Talk:Ukrainian refugee crisis (2022–present)/Archive 1

Archive 1

IDPs

Either a section here, or a separate article, would be useful on internally displaced persons (IDPs) - those staying within Ukraine but displaced from their homes because of bombing, Russian occupation or forced displacement. Boud (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There must be many thousands of them & it's relevant to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Unequal treatment of foreigners

Please add this article by Human Rights Watch regarding the unequal treatment of foreigners by Ukrainian authorities. 176.55.164.172 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of refugees, especially minors

Hallo, as I said on German Wikipedia, I would feel better if we don't use images that show refugees with recognizable faces. Especially when they are minors. Thoughts? Ziko (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a major international crisis. Photos of people in a railway station shouldn’t be censored. Blurring faces or showing people’s backs dehumanizes the crisis in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the general caution of taking pictures of people in public also applies here. Even more, we talk about a vulnerable group in a crisis situation. Ziko (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Table - numbers of refugees

It would be useful to create and regularly update a table showing number of Ukrainian refugees in other countries. Their overall numbers, number of refugees per capita and number of refugees per GDP per capita. --192.76.8.90 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Good idea - go ahead - suggest you use Visual Editor as explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#In_Visual_Editor Chidgk1 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Very much needed, and perhaps on the table columns may be added as to the receiving country's policy towards immigriants (eg status, aid, rejection rate, ethnicity of immigrants). Omarrub (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox for this page?

Over on Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Requested move 4 March 2022, there's been discussion about renaming the corresponding page ("2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis") from its current name to the new name of "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". In my comment on "Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis", I suggested that such a move would make for an implicit hierarchy of the most mature pages associated with the current crisis ("(1) 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis", "(2) 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", "(3) Russo-Ukrainian War"), and that perhaps one of them would end up at the top of the hierarchy. There are two reasonably mature infoboxes associated with those three articles: (1) Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox and (2) Template:Russo-Ukrainian War. That leads me to my question for editors (and readers) of this page: which infobox makes sense for Ukrainian refugee crisis (assuming that either of infoboxes makes sense for this page)? -- RobLa (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The refugee crisis was primarily sparked by the 2022 invasion, so I would favor the first. There were refugees and IDPs from the 2014 crisis onwards, but not nearly as many, and that subject can be covered on other pages. I would support renaming this page to make the distinction clearer, though - 'Refugees of the Russian invasion of Ukraine' might work. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I should add that my first choice would be for neither - I'm not sure either infobox would add to the article at this point. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Refugees of the Russian Invasion" makes more sense, since the "Ukranian Refugee Crisis" started in 2014, but just began to take its toll to western european nations, considering the 1.5 million Ukranians displaced abroad since the ethnic conflict turned violent. Omarrub (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of Ukrainian refugees via Wikidata?

Dear colleagues, I was about to create a table in German Wikipedia with numbers of Ukrainian refugees by country (of acceptance). Then I thought: Isn't this something we should do via Wikidata? Who wants to help? Ziko (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sweden?

