Talk:Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War

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

casualties and deaths
« Casualties «  is the military term - dead or too wounded to fight or missing. Most people are interested in the humanitarian aspect, for which death and injury are radically different things. we should write here of deaths and injuries. 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:9DC7:C604:B22C:C486 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Civilian casualties
Why not add other, higher estimates of civilian casualties? Human Rights Watch - at least 8,100 victims in Mariupol, add UN data, we get an absolute minimum of 19,000 dead, exactly absolute Read the method for determining the absolute minimum in Mariupol from HRW, it says that in just 1.5 years, cemeteries in Mariupol expanded to an area equivalent to at least 10,300 burials with a natural mortality rate of 2,200 people during this time. This is worth considering as an estimate of the absolute minimum deaths beyond the 10,000+ deaths from the UN 88.155.210.83 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On this same note I have no idea why the AP estimate of 75,000 civilian dead in Mariupol, the Ukrainian chief war crimes prosecutor Yuriy Belousov's estimate of 100,000 civilian dead in Feb 2023, and the US estimate of 42,000 civilian dead in May 2023 were all deleted from this page.--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an editing history button for the article (you'll see there a link Find addition/removal if you want to search for a specific string of text that was removed); and there's a link above to the archives of this talk page; these may provide some answers to your question. If you think that the reasons were unjustified and if you use diff or URL to diff to give a list of the edits in which reliable information was removed, then un-involved editors may be more likely to help achieve consensus on what edits should or shouldn't be made. We're all volunteers. Boud (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian losses by names
Just recently, there was a release of yet another large project in Russian attempting to figure out the minimal number of Ukrainian losses, their list appears to be confirmed by names. Currently, they have a number of 46591 dead:. I think that worths to be added as (confirmed by names) under UALosses project in the 24 February 2022 – 24 May 2024. Possibly, also with their estimate of 78800+ of total losses (the number who died and went MIA on a battlefield so likely died, too, without those who became disabled and unable to fight, defected from the army or etc.): Aennfred (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * So sad 135.84.155.147 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024
change number of netherlands casualties from 2 to 3 in latest development. Floris Minderhoud (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Same source but completely different methods
I'm not quite convinced by your argument for removing the probate-based Meduza estimate (66-88 k) from the table in. While the excess-deaths and probate estimates are both by Meduza, these are different statistical sources and different methods of modelling the data. Hospitals and morgues register deaths because they've handled the people prior to death or the bodies after death and don't want to be accused of crimes in relation to those particular responsibilities. Probates are mainly for lawyers, families and courts and the probate registry to worry about; the probate registry is responsible for the data. In principle these should be correlated, but there's no guarantee that issuing a certificate will lead to a probate case registered, and conversely, administrative errors probably allow for probate cases going ahead without the death counting in the official deaths data. Different administrations and administrative chains have different levels of reliability. The fact that the two estimates give only moderately different estimates tends to strengthen their credibility.

Of course, we do want to limit the number of entries in the table, and you did put the info into the prose part. Also, neither of these are peer-reviewed journal papers. So I'm also not completely convinced that the 66-88 k entry should be restored. Boud (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you are at the same time not sure if it should be restored to the table, do you want to leave it as it is now, or maybe what if we leave a note beside the newer estimate (64k) in the table that mentions the previous 66-88k estimate or maybe we even link to the paragraph (in prose) on the both analysis? EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess a note next to the 64k estimate in the table with a link to the prose paragraph would make sense. I've noticed anchor being used here and there, especially for sections that risk being renamed. Boud (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done . EkoGraf (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've compressed further in the table, since at least Mediazona + Meduza are closely coordinating in their estimates. A diagram such as this one on the Fediverse would be good, though the lack of safe graphing tools implies that this would have to be hardwired, e.g. as an svg file, preferably together with python or octave source code on Commons ... Boud (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Economist figures for Russian casualties
HI all - I added some figures from the economist, which had looked at a number of good sources and did some analysis to come up with some figures. These were removed from the table by this edit but I can't really see any good policy reasons for its removal from the table.

The Economist is a respected publication, and it is RS. It was removed on the grounds that "Also, again, its contrary to most other current estimates" but just because a figure differs to the others around it, doesn't mean it should be removed. IMHO various figures from different sources should be included (as long as they are RS) and it's Wikipedia policy to include a range of views under WP:bal. IMHO it should be up to the reader to make up their mind, with the link to the article which the users can read if they wish for further analysis.

As it's an RS, I can't see any issue including it, if editors do have issues with the reference, please comment here, otherwise I can't see any policy issue with it being reinserted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As stated, firstly you added an incorrect figure (782,000 instead of 462,000-728,000 as per the source). Further, the method of calculation that you described also wasn't as per the source, which was reaffirmed by editor Boud. Further, as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, multiple sources would be needed to verify the information (upper calculation) since its not in line with the other most recent Western estimates, this was previously discussed. Finally, because its RS and deserves to be mentioned, the numbers and source were moved to prose with an extended explanation regarding their methodology (to give better insight to the readers). If other editors voice an opinion that it should be added to the table as well I won't object. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, yes, I should have included the range, and 782k was a typo instead of 728k. However, I disagree with the way you used WP:exceptional - that policy seems to lean towards editors making fringe/exceptional claims, which this isn't... it's a higher range figure. I would say a claim of *1 million* would be exceptional, and fringeish, and would need multiple resources, but this is merely a range estimate a bit higher than the others. There is already a figure of "500,000 killed and wounded", this is not much more than that. Also, the figure isn't simply 728k, it's a *range* of 462k - 728k, the lower end of that range is actually *below* one of the other estimates listed. I would think, that as its mentioned in the body of the article it makes sense to also include it in the table. Like you, I'd be happy to hear of other Editor's comments.
 * I suggest the inclusion of the range referenced to the Economist, rather than the top end figure, in the table as a good compromise. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if other editors also think it should be in the table, I won't object. EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, would be good to hear of other editors views. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)