Talk:Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2022

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

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

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

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

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

Alleged death of Magomed Tushayev

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

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

Colonel Andrei Zakharov

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

Analysis of Russian and Ukrainian casualty claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian commander run over by own troops

This story has circulated on social media and non-RS tabloids, but now The Times has the story that Colonel Yury Medvedev, who commanded 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, was deliberately killed by his own men who ran him over in a tank.[2] It says he died and this was claimed by Ukraine and confirmed by Western intelligence. But it doesn't have date of death, date of running over, so I have omitted it for now. But I think it should be included in Russian casualties. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

“Only those with articles”

User:Mr.User200 is removing casualties with the edit summary “only those with articles,”[3][4] list members with references that show they are notable. What’s with that? This is a list of casualties, not a list of articles or a disambiguation page. And the absence of an article is not an indicator of notability. —Michael Z. 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

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

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

Alleged death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second '7,268–7,476'.

Independent estimates were higher.

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

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

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

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

Readovka

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2022

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

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

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

Victims over time

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

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

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

Edit for Foreign Military Casualties in the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine

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

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

Pro-Ukraine Russian volunteers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-Protected edit request

Can someone please add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Semi-Protected edit request

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Request for Time Period of Reported Russian Casualties

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

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

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

Foreign casualties - Kyrgyzstan

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

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

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

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

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

Agree.

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

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

Foreign fighters casualties

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

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

Russian Casualties According to Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

thousands of deaths???

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at least

buried in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian boys who fought for Ukraine

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

Official death count

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

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

Clarification request (Prisoners)

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

Twitter claim of additional three foreign fighters killed

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

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

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

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

Typo

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

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

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

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

DPR's claim of Ukrainians killed is absurd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please fix alphabetical order

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

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

Prisoners of war

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

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

Does anyone know of any sources of data on this?

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

Foreign civilian deaths

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

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

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

References

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

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

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

Questionable information for Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7)Vahid Azim Oglu Azizov Media report

8)Elnur Elshan Oglu Hasanov Link

9)Elshad Agalov Link

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

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

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

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

Latest US estimates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

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

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

"Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side"

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

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

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

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

• I just reverted this edit [31]. Note that user PilotSheng incorrectly included this info to the line of table about losses by Ukrainian forces, not by Russian forces, as the cited source claim. Saying that, 188,000 Russian killed in action as appears here [32] is probably a mistake by the source. More RS needed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. The Daily Express source most likely relayed it incorrectly, because I read the primary source which referred to both killed and wounded. Also, the primary source was The Sun, a deprecated source so until more RS appear to corroborate this I would refrain from adding it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Military censorship

All data are aproximated in minus for ours, and for enemies in plus. A group of dead uniformed persons is surprisingly larger than a group of dead civilians. 2A02:A314:843C:A00:997A:A36:510C:501A (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Rory Mason to Irish dead

Rory Mason died in October 2022, making two Irish dead (at least) 74.97.177.63 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That is the man already listed in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

BBC note h

Note h says:

"The Ministry of Defence of Ukraine uses the terms "combat losses" and "liquidated". According to the BBC, these figures include wounded soldiers, while others interpret the figures to be referring to only those killed."

I do not know how to edit it as the Notes are not stored within the text accessed via the edit link.

There are many people who are confused by the term "liquidated" and assume it means "deaths" rather than "combat losses". But all the sources in the table accept the correct meaning which does include wounded.

Neither of the references 100 or 101 cited even suggest that Ukraine means something different and there are no informed, let alone authoritative sources that do.

Counterposing "According to the BBC" with "while others interpret" implies there is some controversy (as opposed to mere confusion). That is not supported by the citations.

I suggest simply stopping after first sentence and deleting the rest.

If mentioning BBC it should say something like:

Citations to BBC and Mediazone figures for separate numbers of killed and wounded are based on their estimates from study of Russian cemetries. No separate estimates are made by Ukraine - only total combat losses (which includes both killed and wounded) as in the other estimates quoted in this section of the table. ArthurD8 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Done above fix, keeping 1st sentence and changing second to text at end of comment above.

Noticed that the following sentence should also be deleted for the same reason - the citations do not confirm the impression it conveys that there is some controversy about whether or not Ukraine like the others is counting killed and wounded together as combat losses:

"According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were including the injured as well."

