - their criteria may be different than ours. There’s no indication who runs this website, where data come from, any of that.

The source simply does not meet our WP:RSN criteria. User:EkoGraf please self revert. Volunteer Marek 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Outside sources like Mediazone or whatever do not “find sources reliable”. Our policy, WP:RSN does. This is clearly flawed logic. If we consider a source relieable and that source consider others as reliable, then it's natural that the others are reliable aswell. Especially if the prior assessment of the parent source had no caveats, i.e. it's only reliable for certain areas (I don't know if this is the case btw). In fact, that's the main course of action to show that a new source is reliable: show that other more established sources consider it reliable. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that’s not how it works. “Reliability” means different things for different outlets. For us “reliability” simply means WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
That seems like a convenient oversimplification. First of all, no existing sources are reliable to say the true casualty figures. This is obvious in this context. For us “reliability” simply means WP:RS. No, it's also based on editor discretion and consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. WP:RS is policy and local “consensus” (sic) cannot decide to throw it out the window if they feel like it. “Editor discretion” is not a synonym for “I do what I want”. Volunteer Marek 18:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
What WP:RS policy is there regarding this source? All sources presented there (RSP) are the result of discussions and local consensus. I don't know if this is what you mean, but it seems like you're skipping steps by asserting that this confirmed figures source is unreliable without a proper discussion. We should conclude reliability after discussion, not before it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(And I would question whether Mediazona is RS either) Volunteer Marek 15:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like I said in the edit summary, two other casualty conflict trackers, which are themselves reliable and being used by Wikipedia, have stated the source (UALosses) is both "reliable", "high quality" and comparable to them, and have reported on both UALosses, their figures and their methodology. And you are right, Wikipedia decides on the reliability of a source, and currently it has not been labeled as an unreliable source. Both the source and their figures have been used for almost three months without any editors updating this article voicing any concerns regarding its reliability. Pinging other editors who have been involved on this article to offer their opinions on this issue if they can Mr.User200 Poklane Vinhson27 Mhorg Also, there is, at the moment, no evidence/indication that the website spun off from Twitter... Rather, both the site and the complementary Twitter feed (which many sites use) seem to have been launched at the same time. PS As for Mediazona, this has already been discussed before in the past and the joint project of Mediazona & BBC News Russia (don't forget them, definetly deemed RS) has been used as a source on the casualty figures and reported on by multiple reliable media outlets for almost two years. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It’s an anonymous website and twitter account. Mediazona itself is of questionable reliability. If you want to use BBC mentioning Mediazona that’s fine. But that’s different.
And can you at least provide any indication regarding Memory Book Group in relation to this specific issue? And if so, why not just use MBG itself? Volunteer Marek 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also a source does not have to be “labeled unreliable” to be considered unreliable. That’s exactly backwards in fact and it would be impossible to do that (there’s a lot more unreliable sources out there than reliable ones). The burden of proof is actually on those claiming reliability, especially in the case of an anonymous internet website. Can you please self revert until this is settled? Volunteer Marek 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mediazona and BBC News Russia are a joint project, they go hand-in-hand. As was discussed before, they take turns each week on reporting their joint findings (one week BBC, one week Mediazona). If Mediazona was of questionable reliability, I doubt those such as Radio Free Europe, France 24, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Moscow Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation and others would use them (which they have). I already provided the link for MBG as well, the same article published by Mediazona quotes MBG's analysis of UALosses as well. As always, when there is a contentious issue with a Wiki article, a status quo is maintained until it is resolved. Thus, since the source and its information were present in the article for almost three months before your attempts to remove it, the article's version prior to a disputed change (your removal) should be maintained. Lets leave it to the other editors to voice their opinions and decide if UALosses should indeed be considered unreliable and removed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can discuss Mediazone separately (putting it in same category as NY Times is questionable and nothing but an empty assertion). Discussion here is about an anonymous website and an anonymous twitter account being used as a source.
And I’m sorry I can’t find where you “already provided the link for MBG as well”. I searched this page for “MBG” and “Memory Book Group” and don’t see it. Likewise your edit summary [2] contains no link, only your unbacked claim.
