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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Twice I have tried to fix the claim that the ISW is saying the 155th has been re constitiued 8 times. The ISW does not say this in the referenced article. The ISW says RUSSIAN MILBLOGGERS claim it has been rebuilt UP TO 8 times. We do not normally consider Russian MIlbloggers an accurate source, and they are certainly not the ISW. Liger404 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you apparently did not listen or just refuse to accept what I told you, I will just copy my response I gave you on my own talk page:
Nope, it says "The Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times since the start of the war in large part due losses sustained during the prolonged effort against Vuhledar." The fact that it has been destroyed and reconstituted eight times is not attributed to Russian bloggers, check the source yourself. The portion connected to the bloggers are the manner in which the unit suffered high casualties (human wave attacks).
The sources listed by ISW for the destroyed eight times claim is also not Telegram bloggers, so either you're looking at something else or just making false claims TylerBurden (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section of the ISW report is headed with this "Some prominent Russian milbloggers criticized the Russian military command for continuing to impale Russian forces on Vuhledar ". However a look at the references section shows the situation is even worse than I thought. ISW provides this as the only reference for the claim.
This video is an unverified interview of a man who claims to be from the 155th. The video is posted by a Ukrainian online resistance group. This group here. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/National_Resistance_Center_of_Ukraine . Therefore there is actually no valid source for this claim at all. We have a video, from a resistance group, that simply, says this is true. This does not meet the wikipedia standard for reliable sources. We need to remove this section. I will attach reference 13, the ISW reference for the claim for you to look at and see if you can make some validity from it.
The only other reference we have, if followed to its true source will lead to a section on an ISW page that says the following.
"Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk reported on November 2 that the Russian naval infantry units cannot be considered “elite” due to lack of specialized training for new recruits and because Ukrainian forces have destroyed the main core of the Russian professional army since the start of the Russian full-scale invasion".
The only ISW reference for this, reference 70, is an untranslated Ukrainian news video from channel 1+1. Again this does not meet the wikipedia requirements for an unbiased or reliable source.
When we consider the likelihood of a unit being fully destroyed and rebuilt 8 times, something that is basically unheard of in war, we must have more evidence than, a Ukrainian officer said so, or the ISW said that a Ukrainian officer said so. Liger404 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that's not what we have then, we have the ISW actually saying this.
You're changing your tune now that the initial claim has been corrected, and instead want to claim that the sources the ISW based this on are not good enough. Well, the ISW are the established source, not you. It's not unthinkable given Russia's reported casualty rates. TylerBurden (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just went through his on another page about the Imane Khelif medical report leak. We decided as a group that even though the news was being widely reported by established media sources, because they all linked back to a single source "Le Correspondant" that is was not valid as it was an unusual source and the photographed documents are not confirmed by anyone else.
This ISW situation is the same. The ISW is a good source when the ISW is the one actually saying something. However they are not the source when they simply report what someone else has said. For instance most ISW will have a section saying "Ukrainian General staff have said" . The source at that point in the Ukrainian general staff, not the ISW.
That Newsweek article has the same problem, if you follow the source to where it is actually from, go to the ISW page, March 24 then find the claim about reconstituted 8 times. This is the exact same source as the previously discussed ISW source, circular sourcing, that thing we are supposed to not do. The Newsweek article you linked is also the SAME ISW page. We have only one source, ONE, reported 3 times in a circular fusion. You show me where the ISW has actually said this and I will accept it. I have dug through the sourcing and all I can find is that one Ukranian Youtube video. Reference 13 of that ISW page, that is who the ISW is reporting from. THe .ua page no longer exits, all we have is one YouTube video of one man saying this happened. And right now AI is even saying this is true, and you know why? Because WE are saying it is true. WIkipedia is the top ranked source for this misinformation.
You show me, you copy and paste the bit where the ISW says that the claim is from them. Yes I was wrong about the milbloggers, I read too fast. Its WORSE than Russian mibloggers, its an abstract YouTube video from an organisation that is an official part of the Ukrainian resistance effort, the greatest possible level of bias when it comes to casualty reporting. Liger404 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to causality rates, consider that the USA and BBC report, according to us on wiki 500,000 casualties. But Casualties involve wounded, and the 3 men I know in Ukraine have all been wounded multiple times, because then you heal and come back. USA and BBC are reporting 100-150,000 dead.