In fact the BBC News Russian report which the two citations reference actually says:

"Hundreds Dead

Ukraine currently estimates Russian losses at 15 thousand people - once the Ukrainian agency UNIAN clarified that this figure could include not only the dead, but also the wounded."

https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/russian/features-60821398?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

Will wait another day to delete that sentence too in case there is any comment. ArthurD8 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear ArthurD8, sorry for not seeing the talk page discussion you started earlier. The long-running note was the result of a previous editor discussion and compromise consensus. As per WP guidelines, a new editor consensus is required to implement any changes to the note or even delete it. Controversy does exist and that is why the note was implemented. Regarding notes 100 (Sky News) and 101 (Ukranews) that you mentioned... After checking the Sky News reference, I can indeed confirm it does not mention that Ukrainian claims only refer to the dead, the reason most likely being that the original report was updated and the mention of Russian losses removed. However, the Ukranews report clearly states that the Ukrainian claim only refers to those killed. Quote - On April 24, the losses of personnel of the Russian troops increased by 100 to 21,900 killed. I will add two newer, more recent, references [33][34][35], where certain outlets relay the Ukrainian claims are referring only to those killed. Personally, I agree with you that the Ukrainian claims are most likely combining both the dead and wounded together. However, the uncertainty in certain media exists so this has to be pointed out. As for the issue of the BBC and Mediazone figures, that's something totally separate and it has its own separate section of the table and should not be mixed. The note in question is for the section on Ukrainian claims. EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Also added an additional source for the term "liquidated", the Ukrainian MoD itself. Between, that report you found regarding UNIAN's clarification is pretty good (nice find) and we could possibly also use it in the note. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of previous editor discussion and arrived here because of a controversy in social media based on the fact that there are indeed Ukrainian media reports that get echoed to social media which treat "liquidated" as meaning "killed". The confusing note h was cited in support of that confusion.

I will of course not proceed with deleting the additional sentence while a new consensus is reached.

I think that if reference is made to such reports it should clearly explain that the issue has now been settled by retraction/clarification of earlier confusing reports from Ukraine media, and adoption of "killed or wounded" in the other military staffs friendly to Ukraine reporting their staff estimates

I hope it would be possible to reach a new consensus now to only report any controversy as being based on confusion rather than conflicting notable or authoritative estimates.

My personal view is that controversies in social media and incorrect translations of Ukrainian MoD announcements in non-authoritative journalistic reports are not particularly "notable" for Encyclopaedia articles.

eg Your citation [34] of an English language RFERL report that:

"In its latest update on January 8, the Ukrainian General Staff reported that 430 more Russian soldiers had been killed the previous day. The claims could not be independently verified."

The english language (Google) translation of that link to the origiinal Ukrainian report says:

Russia has lost more than 111,000 military personnel since February 24 - General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

After the start of the full-scale invasion, Russia lost about 111 thousand 170 of its soldiers, in the last day - 430, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported on Facebook .

https://www-radiosvoboda-org.translate.goog/a/news-vtraty-rf-111-tysyach/32214118.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

Likewise the Daily Sabah report [33] has simply replaced the words "liquidated" or "combat losses" in the Ukrainian MoD daily estimates with its own "killed".

The VOA [35] cites Chuck Pfarrer saying:

"Ukraine has reported more than 108,190 Russian troops have been killed in action.

Pfarrer is not a reliable source but a rather prolific twitterer who is notable for frequently getting things wrong:

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer

The only relevant source for the Ukrainian official estimates is the daily MoD update which consistently uses the same format. Here is the latest one:

https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2023/02/04/the-total-combat-losses-of-the-enemy-from-24-02-22-to-04-02-23/

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 04.02.23

2023-02-04 09:00:00 | ID: 69114

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 04.02.23 were approximately:

personnel ‒ about 130590 (+720) persons were liquidated,

...

Followed by lists (including both destroyed and damaged)for tanks, APVs etc.

There is a specialized web site that analyses which of the combat losses of various classes that Ukraine has reported are destroyed, captured, abandoned,damaged and captured, damaged and abandoned etc.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Similar studies to distinguish reduction in combat power of personnel following a battle are much harder to do as only captured and abandoned corpses can actually be counted, which are a rather small proportion of guesstimates of personnel combat losses eliminated or "liquidated".

BBC/mediazone have attempted this by studying Russian cemetries

If anyone wants to write an article about the confusion I think it should point out that the term "liquidated" was used for such policies as eliminating the kulaks as a class and sometimes used as a euphemism for killed.