And no, just because something was added to an article (in this case only about a month ago - NOT three months as you claim [3]) does not mean that it gets to stay in it forever. If reliability is at issue it should be removed until consensus that it is reliable is established. Volunteer Marek 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I added it to the main body of the article, like I said, its stated in the same article [4] Quote "A volunteer for the Ukrainian “Book of Memory” project Herman Shapovalenko, believes that UALosses is “definitely not fake.” He notes that its creators managed to gather nearly 300,000 links from 3,500 different sources and emphasizes that their project’s data and UALosses’ largely overlap." In this english variant/translation of their name they called "Book of Memory". EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
That’s not even MBG that’s Mediazona quoting somebody from MBG. So basically you’re trying to use an anonymous twitter account/website because some other potentially unreliable source quoted someone associated with yet another source who said something positive about a source. Same source also says they have no idea who’s behind this website and they don’t return inquiries. No. It’s still an anonymous twitter account. Not. R. S. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
You keep saying "an anonymous twitter account". We are not using twitter as a source. The twitter feed was launched simultaneously with the UALosses site as a complimentary form of information (which many sites have), but we are not using it as a reference. The main source and question of reliability here is the site. Anybody can have a twitter account, that doesn't make them authomatically unreliable. The fact we are not using MBG directly, but instead quoting by Mediazona is actually more in line with Wikipedia's policy of using secondary instead of primary sources. And you seem to continue ignoring the analysis by MBG that affirms UALosses as "not fake", "high quality" and "largely overlapping" with them. Not to mention the detailed analysis and emphasis on the reliability of UALosses by Mediazone, which itself has been cited by multiple reliable media outlets (I listed some). I did not say (as you commented) its in the same category as them, but instead their constant usage of it as a source testifies to its reliability. In any case, you obviously will not accept anything affirming the sources' reliability and as Alexiscoutinho commented its all your opinion and you are free to ask at RSN or leave it to the other editors here at this talk page to express their opinions as I already mentioned. I leave it to other editors from here on out. EkoGraf (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I keep saying “twitter and website”. Both are anonymous. Both are only a couple months old. Neither has a “reputation” for… much of anything, certainly not fact checking. Nobody knows who compiles this. Nobody knows who the people behind the website are. The content appears to be crowdsourced. There’s no external review process. It’s WP:SPS.
"There’s no external review process." They were reviewed by two other verifiable casualty-tracking projects and deemed reliable. Other than that, as Alexis said, its up to the editors themselves to form a consensus (based on policy of course) from here on out if there is a dispute and a difference of opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
And the policy about using secondary sources applies to ***text to be added to the Wikipedia article*** not to evaluating sources themselves! This is basically the equivalent of “my uncle’s wife’s brother said his dog catcher told them it’s reliable”. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
And text was added to the Wikipedia article based on the secondary source. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If reliability is at issue it should be removed until consensus that it is reliable is established. That's a reasonable point that you seem to only have made crystal clear now. I would personally prefer to always comment out stuff in such case. This is to avoid future edit conflicts, when possibly trying to add the info back up, and also portrays a more temporary/pending character. It ensures the issue/dispute won't be completely forgotten and encourages its full resolution. Therefore I would suggest that you always explicitly mention this "comment out" option in the future when you have reliability concerns. It makes the other editors much more amenable to temporarily accept it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking into it bit more it seems the content is crowd sourced and user generated (at least there are anonymous accounts on twitter encouraging random people to “contribute” to it). Volunteer Marek 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mediazona itself is of questionable reliability. If you want to use BBC mentioning Mediazona that’s fine. But that’s different. That's your opinion. Feel free to inquire it at RSN. Also a source does not have to be “labeled unreliable” to be considered unreliable. One editor's opinion also doesn't label it "unreliable". (there’s a lot more unreliable sources out there than reliable ones) That's a bold statement, can you back it up? The burden of proof is actually on those claiming reliability, especially in the case of an anonymous internet website. Isn't he already doing that? Can you please self revert until this is settled? This is not the first time I see you using this aggressive, more threatening tone. I dislike it. It puts unnecessary pressure on a discussion and is not helpful. It makes it look like you're "Mr. Truth" or a censoring entity (take it down, appeal later). I don't believe you would want that stigma. Remember WP:NODEADLINE, let's not rush this.