 Done A lot of people are coming to Sweden as well, more and more everyday, minimum 4000 everyday, right now at least 75000 reguees from Ukraina and much more are coming 83.248.204.213 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the initial post by the IP, a section has been started for the country with refs. 4K is the current daily estimate and 76K is the guess for the first half of 2022, which they're now guessing might actually end up being higher (in this rapidly changing situation any projection that covers several months into the future obviously is labeled with a high degree of uncertainty). RN1970 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Ukrainian refugee crisis → 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis – My attention was drawn to this page following a discussion at WP:RS/N. The present title is rooted in WP:RECENTISM. During the war in Donbas, over two million people were forced to flee their homes, with a large number becoming IDPs in Ukraine, and another large number crossing the border into Russia. Was that not a refugee crisis? We documented this at Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas back as it was happening, but it seems everyone around here has forgot the plight of the 2014 refugees, who were not granted nearly the level of media coverage as those leaving now. It is clear that this article is about the current refugee crisis, sparked by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the title of the article should align with its scope, to avoid confusion. I therefore propose a move to 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. –Turaids (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How to support? Sanyam Shah (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support move this clarifies that this article is about the present crisis, rather than any previous crises, which were more complex (involving various groups moving in various directions, to escape various perceived threats) and smaller in scale than the present situation. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support move This article is about (and should be about) the recent refugee crisis due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, not e.g. Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#Refugees. Endwise (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support move It is important to distinguish the movement of refugees from Ukraine after the 2022 Russian invasion from the previous movements of Ukrainians over the last few years. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is, and will continue to be, the primary topic for "Ukrainian refugee crisis", similar to Syrian refugee crisis. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention, WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND. More than 2 million people were forced to flee their homes in 2014–2015, a greater number than fled during the much publicised 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis, and other similar crises. Current events cannot be said to wipe out what's happened in the past. I feel like the present events have exposed a severe form of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. RGloucester — ☎ 03:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, I was unaware of the previous crises when I moved it here, and (despite looking for them) I missed the guidelines about including dates in the titles. Sorry for any inconvenience. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The refugee crisis started in 2014 when the conflict itself started, so it would make sense to have a single article covering it, similar to the Russo-Ukrainian War article covering the conflict as a whole. A new article may be created to describe the refugee problem in the wake of the 2022 war. The scale of the pre-2022 crisis is comparable: 1.6 million IDPs in Ukraine and more than a million refugees in Russia (some of them may be counted twice). Alaexis_¿question? 10:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support move Like Endwise said, this article is about the current crises, not about the War in Donbas. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Should be moved to avoid confusion. IMiss2010 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Making it distinguished is important. Plus adding 2022 to the title makes it feel related to the current conflict DreamlessGlare (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's no need for this, what other Ukrainian refugee crisis is there to disambiguate from? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  USER:filelakeshoe - what other Ukrainian refugee crisis is there to disambiguate from? Mainly the crises which came about between 2014 and 2022 - resulting from the War in Donbas and the Annexation of Crimea. This is partly documented in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas. Essentially should the present crisis be an article distinct from the previous humanitarian situations? Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - necessary to distinguish between the current events and the migrations that largely took place in 2014-15. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support it makes sense. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 02:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Not specifying the year might make sense while the conflict is all over the news, but there is also the 2014 conflict. "Ukrainian refugee crisis" should be replaced with a disambiguation page. Xland44 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 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.

Creating a self-standing "Legal framework" section

The article is now focused mainly on how the destination countries are coping with the refugee crisis in practical/operative terms. Yet a section on the legal framework is also relevant to the topic and it's likely to develop and change in the course of time. I have changed the heading of a subsection from "EU measures" to "Legal framework" and I've placed it at the beginning of the section on "Other European countries" (originally it was at the bottom of that section). I think, however, that it would make more sense if we had that section "Legal framework" as a self-standing section between "Numbers" and "Countries". The section "Countries" mainly deals with operative measures, administrative implementation, solidarity initiatives, political debates, etc. If needed, in the future we could divide the section "Legal framework" into two or more subsections - the EU / other countries.--Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My only reservation is that at present, only the EU has spelt out what the legal situation is, therefore it makes sense to me for it remain where it is for the time being, since most of the main "Other European countries" are also EU members. You're right that at present the aricle is mainly developing in a 'how many' and 'how generously' and simply 'how' each country has responded. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete The reason why I felt that it had to be moved is that most of the "Neighboring countries" are EU member states, directly affected by the EU measures/legal framework: Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia. So I thought that stacking the "Legal framework" under the "Other European countries" sub-heading didn't make much sense. Plus, to be honest I also thought that the section contains information of practical importance for the people concerned. One should always bear in mind WP:NOLEGAL, but moving the "Legal framework" from the almost invisible "sub-heading 2" to the status of "heading" might be a good idea nonetheless. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think where it is now is good. I had wondered about making the countries split Neighbouring/EU/Other since main destinations are largely EU. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What about the scheme used in Refugees of the Syrian civil war? There is a section "In Europe" where, before analysing the situation country by country, one finds a lead with info on the common legal framework. As you suggest, we could make the countries split EU/Neighbouring/Other. If adopted, the structure of the article would then be the following:

Lead section

1 Numbers

2 In Europe

2.1 Legal framework

2.2 By country

3 Other Neighboring countries

4 Other countries

5 International aid

6 Issues (+ subsections)

7/8/9 See also/Notes/References Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced reporting

There needs to be some neutrality on the reporting, as the Ukrainians from other ethnicities are not accounted for, and no reference of the crisis for refugees since 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarrub (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a view on ethnicity - but certainly I think you should go ahead and add a little background on 2014 onwards refugees if it is not mentioned already Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the current crisis, not 2014 and if included as background, a better source than a Russian agency via TASS should be found and not in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This article indeed deals with The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis. It misleads the context when taking the partial numbers of refugees. The source complies with wikipedia policy and standards. Please consider source parameters aligned to wikipedia for better accord as to the editorial feedback. Omarrub (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps neutrality can be applied within the objective of reflecting a crisis and the number of ukranian refugees abroad, both leading to and after the russian invasion. Maybe the title can change so the number could only be after the conflict intensified after February, 2022. This way no context or backgraound is required to reflect the actual ukranian refugee crisis. Omarrub (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"The Ukrainian refugee crisis is the ongoing movement of people caused by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". It isn't about what happened in 2014, and even as 'background' we need better RS and simply selectively including those who have moved from Ukraine to Russia (without mentioning anyone moving in a different direction) is clearly not neutral. If the 1.5 million figure is accurate, it's reasonable to expect that a better source than TASS would have reported it in the last 8 years.Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We may use the parameter, estimates and census already reported in wikipedia, so that all refugees can be accounted for. The title and its current context is being discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia Omarrub (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Omarrub, We may use the parameter, estimates and census already reported in wikipedia No we may not, because a source has been included elsewhere on WP does not mean it is reliable here. That's called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You can try to change the scope and title of this article if you wish or get the source accepted here - though I would not think that likely to pass when the sole motive is to present a fairly dubious claim and false balance in the article. Until the change of scope and title … you are edit warring an unattributed and dubious claim into this article and risk banning if you restore it again. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

From Ukranians in Russia:

As of September 2015, there were 2.6 million Ukrainians living in Russia, more than half of them "guest workers". A million more had arrived in the previous eighteen months (although critics have accused the FMS and media of circulating exaggerated figures). About 400,000 had applied for refugee status and almost 300,000 had asked for temporary residence status, with another 600,000 considered to be in breach of migration rules. By November 2017, there were 427,240 applicant asylum-seekers and refugees from Ukraine registered in Russia, over 185,000 of them having received temporary asylum, and fewer than 590 with refugee status. The refugees were from the territories of Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republics taken over by pro-Russian separatists since the War in Donbas. Most refugees have headed to rural areas in central Russia. Major destinations for Ukrainian migrants have included Karelia, Vorkuta, Magadan Oblast; oblasts such as Magadan and Yakutia are destinations of a government relocation program since the vast majority avoid big cities like Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

So actually the number of refugees is highly disputed and none of the sources above endorse the TASS claim of 1.5 million, so even if the content were relevant to the 2022 crisis, important enough to be in the lead, and balanced by the numbers who have moved in other directions, the claim of 1.5 million is clearly highly exaggerated. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This source provided in the move discussion below gives detail about the numbers moving to Russia from the Donbas, but also those moving in the other direction,, I have added it to the pared-down sentence in the lead covering the pre-existing refugee problem. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