It seems to have become assumed that "liquidated" actually means "killed" based on the copious amounts of claims that very large numbers were actually killed. Such claims are especially popular within countries subject to Russian oppression. But they do not change the meaning of "liquidated" when used by the Ukrainian MoD. It is not a euphemism for "killed". When they mean killed they say killed. They have no reason to be euphemistic about dead enemy troops.

The table correctly reports their estimates as combat losses and note should only mention that they use the term "liquidated", (meaning eliminated), for combat losses while entries in the same section from other military staffs (also based on the Ukrainian estimates) use the term "killed and wounded".

Speculation: Elimnated or "liquidated" could also include "captured" and perhaps also "deserted" whereas "killed and wounded" is slightly narrower though the numbers would not be greatly affected.

Any discussion of the confusion should be clearly separated and not just a "compromise" note that adds to the confusion.

I am not a regular editor familiar with the culture so I hope others will draft a new consensus to replace note h.

But the current resumption of the original note h is clearly confusing. ArthurD8 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Change the number of "Russian and allied forces" losses estimated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine from 128,420 to 130,590. JacobiLevin12 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A09 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The original authoritative source should always be used. Announcements direct from Ukraine MoD at:

https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/

Latest is:

https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2023/02/05/the-total-combat-losses-of-the-enemy-from-24-02-22-to-05-02-23/

Other reports in Ukraine publications or elsewhere are sourced from these official staff estimates. They should NOT be used as some cause confusion by altering the standard wording:

"The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to [current date] were approximately: [number]

personnel ‒ about [cumulative total number] (+[change from previous total]) persons were liquidated,

...[Followed by similar lines for other categories as in example bellow]

Data are being updated."

Perhaps wikidata and a template could be used to automatically extract these frequent updates from the original authoritative source instead of current manual processing of semi-protected edits from multiple alternative rewordings from subsequent copying?

Secondary reports are NOT independent analyses and sometimes just say "liquidated" instead of "total combat losses" and sometimes say "killed". These reports then lead to lots of twittering about Ukrainian "claims" of "killed". There are NO such "claims" from Ukrainian MoD. They do not have any means to do more than estimate "approximately" that the number of additional enemy combat losses in a period were "about" some number (based on reports of reduced combat power following battle, not from counting abandoned corpses).

Full text from latest example is:

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 05.02.23 were approximately:

personnel ‒ about 131290 (+700) persons were liquidated,

tanks ‒ 3220 (+2),

APV ‒ 6405 (+11),

artillery systems – 2226 (+6),

MLRS – 460 (+0),

Anti-aircraft warfare systems ‒ 227 (+2),

aircraft – 294 (+0),

helicopters – 284 (+0),

UAV operational-tactical level – 1958 (+2),

cruise missiles ‒ 796 (+0),

warships / boats ‒ 18 (+0),

vehicles and fuel tanks – 5091 (+10),

special equipment ‒ 203 (+0).

Data are being updated.

Strike the occupier! Let's win together! Our strength is in the truth!

PS above link with numbers are the requested reliable source for current update to 131290 for 5 Feb instead of "from 128,420 to 130,590" for 4 Feb. ArthurD8 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Source for the FSO

https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-62736795

SnoopyBird (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Change the number of "Russian and allied forces" casualties for the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine from 115,290 to 120,160. Source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/01/21/7385892/ JacobiLevin12 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. Numbers updated a lot since the time of request. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Russian death toll estimation from february 2022- to february 2023

Estimation of dead and missing by Center for Strategic and International Studies [36]https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukrainian-innovation-war-attrition [37]https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-02/230227_Jones_Table1.jpg?VersionId=lw_pEJszK7N2jOYMW5Sq3x53TfGJU2Uj feel free to edit the page! Ettenrocal (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Petri Viljakainen is

Petri Viljakainen has died in March 2022. He is the only confirmed Finn to have fallen. He lived many years russia but nationaly is Finish...Jukka Wallin (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

https://kansanaani.fi/petri-viljakainen-1977-2022-in-memoriam/ Jukka Wallin (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

20th of September 2022 a second Dutch foreign fighter died in the Charkiv region. Requesting the number of Dutch casualties be raised from 1 to 2. English Source (at time of writing was unclear): https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/20/another-dutch-fighter-killed-combat-ukraine Dutch language source with comments from mother of perished soldier: https://www.metronieuws.nl/televisie/2022/09/op1-benjamin-oekraine/ VIKAVO (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Undone. See here [38][39] The initially reported killed Dutch was actually an Italian living in the Netherlands. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: He was Dutch as well. From what I could gather, he was born in Italy to an Italian father and Dutch mother. He moved to the Netherlands with his family and became a Dutch national. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. Waiting for a reply from EkoGraf. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We would need an editor consensus then how to classify him. Maybe he be represented with both an Italian and Dutch flag? EkoGraf (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a possibility (a note added to each entry wouldn't harm either). M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

Change the number of Russian military losses estimated by the Ukrainian government for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine from 138340 to 140460. Source: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-other_news/3670706-russias-combat-losses-in-ukraine-reach-about-140460-troops.html JacobiLevin12 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Number has been updated to an even higher number than reported here. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine soldiers don't die?