Russian invaded with 150,000 men. At an 800% casualty rate as we are allowing to be claimed on our page, Russia should have lost 1.2 million men A YEAR AGO. But we only think they conscripted 300,000 men, to a total force of 450,000. Now we have other recruitment, we think they have a force of 700,000 now. But you cannot credibly expect them to have 700,00 men in service after losing over 1 million men? Where are all these men coming from? The US and BBC estimates are clearly correct, they have lost more like 100-200,000 men, otherwise their army would be gone and the war would be over. We are even allowing this claim that ALL 5000 men were killed ALL at once, it's absurd, it would be the greatest single victory from Ukraine in the war. No Russian unit has even been encircled, how could an ENTIRE brigade be killed to a man? This never happens in war, the only total destructions of large units have always via encirclement. Even Azov, the only unit fully encircled in this war still had survivors.
So apparently these several established sources disagree with you, it is not possible to discuss with someone that either refuses to or is incapable of accepting basic facts, which is that ISW did report this.
Show me where on the ISW page reference the information was from them? And explain to me why this youtube video meets the wiki criteria? You are an experienced moderator, you are supposed to stop this kind of thing. The ISW has not reported this, it handed over a report from Ukraine, reference 13, which I provided you.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet you are satisfied with a Ukrainian government Youtube video, which is a prisoner interview? Liger404 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times since the start of the war in large part due losses sustained during the prolonged effort against Vuhledar."
ISW
"Russia's 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been "destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times" since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, according to a new report.
The claim was made by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington D.C.-based think tank, in its update on the Ukraine conflict published on Friday."
Newsweek
"The brigade's losses have been so high that the military has had to replenish it as many as eight times, according to the Washington DC-based Institute for the Study of War."
Business Insider
Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia doesn't work the way you think it does, you can't just repeat lies over and over again and expect them to be accepted as truth. If you are incapable of accepting basic facts, you're not fit to edit a neutral encyclopedia. Wasn't the Kremlin interested in launching their own version of Wikipedia where they can control the narrative a while back? Seems like it might be a better fit for you. TylerBurden (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think you are totally biased here and it is you pushing a narrative. You just deliberately used the circular reporting news sources, that say its the ISW. But I already did the work for you to give you the EXACT ISW report. And in that report that particular statement is reported and being referenced from the Ukrainian government. And I gave you that reference from that ISW page. And I even followed the reference and gave you the video and then even the wikipedia page for the group that is the source of this entire tree of reports.
You are the senior editor, and not one else seems to show any interest. So I think you are wrong, and I think you may even be wrong by choice. But ultimately in this disagreement, with no other voices, you are the senior and so the decision maker.
I fix lots of reference errors on wiki. Reference errors are our main issue imo. JUst the other day I fixed the definition source for 5th Generation fighters. These things matter because when someone uses wikipedia as a source for things like "What is a 5th Generation fighter" and it says something people disagree with, they will check the source, and find it doesn't exist anymore (Or ever who knows) or doesn't say what the wiki says.
I am not pushing an agenda, I am pushing for unquestionable accuracy. And your saying so is inappropriate.
I suppose the article shall remain as it is, a shame given all the work I did to show you this is actually all a single source, and a Ukrainian government source. We are not supposed to use circular referencing or biased references. But you seem to somehow not agree that the ISW report references a Ukrainian government video, even though I gave you the ISW reference from the ISW page and the Ukrainian video. Liger404 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one here thinking I know better than established WP:RS, clearly you will only believe what you want to believe, so yes I would suggest to stop wasting time desperately trying to wiggle out of being proven wrong. A normal and productive editor would realize their mistake and move on, but clearly it's very important to you that this unit being destroyed eight times being reported by the ISW is not displayed here. Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't censor such information per WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to say my interaction with you has been very disappointing. I suppose the last thing to leave is a wording correction. The ISW, seems you insist this is their own words, said "as many as eight times", whereas we are saying 8 times. Or if you need it in full "The Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times since the start of the war in large part due losses sustained during the prolonged effort against Vuhledar.". So clearly it would be most correct to include the fact that this is an estimation and that eight times is the maximum value estimated. The obvious solution is to use the actual words from the ISW page. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-24-2023Liger404 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notice how what we say is not "as many as" so you bring up a bunch of examples of "as many as" changes nothing. The articles does not say "as many as 8 times" like the ISW page does. It just says " 8 times.". Not at all the same thing is it. Liger404 (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISW clearly means it as in it has been destroyed that amount of times, adding "as many as" because it is a high number, because that is normal English, as proven in above examples and definition. Perhaps English isn't your first language, it isn't mine either but these are things that can be easily looked up. Besides, we can't copy the ISW article word for word, that would violate copyright.
Since it seems you are evidently incapable of letting this go and will continue to fill this talk page with unproductive comments, perhaps some actual administrator attention will be necessary here, because this is possibly the worst case of WP:IDHT I have seen on this site. TylerBurden (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