---

Pincrete, let's agree on the scope of this article and then remove the information that doesn't belong to other articles. Regarding your comment here, do you have sources for that? I've heard the opposite, that there are much less people in DNR and LNR than they claim, which would suggest that these refugees stayed in Russia. The Guardian wrote in 2022 that the population of DNR and LNR is less than half of the pre-war population. Alaexis_¿question? 10:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis, I'm content to wait until article scope is decided regarding this brief mention. There are sources that record that a large number returned to Eastern Ukraine and that very few were granted refugee status or asylum by Russia. More important IMO is that simply recording numbers who fled from Eastern Ukraine to Russia in earlier phases of the conflict, while not recording those who fled in a westerly direction at that time (a slightly larger number I believe), creates a false picture. Whose military aggression were previous groups fleeing from? The reasons why, and to where people fled in earlier phases are more complex than almost all of those leaving now. I myself added text and a source linking to the numbers moving in each direction as a result of the earlier phases - that is reasonable background without implying equivalence between 2014+ and 2022. Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think you are over-politicising the 2014 crisis. Some people may well have returned to Ukraine (not specifically 'Eastern Ukraine'), but that does not wash out the importance of the fact that they fled in the first place. Not to mention, when I linked that journal article saying few were granted 'refugee' status in Russia, that wasn't to say that they were not present in Russia. No, the article states that most were present unofficially because of the intractability of the Russian refugee process. Not to mention, you fail to take into account passportisation: residents of the occupied areas became entitled to Russian passports from 2019, at which point, it will have become much harder to determine who is a refugee and who isn't. We don't need to buy into Russian propaganda from TASS, but that doesn't mean we need to supress facts that may potentially be inconvenient to the overall narrative. Reporting the truth, for instance, that Russia generally did not treat those refugees well, as per RS, is a much more potent weapon. RGloucester — ☎ 13:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to un-politicise, but given that one of the pretexts for the present invasion is to protect Russian speakers from genocide and the 2014+ support of insurgents had similar justifications, I'd rather recognise that the issue is inevitably political - as well as being a tragedy of course for the poor unfortunates "caught in the cross-fire". So we either avoid the political causes altogether on this 'refugee' article, or give a balanced account IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

2014 was just as much a war as the present invasion, though limited to only one region of Ukraine. To escape the violence, people fled wherever they could. I understand that Russia may attempt to use statistics about refugees fleeing to Russia to imply those people's political allegiance (like that TASS article), but this is a nonsense. What's even more of a nonsense is trying to pre-empt that Russian propaganda use by wiping out the data altogether, which is at least somewhat relevant as background information. I also have no problem with including information about the number of IDPs (though strictly speaking, IDPs and refugees are treated seperately), but talk of 'balancing' is a potentially dangerous exercise is political editing. Is Wikipedia going to engage in some competition between Russia and Europe over who has taken the most refugees? RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have no problem whatsoever with mentioning the refugees and IDPs who fled in the westerly direction as well. Alaexis_¿question? 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

2014 to Russia figures

Now that the title and scope have been defined, should the 2014/16 figures remain in the 'Russia' section? The numbers who moved westward and eastward in 2014- 2020-ish (2.2 million total?) are already mentioned in the lead, though not I think in the body as they should be.Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate thing would be to make a 'background' section, which is lacking at the moment. Such things can be dealt with there. The 2014–2016 figures do not belong in the main body of the article alongside figures from 2022. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