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

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

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

I also wanted to discuss this point.

It seems very strange that we have not listed any Russian estimates of the number of killed and/or wounded soldiers of the Ukrainian forces (across all military branches). I have to admit though: I haven't read the entire article and just came here from Google, because I was searching for a quick answer.

Now, from my subjective point of view, I would expect Russian estimates to be overestimating Ukrainian losses of course and am in no way expecting an objective number. However, I would say that the Ukrainian estimates of 10k-13k dead and/or wounded Ukrainian soldiers are propaganda as well (underestimations). Therefore, displaying only Ukrainian and "Western" estimates seems to be hurting Wikipedias principle of neutrality, because we allow a one-sided display of claims, rather than showing estimates from both sides.

Regarding reliability of sources: I think that the Ukrainian source isn't reliable as well. The great discrepancy between the British and Ukrainian estimates (13k / 120k) shows that there is something wrong with at least one of these numbers.

In my opinion - when just mirroring/quoting estimates from one of the parties involved, the reliability of the source means only verification in my opinion ("the source said/wrote that").

However, I can understand how just mirroring those numbers from all sides could be harmful for the goals and principles of Wikipedia (truthful knowledge). So description, analysis and classification of these claims/estimates/numbers will also be necessary.

(Meaning)= Clearly saying that these are not reliable numbers from objective sources, but estimations stemming from (verified) subjective sources (a truthful display of different estimates).

I think the main problems here may be that (1) we have not enough Russian speaking/reading people involved in the creation of this article and (2) access to Russian sources may be limited.

To be quite honest with you: I personally wouldn't even know where to start my research when looking for Russian news articles, because I don't know any of the names of relevant news agencies, newspapers or magazines and cannot read the cyrillic alphabet.

People come here to learn how Russian perspectives are on the conflict, because most of us users are living in "Western" countries and already know how "our" view on the number of deaths looks like. It would be interesting to know if Russian perspectives on the Ukrainian (and Russian) losses are overestimations, realistic counts or underestimations. Learning about this allows one to comprehend a different perspective better, because it allows you to understand when and how (much) a part of society is being manipulated (or not) in regard to an aspect of information in this war.

If anybody here knows any users who can identify, understand and integrate "reliable" Russian sources/claims, please invite them to work on this article! NeutralerNutzername (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Addition: Statistic/table on deaths of foreign fighters in Ukraine:

At least 1 casualty of a fighter from Germany.

Source: https://www.rnd.de/politik/ukraine-freiwilliger-kaempfer-aus-deutschland-gestorben-SFASA5E7L63RITTUIVCXJE35XQ.html

Request: Adding said information and source. NeutralerNutzername (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Already included in the table. EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Change flag for Belarus.

I believe it would be appropriate to use a white red white flag to represent Belarus forces fighting on Ukrainian side. The ones that side with russia could be marked by red green one. 70.67.68.98 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No, to keep it simple, flags designs currently in use by the state, should be used to indicate a country origin. Adding a second type of flag can confuse new readers not familiarized with this political topics.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

One is the official national/state flag, other is political/opposition flag. We use the first to indicate country of origin as Mr.User200 put it. EkoGraf (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition of notable Russian civilians and journalists killed in the 'Notable deaths' section?

A couple of Russian journalists have been killed in the war. Oksana Baulina comes to mind early on in the war, killed by Russian shelling of Kyiv, and perhaps the Russian Wagner propagandist who was recently blown to pieces in St. Petersburg, Vladlen Tatarsky? Or was he a military combatant because of his role in Wagner? Mapperman03 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023

"2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" table contains different estimates of military loses, but all of them are either US/UK or Ukrainian. To be [point of view|objective] we need to specify others points of view. It will be fair to add Russian government estimate of their military loses: 5937 men on September 21 for VSRF (VSRF is used in the article acronym). Original source: https://ria.ru/20220921/poteri-1818333891.html (also available here: https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-62978718). Of course this estimate is not confirmed by opponents, but we can say the same for all other current lose estimates. Mikhail ion (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Already included in the paragraph bellow the table. Moved there since the figure has become outdated by more than half a year. EkoGraf (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Change of wording for footnote RE: BBC

