Talk:Siege of Mariupol/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Casualty figures in infobox

EkoGraf, I had removed information from the casualty section of the infobox with a series of edits that reviewed the information and sources and provide an edit summary in each case for why particular information was removed. You you made an block reinstatement of some of these figures here with the summary: Please do not remove sourced information and its sources. If you have issues lets discuss them one step at a time. Going to shorten some of the info. Ukrainian Azovstal soldiers confirmed 1,000 soldeirs+another battalion surrendered before them. President then confirmed 2,500 more surrendered at the plant. 210 minimum conf. killed, we added the + because its not final. 6,000 numb made 10 days AFTER the fighting in the residential areas had ended. At the very same time, others claimed 21,000 dead. Per WP:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. While the information may have citations, most of what I removed failed to directly support what what was being claimed.

• Per this version the figure of 3,500+ Ukraines captured is cited to two sources. Neither source verified the cited figure. The sources were dated 8 May and 6 June. As noted with this edit: per source which gives a total for the siege. 3500 figure appears to have added 1000 from other source (just removed) which did not report a total. Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The figure of 3,500 assumes that the figures from the two different dates can be added to give an "actual" total. This assumption falls to WP:OR. Consequently, this falls outside the exception of WP:CALC. It is not a "routine calculation". Furthermore, neither source specifically supports the figure and there is no transparency in how the figure was arrived at. However, the figure of >2,500 can be supported even though the date of the report is not ideal.

• The figures for Ukrainian killed and captured per Russia was removed here with this edit summary:Figure for killed is conflated from source 1 and 3 while captured is from 1 and 2. There is a questionable assumption that these figure can be "simply" added. They certainly cannot be represented with the degree of precision given. There is too much nuance to how these figures were arrived at without supporting text from the article. This is much the same as the first issue but there is also the degree of precision with which the figures were reported (see Significant figures), which is quite unreasonable. The figures per Russia were consequently removed.

• The remaining two figures were removed here with the summary: RM - figures of killed on one side and captured on the other, while verifiable provide no useful basis for comparison [in the infobox]. I think this is self explanatory.

• Civilian casualties were reported as a range of 6,000–22,000+, citing two sources dated 25 April for the lower figure and 25 May for the upper figure (after the end). There is nearly a four week period of fighting between the two figures. The lower figure was removed here with the summary: upper and lower ends of range are not comparable dates. Use most recent. Again, I think this is self explanatory.

If my edit summaries were not sufficiently clear, I trust that this is. I also note that there is no section in the body of the article where it might be appropriate to report some of the information removed from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

First, sorry for the late reply, was real busy in real life the last few days. Thanks for the step-by-step discussion.

• Ukrainian military commander in Mariupol confirmed [1] nearly 1,000 Marines plus 1 more battalion surrendered before the start of the Azovstal plant siege. After the Azovstal plant siege, Ukraine confirmed [2] another 2,500+ soldiers surrendered at the facility. That's a total of 3,500+ confirmed prisoners as per Ukrainian military/official sources. That's pretty straightforward. For the sourcing on the 3,500+ figure to be more clear, I have added additional detail in the reference to support what is being claimed.
• Russia claimed [3] more than 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 1,464 captured before the start of the Azovstal plant siege. After the Azovstal plant siege, Russia claimed [4] to have found the bodies of 152 soldiers at the facility and captured [5] 2,439 soldiers. That's a total of 4,152+ soldiers killed and 3,903 captured claimed by Russia. Again, straightforward. Also, again, for the sourcing on the figures to be more clear, I have added additional detail in the references to support what is being claimed. I might just agree in removing the 152 figure claimed since it was probably not definite for the whole plant battle and leave just the 4,000+, but of course noting that its only for the period up to April 16.
• Ukraine claimed [6] more than 6,000 Russian soldiers were killed during the siege. Even if it did not have something to be comparable to (although it has), that's not enough of a basis to remove sourced info and its source.
• About two weeks before a Ukrainian official claimed [7] 6,000 died, another official claimed [8] 21,000 died. That's a big discrepancy. Considering the new Ukrainian claim [9] of 22,000 is similar to the previous higher claim which was made almost two weeks before the lower claim, it stands to reason that they only updated the higher claimed figure. But the earlier discrepancy remains and should be addressed in some way. However, since Ukraine has been now consistently sticking to the higher claimed figure, without mentioning the lower one, I actually have no objection to the removal of the lower figure from the infobox. Which someone has already done [10]. But, I will work on addressing the discrepancy of the April lower and higher figures in the "Civilian casualties" section of the article. I will also go ahead and remove the lower figure from the war's casualties article.

Agree with your other edits/removals in the infobox. They were just clogging up the infobox. As for your last comment about a lack of a section to address info that was removed, I agree, if you want, a section can be added to the article, to summarize claims on military losses. If you still do not agree with the info of Ukrainian/Russian claims/counterclaims on dead and captured, then I suggest to wait and see what other editors think about the issue and if they have any proposals. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Azovstal casualties in infobox

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article. Reporting casualties for a particular phase is "detail" and is not consistent with this. Such detail belongs in the body of the article. The placement of this content in the infobox has been disputed. WP:ONUS applies. The content has been removed accordingly. Ping PilotSheng. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right that the figure refers only to those killed at Azovstal, thanks for pointing that out (missed it), so we add that disclaimer as well so readers would understand its not the figure for the overall siege of the city. PilotSheng is right we should include the figure in the infobox since we are lacking, for now, the overall figure. But again, we note its only for Azovstal. It gives an understanding of the scale of the casualties. As per the cited source, quote - "...around 220 bodies of those killed in Azovstal had already been sent to Kyiv but "just as many bodies still remain in Mariupol". So 220 have been received, with "just as many" (another 220) still in Mariupol. They basically stated how many bodies there are. Will add quotation to the ref for better understanding. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf I added a "+" sign to the figure of 220-440, because the source said that "just as many bodies still remain in Mariupol" which I'm assuming does not include the bodies that have already been buried. Even so, this number is almost certainly underreported, as soldiers were dying "every day" from lack of proper medical care in addition to those killed by bombardments and small arms fire. Furthermore, as it pertains to the siege itself, there is a 100% chance that more than 220-440 Ukrainian servicemen were killed in Mariupol -- the Russians are claiming over 4,000 killed -- and while that number is also more than likely inflated, the number of Ukrainian servicemen killed in Mariupol almost certainly is in the thousands -- and we need to represent that in the infobox. PilotSheng (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The number does not pertain to the overall siege of Mariupol, just the Azovstal siege, which we already noted, so the + is unnecessary. EkoGraf (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The comments you are both making are really good reasons why this does not belong in the infobox. It gives no idea of the scale of casualties overall and could even be construed that there were no other casualties. It clearly goes against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

When looking at examples of other war/battle articles on Wikipedia, when their is a lack of an overall figure of dead, but there are figures for specific phases, those are included in the infobox, but with a disclaimer for which phase so readers would understood its not an overall toll. Just including it gives an indication of the scale of casualties, much better than no figures at all. EkoGraf (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine just received 64 more bodies from Azovstal, which would bring the ;ow total to 288. How do we reflect this in the infobox? Are there still "just as many bodies" in Mariupol, implying that we should set 288*2 = 576 killed as the upper limit? PilotSheng (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would refrain from adding those. First, the source does not say there are still just as many in Mariupol, which means those 64 are within that 220-440 range (they are among those earlier mentioned "just as many bodies" remaining). I would recommend to either leave it as it is (220-440) for now, or if you insist on adding the 64 to the confirmed minimum, edit it as 284-440. If you agree we leave it as 220-440, we will update the number only when and if Ukraine confirms a new overall toll (weather for the whole battle or just Azovstal) or if the number of bodies received by Kyiv exceeds 440. EkoGraf (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to edit it to 284-440, because leaving it at 220 implies that there are only 220 confirmed deaths in Azovstal, which wouldn't be true, because there are now 284. PilotSheng (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but also please add the source beside the already existing citation for 220-440 and add a quote to the new citation so it is easier understandable where the figure is coming from. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

PilotSheng and EkoGraf, Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article. Reporting casualties for a particular phase is "detail" and is not consistent with this. Such detail belongs in the body of the article. Adding a "disclaimer" does not change the fact that it really doesn't belong there nor should we be trying to write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason why "Casualties of Combatant (x)" is a category which exists within infobox template -- and this is because it's key information. You're right -- the infobox is to summarize key points of the article. And one of the key points of the article, indeed, is the massive toll on human life (both civilian and military) that the siege exacted on both sides. Simply removing the casualties from the infobox, and putting a link to "see Casualties section for more details," like I've seen you do on other pages, is simply failing to represent the loss of human life, which is absolutely a key point of the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, you're not even supposed to put a link to the casualties sections in the infobox, so I don't see why you are following some parts of the rule and not the other.

I can see why you would remove commanders and unit icons and such from the infobox. However, removing casualties from the infobox is simply something that I'm personally going to take a hardline stance on. I strongly oppose the removal of the casualties from the infobox, because it is extremely important to represent the massive loss of life that took place in the siege.

The loss of life during the siege is one of the key points of the article. And as such it should have a place in the infobox. PilotSheng (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The casualties of the siege of Mariupol is undeniably a key point of the article. I've noticed that you gave gone around various pages for military engagements during the war and changed infoboxes in this manner. If you go onto similar articles about battles, casualties are listed in all of them. Casualties are a sigificant part of all battles; removing them from the infobox and simply claiming that they are unnecessary detail is poor practice. The average reader doesn't want to scour the article to see the number of dead and wounded; these numbers, regardless of which side is making a claim or how many times they are mentioned in the info box are key information about the battle. PilotSheng (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Cinderella157@EkoGraf PilotSheng (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

While Template:Infobox military conflict makes casualties an optional parameter, I agree that comparable figures of total military casualties (or casualties to present) is key information per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) - as are civilian casualties if (as in this case) they are applicable. However, the casualties at Azovstal are not the total for the engagement that is the subject of this article, Azovstal was a particular phase of the overall engagement. Those casualties are not key information for the overall engagement. Their inclusion in the infobox is not consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is also misleading since, even with the disclaimer, it suggest that these are the only casualties acknowledged by Ukraine. It comes down to not trying to write the article in the infobox and that the infobox cannot capture nuance. These particular figures belong in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

PS The figures for Azovstal do not actually represent the massive loss of life. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

PilotSheng has already said everything, don't have anything to add except what I already did and that is that there have been many battles throughout history where the total number of fatalities is not known, except perhaps some critical phases of the battles and in those cases Wikipedia shows in the infobox the number of dead from that specific phase, while emphasizing its only for that particular phase, which we already did by saying the figure refers to Azovstal only. Like I said earlier in our discussion, when I get a bit of more free time I will open up a section regarding military casualties only (beside the existing civilian one) and expand in text form on the various casualty claims so its presented both in the infobox and the main body of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf: ... in those cases Wikipedia shows in the infobox the number of dead from that specific phase .... An argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only valid if it represents best practice. Since you would rely on this, can you show cases where this is done in articles assessed as GA, A or FA, where this is acknowledged as best practice. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a few examples of articles Wiki rated the same as this one or a bit higher, but historically considered significant: Battle of Moscow (shows two sets of Soviet losses - just the second part of the battle, or the whole battle plus another 10 months of losses after the battle but from the same area); Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942) (shows Axis losses only for the last two months of the battle out of eight total); Belgrade offensive (shows Yugoslav losses in the battle for the city only and not the whole offensive). We do with what we have and like PilotSheng said this is key information regarding the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a "military losses" sub-section" to the "aftermath" section with a textual description of all the individual claims of losses, including some that were removed earlier from the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It is agreed that the total casualties for a subject engagement is a key point to be summarised in an infobox. However, it is non sequitur to then argue by extension that a breakdown of parts of the engagement is also key information to be placed in the infobox and not "detail" that falls outside of the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - particularly when there are already figures available for total casualties (killed) for both sides. Citing examples that are two c-class articles and one b-class article (not assessed by MilHist) in support of this only goes to reinforce that this is not best practice. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

50,000 killed in Mariupol

Ukrainian occupation authorities coordinating civilian burials say that 50,000 civilians have been killed in Mariupol, which is way more than the existing number of 22,000, by 28,000 to be exact. See the link here.[11]

Yesterday the Ukrainian Defense Minister claimed that the number of dead Ukrainians may exceed 100,000. Since Wikipedia editors have only counted about ~28,000 dead civilians in Ukraine, using this number of 50,000 to get the total number of civilian dead to 56,000 would be well in line with the Minister's estimates. Any thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@PilotSheng As per the Guardian, the cited source is an anonymous person, while reconfirming the official Ukrainian estimate is 22,000. If the figure isn't official nor widely reported (haven't seen anybody else saying 50,000 were killed) its place shouldn't be in the infobox as per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also, didn't see any sources citing the Defense Minister saying 100,000 Ukrainians have died (googled it). As for your edit here [12], like I said in my edit summary, I don't know which source you were reading, but the title of the ref is "UN says more than 1,300 civilians killed in Mariupol — but true toll “likely thousands higher". Also, quote from the source - "At least 1,348 civilians were killed...a top United Nations official said". In addition, stating 22,000 killed without attributing it as a Ukrainian claim is improper referencing, especially if its a claim by one of the belligerents. It gives the false impression to the readers that 22,000 is a confirmed factual number while the Ukrainians themselves have said its an estimate (so not confirmed). Additional source (CNN) has been added for the UN's figure and the report by the UN on the toll has been added to both the lead and the civilian casualties section. The UN as a 3rd party is more reliable than Ukraine (one of the belligerents) and can not be excluded. So please do not remove sourced information and its sources. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just added one additional source for the UN's verified figure, the UN itself. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian defense Minister did not said literally that 100K Ukrainians died. He said that he wished by the end of the month the death toll did not pass the 100K figure. He said this in CNN. Regarding the 50K civilians killed we need more sources and details of how they reach to that number. Most likely after this war ends, both parts will share their data and body identification could take place. However as we speak we only have as Reliable sources the UN figure(lowest) and the 20K.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian soldiers killed in Mariupol

On 8 May Ukrainian intelligence officers and the Azov regiment clamed that 25,000 were killed in Mariupol, soldiers and civilians combined.[13]

By that time the Western consensus based on the official figure from the Mariupol Mayor's office was that 21,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol. I am wondering if and how we should reflect this in the article or infobox. Subtracting the two figures would give us 4,000 soldiers killed in Mariupol, although this is certainly not the way we should get a reliable figure. Thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

All of this adding and subracting is too much like WP:SYNTH and falls outside the allowed simple arithmetic that is permitted since it is based on assumptions. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Possible 2022 Mariupol cholera outbreak into Siege of Mariupol

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

---

This seems like it hasn't gone anywhere. After over a month, this "outbreak" has resulted in all of 1 confirmed case. Until further information reveals this to actually be a thing, I think it should be merged into the Aftermath section of the Siege page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think that article should exist to be honest, 1 confirmed case is not an outbreak at all; it could even be considered to be within normal ranges. PilotSheng (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with PilotSheng per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This is probably one for AfD. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with PilotSheng and Cinderella157. Delete or merge (here) the cholera article. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose to delete, merge only Wikipedia is not a snow ball.. or something. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - certainly makes sense to merge this into the humanitarian aspect of the siege. Outbreak is mostly notable in context of siege, otherwise 1 confirmed case would not really make much news (afaik). ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - definitely seems like a notable event, not even something controversial? Both the Russian and Ukrainian sides putting out warnings and being concerned about it. And merging it in definitely seems like a bad idea, as the main parent article should only have say a single paragraph about this, leaving the rest for the actual Possible 2022 Mariupol cholera outbreak article itself. Mathmo ^Talk 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a snowball. We don't know for sure. Dawsongfg (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a snowball.

  What does this mean? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think they meant WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Regardless of whether it's a snowball or crystal ball, it's not notable enough. We removed the Battle of Bakhmut and renamed the "Battle of Chornobaivka" pages because there wasn't a battle (sure they're near, and sure there is and was resistance in Chornobaivka but there's still not an ongoing battle). Dawsongfg (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, okay, thanks for clarifying, lol. I agree on your point, then. This is classic WP:CRYSTALBALL. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hey my memory is bad ok? Dawsongfg (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Azovstal siege needs a dedicated article

Azovstal siege has been running for 3 months, there are so much coverage on it, more than coverage on the rest of the Mariupol battle. This section needs to be moved to a separate article to get space and proper coverage. Yug (talk) 🐲 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There actually did used to be a standalone article, but there was consensus to merge it here. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Accounts of Mariupol Defenders

I have a question: There are many Twitter accounts of the Ukrainian soldiers and there are Twitter accounts of those who were in Mariupol of course. I know of at least 2 of them that were definitely there.. The first is "Орест" This person posted images from Azovstal and in his last tweet he left a link to google drive with other images from Azovstal. He also said things related to the Battle of Azovstal. And there is a second person who is "Даніїл з МІСТА ГЕРОЯ МАРІУПОЛЬ". He also posted things related to Mariupol.. However.. he died.. Орест confirmed that he was there as he has a tweet related to this person death. So.. Can we add the information from their tweets we consider to be important here on this page? Random Fan Camping (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No. We require reliable sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Massive New Casualty Estimates

According to a new report by Mykola Osychenko, President of Mariupol TV and a civic volunteer, said in an interview with Dnipro TV that there were over 87,000 documented dead civilians in the city’s morgues, and over 26,750 unidentified civilians, possibly in mass graves. Since the page is semi-protected, I haven’t been able to add these new reports, but I thought I should mention it, as it seems to have gone largely unnoticed until recently. Links to sources are below.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/30/87000-killed-civilians-documented-in-occupied-mariupol-volunteer/ https://www.5.ua/regiony/u-mariupoli-zadokumentovano-87-tysiach-zahyblykh-ale-tsyfra-ne-ostatochna-zmi-286225.html https://dnipro.tv/dumka-eksperta/mykola-osychenko-prezydent-mariupolskoho-telebachennia-volonter-hromadskyi-diiach-rozpoviv-iak-rozhortalysia-podii-v-mariupoli-na-pochatku-viiny/ Tomissonneil (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Not official information by the Ukrainian government (claim by volunteer), nor widely reported by RS (as you also pointed out). Still possibly worth mentioning in the casualties section, but not the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Split

Zacharpolis (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Already previously discussed and rejected. EkoGraf (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Prisoner exchange

I can't see that mentioned in the article, but on 21 September most of the "Azovstal" defenders were released as part of prisoner exchange.[14] Santorini36 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

treated civilians as hostages

According to the head of the local Greek organisation, the fighters of the Azov regiment which defended Mariupol treated civilians as hostages and looted their property during the siege itself.[304] with the source given https://www.estianews.gr/kentriko-thema/ta-tagmata-to%e1%bf%a6-%e1%bc%80zof-m%e1%be%b6s-chrisimopoio%e1%bf%a6san-%e1%bd%a1s-%e1%bd%81mirous/ describing itself as Ephemeris "Estia" - Anonymous Publishing Company - is it a reliable source? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources that corroborate the claims made by Natalia Papakitsa in that article (which seem somewhat extraordinary to me—for example, that there were English- or Polish-speaking people telling the Azov members on how to use their weapons). I've removed it for now. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Slight casualty edit

The Russians claimed to have captured 3,917 prisoners (1,478 to mid-April, 2,439 to the end of the siege) during the battle, slightly higher than what’s on the page, which says 3,903.

Source #1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-idCAKCN2MC23D Tomissonneil (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Major General Oleg Mityaev and Colonel Alexei Sharow to list of commanders for Russian side?

Both were killed during the battle, Mityaev the commander of the 150th motor rifle division by the Azov Regiment and Sharov the commander of the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade. There is a visual confirmation for the death of Mityaev posted by the Azov Regiment on their twitter.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russian-officer-elite-decimated-9-who-were-killed-in-combat-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-general-killed-after-ukraine-intercepted-unsecured-call-nyt-2022-3 https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-ukrainian-national-guard-s-azov-regiment-eliminated-the-commander-of-the-russian-s-150th-motorized-rifle-division/

Misaka Complex (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A single passing mention of a commander (as for Major General Oleg Mityaev) does not mean that they rate a mention in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE to summarise key facts). Colonel Alexei Sharow is not mentioned in the article at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The warcrimes committed by Russian forced sould be renamed and edited to "War Crimes committed" there should also be a warning at the start of wikipedia page saying that the information might not be 100% accurate

. 2601:600:8D81:B570:D96C:3F81:4277:F8B0 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

This page states that Ukraine's battle strength was 3500-8100. To support number 8100, there are 2 references. The first reference ( "Putin says Russia has seized Mariupol, calls off storm of Ukrainian troops". Fortune.) has no reference to any Ukraine's strength, and does not mention number 8100 anywhere. The second reference quotes Shoigu stating that the MERCENARIES are numbered as that, not the total Ukraine's battle strength. Therefore, please remove number 8100 as a number that has no credible support. thank you Sidewinder662 (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: both sources mention one politician's quote that Russia's strength was over 8,000: [Sergey Shoigu] said Ukraine had just over 8,000 troops in the city just before the siege. Adjusted range from "3,500–8,100" down to "3,500–8,000". TGHL ↗ 🍁 20:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Request on changes to "Russian push into the city" section

Regarding the section, especially the paragraph in early April, saying " On 4 April, one Ukrainian battalion surrendered, with Russian officials stating two days later they captured 267 Ukrainian marines from the 503rd Battalion of the Ukrainian Naval Forces. Due to the surrender, the lines between the Ukrainian 36th Separate Marine Brigade and the Azov Regiment had been broken." , but that has to be corrected and changed, for it was not 503rd Battalion, but rather 501st Marine Battalion.

Because though at first Russian media reported as such, but Ukrainian law enforcement agencies filed charges around 5/16/23(coinciding with exactly a year after Mariupol's fall) and pointed to a senior lieutenant with 501st Marine Battalion allegedly colluding with DPR(and sources said this person had contacts and relatives within DPR) to deceive the 277 Ukrainian Marines into surrender([15]https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/16/ukraine-charges-suspected-traitor-for-deceiving-mariupol-marines-into-surrender/), thinking they were to relocate to somewhere through a so-called humanitarian corridor.

Other sources included [16]https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/16/7402404/ , and [17]https://www.kyivpost.com/post/17414. Bf0325 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Add Adam Delimkhanov as a commander for the Russian side. Commanderconflict (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a single passing mention of him in the body of the article. How does that mention evidence that he was a key or significant commander per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)