2014-2022

I removed the section which claims Russia "took in Donbas refugees" 2014-2022. It's iffy anyhow since in reality, it was an earlier Russian invasion which took the LPR / DPR out of the Ukrainian government's legal control, and Russia has de-facto held it since that time. So why would enslaved Ukrainians from the Donbas suddenly leave their homes to move further into Russia's 'controlled space'? It defies logic. Also, I don't believe the Russian stories about Ukrainians 'shelling' the Donbas, because if that was true, Russia's invasion beyond Donbas and Crimea would have come earlier. It would have been the same as shelling Russia-proper. The Ukrainian refugee crisis began in 2022 when Putin started the war. --Thelostranger (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to believe it. That statement within the article is backed by a report from the UN OHCHR, which is as good (and as neutral) of a source as you're going to get for numbers of refugees. WP:OR speculation about why refugees fled where falls under WP:NOTFORUM, so please stop with that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Those were the stories being told day in day out on RT, which is the most depreciated source in the history of Wikipedia. Basically, if RT tells you it's Monday, then they are lyi9ng. Are you claiming now that Russian state TV under the control of the Kremlin is telling the truth when it says 14,000+ Donbas citizens were killed by Ukraine??? Besides, although UNHCR says it, I can't find it in any other reliable source. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I said this above, and I'll say it again: just because a piece of information can be used for propaganda purposes, does not mean that we should then attempt to pre-empt that usage by wiping out verifiable data from a reliable source. Your mistake here is to presume that merely because people fled to Russia during the 2014–2015 Russian invasion, that says something about their political allegiance. It does not, and any such conclusion is WP:OR speculation. People trying to flee a war will go wherever they can to avoid the conflict. Another article that deals with this matter, which was cited above, is this one, which details how the 2014–2015 Donbas refugees were provided very limited assistance in Russia. There are numerous other articles on the subject, so if you can't find any other sources, that's your own problem. Either way, no, there is nothing at all wrong with this information, and it is independently confirmed and verifiably true. And by the way, I don't know why you're going on about 'Donbas citizens killed by Ukraine' and 'Ukrainians "shelling" Donbas', which are propaganda yarns that have nothing in common with the UN OHCHR data on refugees from 2014–2015. RGloucester — ☎ 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't you? Oh. Well basically, the Russians claim that 14,000+ citizens of the Donbas were killed by Ukrainian forces. I used t edit the RT forum as Colin Crusty and had to spend much of time time schooling the Kremlin bots about the facts. OK. At least we're all in the clear now. --Thelostranger (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• We may want a secondary source, though? I would classify the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as a primary one. Citing statistics to a primary source is dangerous in a case like this because it can be used to make or imply arguments in the article voice. You said above that, basically, just because a piece of information can be used for propaganda purposes doesn't mean it is, but the flipside of that is that we determine which pieces of information are relevant, and how they are relevant, mostly by looking at coverage (and interpretation and analysis) in secondary source. I think it's entirely reasonable to be skeptical about a single statistic, pulled out of context from a primary source, and cited prominently in the article in a way that treats it as though it has great significance - that sort of usage often can't be properly supported by a primary citation. If the meaning and significance of the figure were unequivocally obvious, it might be different, but why are we pulling out this statistic and putting it so prominently here? This article isn't about the 2014-2022 conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see above, there are plenty of secondary sources. We used this one above. I personally do not think a report by the UN OHCHR is 'primary'. They are the ones doing the analysis, compilation, and contextualisation of statistics, not us. An example of use of a primary source would be insertion of the Russian government's own statistics, without context. We already discussed this, and I agree, this information is not relevant in this article, except as background information. Hence why I suggested the creation of a background section to deal with it. It is certainly valid as background information, however, because the totality of displaced persons created by this extended conflict, from 2014–2022 is obviously significant to the understanding of the current crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of companies' donations/aid offers in article

To not accidentally start an issue I want to try and figure a consensus about the inclusion of the donations (physical/monetary) of large companies to the refugee crisis. I had originally included information about efforts by Airbnb and Hostelworld to provide beds/housing for refugees as well as a general blurb about refugees finding housing/aid with people that they had met over the internet. It was removed by a user who claimed it was promoting the business and the personal aid was inconsequential, and I then re-added the information. The same user has since removed the information again and claimed the offers of aid to be "plugs" about the companies and has suggested that if news of large numbers utilizing the aid then it could be included. However, I don't think I have ever come across news articles explaining just how many have accepted aid offered during a natural disaster/war so I'm not sure if that would be a good standard of measure. Potentially maybe just a general list of companies/fields they are from would be a good fit instead, since multiple large companies have donated monetary aid to organizations such as the Red Cross. Any suggestions would be helpful, thanks!Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the para on each occasion. The first two sentences were essentially 'press releases" from Airbnb and another similar platform. There is no reason to believe that there has been any substantial coverage or any significant 'take up' of the two companies' offers. If we were to include every company that has contributed something already, the page would be inundated with 'plugs' IMO. Enormous numbers of small and large companies have made contributions in cash or kind, and, at a very minimum IMO they should receive significant coverage before being included. The other two stories were local US papers recording 'human interest' tales of people in their area, or from their area who had aided refugees, one was helping a dozen people in the Ukraine region, one was helping an individual 'penpal'/internet friend in USA. These are very touching stories, but again if we were to include every instance of individual generosity at present, the article would be overburdened and essentially un-encyclopaedic IMO.

I intended to raise a section here on talk myself because I think it would be good to get some feedback about what the limits of this article should be. So thanks for doing so.

Text in question is here .Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there has been no discussion - I feel that there would be a beneficial inclusion of maybe a small blurb along the lines of "additionally there were many donations (physical and monetary) by private corporations and the general public across the world to help refugees". Would this work for you @Pincrete? That way it would show the additional aid but not highlight specific companies or individuals. Or it could include specific efforts such as bitcoin crowdfunding or Mila Kunis and her crowdfunding donation campaign or specific sectors of aid like "donations included empty rooms, food, transportation, clothing etc?Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not opposed in principle, particularly if you can get sources giving the 'world' picture. 'Plugging' individuals or individual companies or even individual charities just isn't be encyclopaedic IMO. Even at the moment the article is more about what countries are doing than about the crisis or the refugees specifically. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Table format

Pincrete removed the table with numbers of refugees and split it into two bar charts. Why? The table format seems clearer and more practical (and might be usefully extended in the future /refugees per capita, etc./). It allows distinguishing between the number of 1) people crossing the border (UNHCR data), 2) people staying in the country (national approximates), and 3) people officially registered in that country (national data).Gase143 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It just seemed easier to absorb the info visually, and takes up much less space. I tried doing it in a single table with text midway to distinguish 'adjacent' from 'third' countries in order that 'bar proportion' remained constant, but couldn't work out how to do it. Additional fields cam be added or a different format or additional charts adopted as and when the need arises. If people don't like it, so be it. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a table would work better. @Gase143: why don't you recreate the table in your sandbox (User talk:Gase143/sandbox) and we'll see if consensus develops to add it back in favor of the bar charts. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

EU map

I wonder if this map would be a useful addition? https://reliefweb.int/map/ukraine/russia-s-war-ukraine-population-displacement-and-casualties-dg-echo-daily-map-22032022 Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 14:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Looks reliable and useful to me. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the copyright position would be - the © holder is the EU. Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Iraniangal777 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism

Request to change Alleged racial discrimination to racial discrimination.(here) DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Links to various articles that talk about racism in this refugee crisis:

1. Article
2. Article
3. Article
4. Article

There is no room for ambiguity this is racial discrimination not Alleged racial discrimination. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Al jazeera says "The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine has put a spotlight on alleged racism." Source 3 speaks of 'reports'. Source 4 says it can't confirm some stories. 'Alleged' should stay IMO, reports are sufficiently widespread to indicate that there probably is/was some truth in these stories, but the reader can work that out themselves. It should be pointed out that women with children were given priority on transport in many instances and men forbidden to leave if they were Ukranian citizens - so how much of this was misunderstanding and how much outright racism isn't possible to know, nor how widespread the racism was. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If women and children were priority then why Ukrainian Army is beating women of Indian origin. here is the source this isn't an isolated incident there's clearly a pattern here I'll try to find more sources that backup my claims while you could make an argument that they were using standard practice for crowd control but what I don't understand is why all along Ukraine's Western International borders these incidents were only happening to non-Ukrainian people I couldn't find any trusted source which talks about these things happening to Ukrainian people. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The reports were sufficiently widespread that there was almost certainly some truth to them, how universal and how 'official' the behaviour was is probably not assessible now. The reports appear to have stopped, so presumably matters are fixed, or everyone pertinent has left. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evacuation by a foreign country is going on in Ukraine so I am of the opinion that everyone pertinent has left.

"how universal and how 'official' the behaviour was is probably not assessible now."

George Floyd became an overnight hero after his death and today no one even questions the fact that his death was the result of widespread racism in USA this is the case when it comes to racism in USA because in USA there is a history of these things happening.

1. George Floyd Protest
2. Ferguson unrest
3. Unite the Right rally
4. Charlottesville car attack

all the incidents that are described above are the incidents that were born out of racism so clearly these incidents are "assessible" enough to qualify being tagged as the outcome of racism and this also proves that there is a way to "assess" these incidents but what I don't understand is why these "things" that were(or still) happening to the non-Ukrainian people don't qualify for racism even though the nature of these incidents are the same i.e racism are these incidents below some "threshold"?? and upon crossing that "threshold" they will be recognized as racism or become "assessible" enough to qualify being tagged as the outcome of racism. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of the sources refer to 'allegations', so should we, end of story. I don't doubt that some/most possibly all of these reports are accurate, but it is neither possible, nor desirable for us to assess how many, how serious or how widespread or how condoned. None of the accustions even approaches the level of violence of the incidents you cite. George Floyd was not and is not a 'hero', he was a man wrongly killed by the very people who were paid to protect him. What's your point? That the border incidents were deplorable? Of course they were. The article reflects the fairly widespread coverage these accusations received. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the accustions even approaches the level of violence of the incidents you cite

clearly there is a threshold here it seems to me you want body count.

What's your point? That the border incidents were deplorable? Of course they were.

I took one incident as an example then tried to explain the "unknown" level of "assessiblity" that you desire.

I can assure you that neither I nor anyone else in this world wants you to deplore this situation all I want is a fair characterization of the events.

I don't doubt that some/most possibly all of these reports are accurate

It doesn't matter what you and I think is or is not accurate. you're hell-bent on leaving room for ambiguity whereas I'm not.

The article reflects the fairly widespread coverage these accusations received.

That's your opinion. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources refer to 'allegations', so should we, end of story! Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like someone else to take a look at reports like these and also this one .

So for me @Pincrete this is not the end of story!! DataCrusade1999 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Independent source speaks of black people who "report racism while fleeing war zone", the date is 27 February, the main story is "we Africans are regarded as lower beings,’ says Nze, forced to walk several hours to Polish border" a few sources speak of being hit by border guards. Having worked and travelled with non-Europeans in central European, former communist states, where racism is often more overt, but less brutal, and where police power is more often employed arbitarily than in the West, and having myself been kicked and prodded by border guards there, I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if many or most of these stories are true. But the stories appear to have stopped, which implies either that border guards are now behaving better, or that all the non-Europeans have now left. More than 10 million people are on the move because of the war in Ukraine, a relatively small % of them appear to have been treated pretty badly on the basis of their race. That fact is recorded by us proportionately to the coverage it has received in WP:RS IMO, and I personally removed some of the "excuses" which were offered for this happening. What exactly do you imagine the article should say? Racist treatment is a relatively small factor in the overall refugee crisis, unacceptable though it might be. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That fact is recorded by "us" proportionately to the coverage it has received in WP:RS IMO

At the end of the day it's your opinion and who gave wikipedia editors the power to decide the proportionality between article and the incident

What exactly do you imagine the article should say?

Change from Alleged racial discrimination to racial discrimination.

Racist treatment is a relatively small factor in the overall refugee crisis, unacceptable though it might be.

doesn't matter how small it is and what situation Ukraine is facing the article should describe events exactly for what they are. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

doesn't matter how small it is and what situation Ukraine is facing the article should describe events exactly for what they are That is precisely what the aricle does by mirroring the language of "allegations" and "reports". That obviously isn't good enough for you and you think you know better than RS what actually happened and how widespread it was and or is. I can't be bothered to reply any longer, if you want to pursue this to an RfC you are welcome. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"I would like someone else to take a look at reports like these and also this one ."