Footnote e has the wording "According to the BBC, these figures include wounded soldiers" - it should say, "According to the BBC, these figures may include wounded soldiers" to fall in line with what they actually say in the source. Johnnyp 76 (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Change the number of losses estimated by the Ukrainian government of the Russian Armed Forces in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine from 189460 to 190040 https://kyivindependent.com/general-staff-russia-has-lost-190-040-troops-in-ukraine-since-feb-24-2022/ JacobiLevin12 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Article has already been updated to estimates as of 13 May 2023. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis

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

I noticed errors in US estimates for Ukrainian and Russian casualties.

Articles says "20,000 killed and 130,000 killed" instead of "20,000 killed and 130,000 wounded" (for Ukrainians). Same error for Russians.

Could anyone with edit clearance correct this please ? Lizzepter (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Kubaadamiec69420 (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Change the Amount of Russian Troops Killed to 16000.

Sources: https://kyivindependent.com/media-public-data-suggests-over-16-000-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-during-first-year-of-all-out-war/ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-donbas-invasion-putin-kremlin-donetsk-mariupol-kyiv-b990536.html https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/more-16000-russian-troops-killed-26563767

 Not done: The source appears to be from 2022 which indicates it is likely not representative of the current situation. Kpgjhpjm 08:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Georgian Casualties

The list of Georgian Casualties has few errors. source/article 211 says that the Georgian who was presumed dead turned out to be alive and articles 216/217 are about the same two fighters. 216 reports their death and 217 about their bodies arriving to Georgia for burial. I think the number of Georgian Casualties is around 48-49, not 51. 178.134.227.183 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian fighter died in Ukraine

https://m.delfi.lt/lietuvoje/article.php?id=93838009

I will provide English link when it's going to become available Ginas9999 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2027563/lithuanian-volunteer-dies-in-ukraine Ginas9999 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

casualty numbers don't match source

article states Russia has 74,000+ killed, 243,400+ wounded, the sources given don't match: BBC News Russian says 27,423 & Mediazona estimate says 47,000+... presumed typo of 47 to 74 Bakered (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

the russian article says (according to google translate) "Even taking into account only publicly available data, the cumulative losses of those fighting for Russia could exceed 74,000 dead.", I assume this is where the mistake was from. I don't speak russian so I don't know how accurate that translation is. He is right that the english article makes no mention of the 74,000. Could someone confirm that the 74,000+ is a guesstimate per the article and not the confirmed number? DarmaniLink (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Chernihiv strike

Strike in Chernihiv killed 7 civilians recently. I'm not sure that this figure is correct since there may have been (and likely were) Chernihiv Oblast casualties between 2022 and now, but they should at least be counted, so I'm going to add them to the 899 from the Ukrinform source. Anyone who knows of more casualties is welcome to add them as well. (Update: I have since done the same for Lviv Oblast.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin's numbers

Since we included his account for Wagner dead by mid May (22,000), should we also include his statement that 100-120,000 Russian troops in total had died by late June? Link. As the leader of (de facto) a Russian military branch and former close associate of Putin, presumably he'd know something about the military situation even outside of that specific branch.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Military contractors

Why is there no mentioned on military contractors on Ukrainian side and their casualties ? 77.13.120.167 (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Table entries sourced to Andolou and TASS

I did some work on verifying and improving references last night. I found some citations in the foreign fighter table to sources that have been found unreliable at RSN, Andalou Agency and TASS in particular. Where there were two sources for something and the second one was one of these, I simply removed the reference. This was not an exhaustive process, and I have question about some of the ones I have left for now. Thema seems to have a bad reputation for instance, but I didn't find a prior discussion about it at RSN. I am also unsure about 'India Today but haven't researched its status at RSN. (This is in the row for Greece in the foreign civilians table).

I may not have time to follow up on these today but the following need alternate references.

• Current ref 29 under "Missing and captured", paragraph needs a rewrite if statement removed
• Current reference 198 in note r of table in Foreign civilians section: sole source for statement
• current reference 423: TASS sole source for 11 sailors, says nothing about unknown solders. The second reference that is there covers the swapped Ukrainians only
• Reference currently numbered 361: sole source for a statement, named reference used in several places so potentially more than one replacement msy be required
• reference currently #437, sole source for a prisoner exchange, in table under "Prisoners of war"

Also:

• reference 226: someone has found another reference, so thank you for that. But the dead link was restored also. Just curious as to why. If this isn't in fact a dead link, then we wouldn't need another URL.(?)