May I also add: why are we drooling so much on reliability here? This is literally a page about casualty claims. Most if not all claims/estimates are inaccurate and far from the truth. Nobody here is asserting figures with wikivoice. WP:Intext attribution is more than enough to convey to the readers the huge degree of uncertainty and inherent bias/conflict of interest among the sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:Alexiscoutinho why are you referring to my concerns as “drooling”? Even emphasizing it. Am I missing something or do you need to strike that comment? Volunteer Marek 18:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't the ideal word I thought of. But I couldn't find a better one at the time (English isn't my first language). I meant more like a "weak obsession", i.e. giving undue strictness to the reliability principle, in this context of course. I don't view the action to strikethrough as necessary, I already explained myself here. No harm intended. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also using the word “please” is neither “aggressive” nor “threatening”. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course, but the general tone, or at least the request (to remove then talk), is. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ualosses look reliable for me, they share their database with links. Begun with some errors like duplicated entries, but was later fixed. Found this in Media Zona. "To verify the UALosses database, we took a sample of 400 random entries from it. This is sufficient: with this amount, we can assess all 42,000 entries with a 95% probability (plus or minus 5% for error). We manually checked each of these 400 entries to see if the card included a source link and whether the source actually mentioned the death of that particular soldier. Based on this review, we deemed the database reliable." Just cite them and update their latestnumber it could vary +/- depending of statistic issues.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good point/evidence! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion seems to have exhausted itself. While Volunteer Marek does have legitimate reliability concerns, the arguments in favor of the source provided here by EkoGraf and Mr.User200 feel compeling enough to characterize it as reliable enough. Let me clarify that I don't have specific knowledge of the source, in fact I even stopped watching this page some weeks ago. I base my judgement on the arguments provided by you. As of now, I would say a general consensus defends the reliability of the source. However, that does not impede one from elevating and continuing this discussion at RSN, if one is unsatisfied/unconvinced. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • The number provided by "UAlosses" is plausible and it was cited by other sources [5]. But indeed, this is not an RS. This is apparently a database, but who are authors? I do not see it on their About page. Moreover, the details about the database must be published somewhere (in an RS), with description of how these data were collected and verified, etc. Based on that, we can not use UAlosses here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do include a US estimate for the killed Ukrainian soldiers which is much higher (~70,000), hence including these poorly sourced data does not really add anything. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As stated above (link provided [6]), those such as Mediazona and the Book of Memory (themselves casualty-tracking projects) did a detailed analysis of UALosses database and deemed it reliable, verifiable, high quality and comparable to themselves. Now we also have Meduza as well who has stated after analyzing it that it is reliable. So we have three sources now, which have been used as RS on Wikipedia in the past, declaring UALosses to be itself reliable. Moreoever, Mediazona does actually go into UALosses collection and verification process, saying they have high quality processing and that each death is properly sourced with appropriate links (quote - "nearly 300,000 links from 3,500 different sources") after manually checking it. So, I am in agreement with both Mr.User200 and Alexiscoutinho. As stated above, if there is further disagreement regarding its reliability, it should be taken at the RSN. EkoGraf (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Article by Le Monde [7] which has a quote by one of those running UALosses regarding their purpose. EkoGraf (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If RSNB question will be framed as "Do you consider UALosses an RS?", then the answer will be "no". Remember that citing a non-RS by reliable sources does not make it reliable. Consider Kavkaz Center cited in a hundred of books as an example. But whatever. Personally, I do not think this source disinforms reader (unlike the statements by Russian MoD); I am only saying this is not an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Casualty Count unrealistic edit

There seems to be an insanely large disparity between russian and ukrainian dead, mainly the fact there isn't a reliable count of russian dead other than western sources that heavily inflate the numbers to impossible amounts, there should probably be expansion to note that the casualty counts may be inflated or deflated, and to add a disclaimer as to say alleged amounts BarakHussan (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Western sources on Russian losses give very conservative estimates 88.155.252.190 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Civilian casualties edit

Why not add other, higher estimates of civilian casualties? Human Rights Watch - at least 8,100 victims in Mariupol, add UN data, we get an absolute minimum of 19,000 dead, exactly absolute Read the method for determining the absolute minimum in Mariupol from HRW, it says that in just 1.5 years, cemeteries in Mariupol expanded to an area equivalent to at least 10,300 burials with a natural mortality rate of 2,200 people during this time. This is worth considering as an estimate of the absolute minimum deaths beyond the 10,000+ deaths from the UN 88.155.210.83 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

“Up to 500,000” in lead edit

Combining the military casualties of Russia and Ukraine, and adding civilian deaths, it seems like the total casualties is much closer to a million by now. Should this be updated? Juxlos (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply