This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russian commanders and leaders - Vladimir Frolov needs to be added (source (in Russian): https://web.archive.org/web/20220616215054/https://www.infobae.com/ru/2022/04/16/ukraine-killed-russian-general-vladimir-frolov-who-commanded-the-offensive-in-mariupol/) MylowattsIAm (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. This addition is not supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean? I simply said that Frolov should get added in the commanders and leaders section underneath Mishustin. The article would simply get used as a reference that he was indeed a commander and isn't added out of thin air. That would in no way make the infobox no longer summarize key facts from the article. The addition is supported by the article as it clearly states that he commanded the troops during the siege. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it tell us who Frolov is and what they did of significance that would lead to their being placed in the infobox. There is nothing in the article to tell us this. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. If he ain't there, he can't be a key fact from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

also please change it in the infobox.

• Why it should be changed:

The linked BBC article says:

> Ukrainian officials now believe that at least 25,000 people were killed in the fighting in Mariupol, and that 5,000-7,000 of them died under the rubble after their homes were bombed. Mariupol had a pre-war population of nearly 500,000.

It does not say civilians. Alternatively, do not change it but add a citation needed tag or verification failed tag.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Bowad91017 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an Al Jazzeera article that says 25,000 civilians. There is no need to change it to people, just add the Al Jazeera article as a source. ‘I had no idea I’d never go back’: Mariupol survivors, a year on | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera Bowad91017 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I added the new source in all 3 places where the BBC article is referenced, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The statement falsely implies that the reports of the pyrrhic victory are biased or controlled by the Western establishment, even though they are very credible and unbiased (as opposed to the Guardian, which is less credible and slightly more biased).

2. The Guardian is also “Western media,” so how come it isn’t mentioned as such but DW and The Times are? LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you talking about the statement in the lead? Please be more precise when you are making comments about an article. The lead has "some Western reports" and then lists them in the notes; the Guardian is not one of them (but maybe I don't understand your point about the Guardian). And no, it does not imply that those sources are "biased or controlled". Drmies (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text says "In contrast, Ukrainian president Zelenskyy stated 90 percent of helicopter pilots sent to Mariupol during the course of the siege to resupply Ukrainian forces and evacuate the wounded were lost due to Russian air-defenses," but the footnote says, "And the people who were ready to go were 90% sure that they might not come back.." That is a different meaning. The text in the Wikipedia article is therefor inaccurate. 67.221.109.142 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Read the source four paras up from where you quote. Material is verifiable. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today those two estimates have been removed twice from the infobox, and I think this matter should be discussed more thoroughly.

Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) is one of the world's leading resources for data on armed conflicts, so their estimate, added by @Tomissonneil a couple of weeks ago, definitely adds important context.

And AP's estimate is consistent with UCDP's, so it's very useful as independent confirmation.

In light of this, I find it puzzling that both of those estimates have been removed, twice - first by @Flemmish Nietzsche, and then by @Cinderella157 - and I would like to understand to reasoning behind this decision. DancingOwl (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more issues with the article. How did the infobox says "Per Human Rights Watch: 8,034 excess deaths", when the source Counting the Dead: Documenting Loss in Mariupol, a Ukrainian City Besieged and Devastated says - To better grasp how many people died, we analyzed satellite imagery, photographs, and videos of five of Mariupol’s cemeteries. We estimate that at least 10,284 people died and were buried in these five cemeteries during the first year of the conflict, though likely many more died. We estimate that around 2,250 people would have died naturally in Mariupol during that time, meaning the city had at least 8,034 excess deaths above a peacetime rate
, and
10,284 is likely a significant underestimate of the total number of people who died in Mariupol during this period. It is also unclear how many of these people were civilians and how many were combatants. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - both HRW's and UN's numbers are major underestimates, as their sources explicitly say, which is why UCDP's and AP's estimates are so important, in my view. DancingOwl (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DancingOwl The AP article says "[T]he municipal government in exile estimated 25,000 people at a minimum had died. But at least three people in the city since June say the number killed is triple that or more" — that is not the AP saying that 75,000 people had died, only acknowledging that some people have said so. I have nothing against the UCDP estimate itself, but any amount of (civilian) casualty claims beyond UN + Russia claim + Ukraine claim + 1 other is excessive. Replacing the HRW statement with Uppsala in the infobox would be fine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the HRW statement with Uppsala sounds like a reasonable option DancingOwl (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]