Reply to edit summary: OK. Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

failed verification

"According to Ukraine, 350 children have also been reported missing, and 16,222 deported, as of 6 February 2023." Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Under Austria in the foreign fighters table, this woman was a nurse with a volunteer unit, Not seeing anything in the source about Ukrainian Armed Forces Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

*Under Azerbaijan in dead foreign fighters. I removed "" as a dead link, leaving here in case someone can salvage it Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)looks fixed Elinruby (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Same table, rm "" as very questionable, was in Belarus row Elinruby (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Foreign Fighter Misclassified?

There is one Mexican Foreign reported as killed based on this news:

1. "Під Бахмутом загинув доброволець з Ірландії". Novy Armiya. 28 April 2023. Retrieved 6 August 2023.

And indeed it says: Mexican "Bradley" Bradley Thomas Yarema

But it seems to be an American citizen with Mexican ancestry, per this news: https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/05/11/okemos-man-killed-ukraine-bradley-jarema/70206846007/

But I'm not sure of this, can anyone take another look and confirm this? Andrés Márquez Nava (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, agree. That regional site provided is enough for inclusion on the US list of combatants.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreign fighters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Legion_(Ukraine)#Casualties - here is an article about International Legion with an amount of 288 foreign volunteers killed on Ukrainian side at 9 September compared with 257 foreign combatants (and not all from International Legion) on current article. I think we need to compare sources from both places for better numbers. Cristi767 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, to begin with I dont think is a good idea to consider those numbers, since the 288 figure displayed on the ILU article is not the backed by the sources provided. Also the ILU have been repeatedly requesting the Ukrainian goverment recognition for all the killed fighters foreing or not. Is still not known the final number of killed.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits summary

Edits summary for this [40] since too much changes:

1. Someone replaced the BBC post with the general link of the live coverage of that day. The post was on the 5th page, added it.
2. Armenpress report works fine for me and confirms the figures stated by Russia (so the problem is on your end). Also, Armenpress is not on Wikipedia's list of deprecated or perennial sources.
3. The figure of 43,000 was a number compiled from the different references cited to the sentence which were all quoting the same source (Russian MoD). Combining the references to give a better overview per WP: CALC.
4. The Independent report regarding 100,000 civilian dead opening fine for me (seems problem on your end again, try using a different browser or something).
5. Report of 10 killed due to Russian shelling in Dnipropetrovsk and AP report of 45 civilian dead opening fine for me, verification confirmed.
6. Quote from Mediazona report - "Unlike Ukraine, Russia has no public registry for missing soldiers. (In Ukraine, the total number of MIA soldiers was 23,000 as of June 2023.)" So Mediazona is citing a Ukrainian public registry of missing soldiers. However, if you think this isn't enough to include it I won't reinsert it. Your call.
7. Ukrainian claims of their military and civilian dead came from officials of the Ukrainian president's office and the Ukrainian National Police. So shortened a bit since there was too much text for a table. If you think it still needs adjusting feel free to give a suggestion and lets see what we can do. EkoGraf (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, Elinruby, thank you for all of your work cleaning up the article in regards to its sources and making it better! :) EkoGraf (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I will come back to this later when I have, as you say, tried a different browser or something. Given what I know of my set up it is possible that some of these are me. However there are quite a few where a news source that usually works does not, for a particular page, so I am flagging them with the browser that is currently at hand. If you say they work for you I believe you. I am sure it is annoying and I apologize for that. However, given the huge number of other problems I cannot take them on faith. I also, as you asked, refrained from tagging all the statements cited to deprecated sources and instead listed them on the talk page, and got crickets. We need a summary of casualties for the main page and that is currently impossible. Moving on from pages that don't open for me on this browser but apparently do for you, assuming that Armenpress *does* work why would you use it? It's considered a TASS clone. If the statement it was referencing had some relationship to Armenia there might be an argument for using it. And how about all those cites to TASS? Re BBC, I see. Just saying there is a hole in the road there. Also seeing this at Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don't understand why you want to conflate Urainian mayors, governors, police and Military. If it's just "too much information for a table" can we rethink that? This is causing a problem where all Ukrainian statistics are getting dismissed.Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively we could list the sources separately for each entry but that would require re-doing the rowspan, which sounds like a nightmare. I get that it makes the table wider, and come to think of it this is the one where the areas of Ukraine are side-by-side with the areas of Russia. Maybe we could change that for a start. I was going to start working on the table entries again but I had two edit conflicts in a row; are you going to be working there? If so I will go do something else for a while. Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, haven't seen Wikipedia dismissing/tagging Armenpress as an unreliable source. And even if it was a "clone" (which I haven't seen personally), per WP guidelines as I mentioned before TASS can be used as a reliable source for statements made by Russia or its affiliated officials, and that's what we are doing here. We attributed the claims properly to Russia and their officials (answer to your second question as well) and the readers know where its coming from. Didn't understand what you said here "cation onflate". I am not against using Ukraine's statistics in the table. I ment the text describing the sources (I shortened it a bit). EkoGraf (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't understand what you said here "cation onflate". I am not against using Ukraine's statistics in the table. that was a typo caused by a super-sensitive mouse pad, now fixed to read "conflate". The issue with using Ukrainian statistics isn't you, I agree. Someone at Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the Casualties section should ideally summarize this page, has devoted a lot of pixels to the unreliability of casualty figures in general and the Ukrainian military's in particular. That seems rather undue, but also wrong, since the military itself isn't the source of most of the Ukrainian numbers. See why I want to make the distinction? Basically I want to get reliable numbers here that can be summarized there Elinruby (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

On Mediazona, I think it's a great source and we should expand our use of it, but there where it was in the table it was being presented as "Ukrainian government" whereas it's a Russian source that mostly (almost exclusively?) talks about Russian casualties. I am not quite understanding your point about registries. Could you explain that again? By the way if it was you that collated all these entries, great job on a huge amount of work. If you want you can ignore the flags for a couple of days, as I will indeed be rechecking the entries not marked as verified, and most of them will go away without your intervention. I will even make a list of those where there is still a problem on the talk page as you seem to prefer. As for TASS - it's another difference between the two sets of numbers. There is an argument to be made for presenting there stuff as here is what the Russians say, without endorsing it. On the whole I am not certain that the average wikipedia reader can grasp alternate truths given that a lot of our editors don't seem able to do so. Another coordination problem is that Russian invasion of Ukraine makes a distinction between canfirmed deaths and estimated deaths, but now I am just complaining.Elinruby (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Armenpress: ok, I missed that Reuters is also listed as a partner. I will take another look at that use, but I would prefer to remove as many confounding factors as I can. And now I am hungry and have beaten you over the head with my problems so I will wander off and give you a chance to reply. Elinruby (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC live coverage does not seem to age well

BBC is of course considered a sterling source but their live coverage items seem to frequently disappear or else move to other urls, which is a problem for verifiability. Sometimes they have merely been pushed further down the page but sometimes I cannot find them at all. Please use other sources to verify. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

When I was earlier citing their live coverage at the start of the war I cited the posts themselves, but when Wikipedia automatically archived the references they reverted it to the live news coverage, removing the posts. EkoGraf (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ok. This is not intended as an accusation, just a note from the fool trying to do source verification here that although BBC is considered a good source, a lot of the time (I grant you not always), once a few months go past theselive update stories get hard to verify. So if, when people have a choice, they use something else, that would help. Thankyouverymuch. 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

A clarification

Zaluzhny just said that "“Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead [according to Ukrainian Defense]" [41]. Meaning that the number of ~300,000 Russian "losses" they claim include KIA and wounded. This should be more clearly stated in the Table. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. This has been debated since the start, with many claiming Ukrainian figures included only those killed, except for the BBC and a few others saying it included both killed and wounded. But this latest dead estimate by Zaluzhny would point to the Ukrainian claims counting both dead and wounded. EkoGraf (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Total

Top google results for 'deaths in ukraine war are':

1,2: The NY Times and Reuters are reporting it's up to about 1/2 million. Should we add this to and/or focus on this in the lede? The focus on tiny numbers in the lede seems undue to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

3: ~14,300, per a misinterpretation of this page, which I've tried to fix with a subheading edit. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The name of the section that the sub-section for the 14,200–14,400 total belongs to is already called "War in Donbas (before 2022 invasion)". The article distinguishes between two time periods "War in Donbas (before 2022 invasion)" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine". I just added in the first paragraph in the lead that almost 500,000 casualties are estimated to have occurred during the invasion period. Now when you google "Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War" or just "casualties russia ukraine" you get as a result in the top spot that first introductory paragraph of the article, mentioning deaths from all of the phases of the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Good. Despite your revert of my edit, it seems google is no longer mis-reporting the total deaths as 14,200–14,400. Can you explain your changing of the number of casualties you made with this edit? You decreased four numbers by one. On what basis, exactly? - especially as for the first one at least, there was no change to the sourcing; was it in error? Ditto for changing 55 to 29. (I see subsequent edits by Mr.User200, Vinhson27, etc. struck - Didn't and don't plan to look closely enough to see if you're working collaboratively or edit warring, don't want to pick on you. Can you explain [42]? It fails verification, though it sounds plausible - per the source, ~35,000 confirmed recently and ~47,000 estimated back in May. Is there a mid-October source as you are implying? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

RudolfoMD I have been working collaboratively on updating this article since its inception at the start of the conflict back in 2014. In this edit [43], it was decreased by one because, as I said in my edit summary, the fatality added by Mr.User200 was already added by me the previous night, so it was double-counting the same person. All editors have been changing all of the totals as new fatalities are added to the table list, so everything remains up-to-date. The change from 55 to 29 was in accordance with the cited source which says there have been 247 total foreign deaths among Russian regular forces, and since we were already listing in the table 218 of the deaths by nationalities, that left, as per WP:CALC, another 29 that we have not identified per their nationalities. As for this edit [44], the source is linked right there, just read the BBC News Russia report titled "Mobilized in defense: what is known about Russian losses in Ukraine by October" (dated October 13, 2023) where its stated (quote in English) - "Taking this into account, the total losses of forces fighting on the side of Russia in Ukraine could exceed 88,800 dead". You were probably reading the other linked source (in the same reference) from Mediazona. As per earlier editor discussions, since BBC News Russia and Mediazona collaboratively update the Russian toll and rotate in their reporting every few weeks, it was agreed both would be linked in one unified reference. Finally, if you have doubts regarding my editing (don't know why) you can check my track record [45]. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And if you were planning to ask regarding this edit [46], in the existing reference we also have two linked Ukrainian sources present (also per earlier editor discussions), which are updated daily by the sources themselves. Editor Poklane and me update the total and sub-total casualty figures regularly as they come out, while Mr.User200, Vinhson27 and me update the foreign fighter casualties as well regularly as sources become available, and this has been a well-oiled machine for the past year. EkoGraf (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that there were two sources in the one footnote; 88,800 does verify. May your (all these editors) gears reman well-oiled. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki is clearly pro westren propaganda

You rely on western sources How can we take this page seriously 41.92.38.255 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Deaths according to British data - correction

Let me draw your attention to the fact that 70 thousand dead (50 thousand + 20 thousand, the last ones from the Wagner PMC) are most likely dead without taking into account the LPR and DPR. Why do I see it this way 1) Purely logical, there is no logical series. The total losses according to the United States back in August were 300 thousand, here the average estimate of total losses is 320 thousand. By logical extrapolation, 300 thousand losses in August (including wounded) will give 358,350 losses today. 2) In the German-language version of the site the word “50 thousand dead REGULAR RF soldiers” is used 37.73.101.147 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Since December 2022, DPR and LPR forces have been intergrated into the regular Russian military and UK MoD has not stated they are excluding them in their latest estimate. EkoGraf (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect placement

FYI: The recent report of russian losses from the state department was put in the wrong section: War in Donbas (before 2022 invasion) 108.20.155.248 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to putting {{subst:Setup cluebot archiving}} on this page?

I think:

Hello, I am from WikiProject Talk Pages and we setup your archive header for you. You only need to do the archiving manually if you don't desire to wait for the bot to do it. That said, I'd kindly ask you to remove the Archive request Template from here and put it on the top of the page, or, do the archiving and remove this template as we use it to monitor pages that may need our help. Thanks for understanding —Nanami73⚓ ^{(talk) (contributions)} 13:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Add two claims

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRTPm7VzDQ&t=2171s The CIT team estimates the number of Russian forces killed at 100,000 and injured at 300,000

2) https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/19578419 Shoigu estimates the number of irretrievable losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces at 383,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.110.34 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert it back the way it is.

Moved from User talk:Manyareasexpert § Revert it back the way it is.

 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This article says that 500,000 Ukrainian Soldiers were killed.t https://www.eurasiantimes.com/it-will-be-a-shock-ukraine-lost-500000-soldiers-in-war/amp/

Revert it Back the way it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine 173.44.89.180 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's being discussed here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#500,000 Ukrainian military killed or seriously wounded . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)