That is precisely what the aricle does by mirroring the language of "allegations" and "reports".

This is where I told you to not engage with me. And Both of these RS say that what happened was an act of racism not alleged racism.

That obviously isn't good enough for you and you think you know better than RS what actually happened and how widespread it was and or is.

This feels like an personal attack to me. out of respect I'm not saying anything back to you but do not interpret this as an free pass to say anything that comes up in your mind. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The UNHCR person acknowledges racism, ("You have seen reports in the media that there are different treatments – with Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians. Now … our observations is that these are not state policies – but there are instances which it has happened,”) the Independent says "Black people report racism" … "Black people living in the region say …". If you go through the various instances and establish which are certain/which are alleged, there are precious few specific instances where the source states more than an allegation, for fairly obvious reasons, the chaos of 10 million people moving creates confused scenarios.

I've no objection to adding a brief comment from the UN acknowledgement, but we can't assume that because some claims are true, ALL are true. you're hell-bent on leaving room for ambiguity whereas I'm not. is also a personal attack and untrue. I'm hell-bent on recording/summarising what the balance of sources say and imagine that most reasonable readers are likely to conclude that some of these accounts are true, though neither the reader or we can work out precisely which, nor how general the behaviour has been. Again the sources are relatively old, so it is probably the case that this DID happen, rather than IS happening, but that of course isn't a reason to discount this. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"I've no objection to adding a brief comment from the UN acknowledgement"

I'm willing to make this compromise.

I'm hell-bent on recording/summarising what the balance of sources say and imagine that most reasonable readers are likely to conclude that some of these accounts are true.

whenever racism is described it is preceded by the word alleged in this wikipedia article it makes these incidents ambiguous and one thing we can agree on is that this is wikipedia not a diplomatic readout where people will try to read between the lines but as I've said above as long as this statement "You have seen reports in the media that there are different treatments – with Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians. Now … our observations is that these are not state policies – but there are instances which it has happened" or statement comparable to the former(where most of the incidents or some of the incidents are being validated by a credible agency) gets added to the article I'll have no problem. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added a comment from the UNHCR and changed the section heading - it think it's legitimate to say that the issue is discrimination though the text continues to use 'reports' or similar language, not taking sides as to how prevalent or proven these instances were. Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

4.4M to 4.5M

On 5 April 2022, a total of around 4.3M refugees had left Ukraine, two days later on 7 April 2022 it was 4.4M today 9 April 2022 after 2 days it's supposed to be 4.5M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.126.133.15 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Spain: official or unofficial numbers?

Apparently there is contrasting data concerning Spain. Based on the same article, an IP address set the number of refugees to 47,000, explaining that “as the cited article says, the verified number of refugees who reached Spain is 47,000, while the real number could possibly be as high as 110,000”, while user Asqueladd afterwards set this number to 110,000, explaining that “47,000 refers to the granting of temporary protection applications, and 110,000 is an estimation of Ukrainian citizens having entered the country after 24 February”.

The cited article verbatim says:

“… las personas que huyen de la guerra en Ucrania, que aunque oficialmente hasta ahora eran unas 47.000, "datos extraoficiales" elevan hasta las 110.000, según el presidente del Gobierno.”

which should translate as:

“… people fleeing the war in Ukraine, which although officially until now were about 47,000, "unofficial data" raise [this number] up to 110,000, according to the Prime Minister.”

It looks to me that 110,000 is a pure guess, which could be applied to any other country. But if we based our table on guesses the numbers of Italy and Germany, for example, would probably be significantly higher, since there is free movement within the EU.

--Grufo (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

110,000 is an estimation of incoming refugees as good as any (by a government official, the PM). As you can check here, the 47,000 Ukrainians refers to conceded applications for temporary protection (which is not the purpose of the table). Also take into account that according too this, in addition to the conceded applications... "another 45,000 Ukrainians have already made appointments in advance to submit their applications."--Asqueladd (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I wouldn't have any objection to using the higher figure IN TEXT as an attributed "could be as high as … " claim, but any number in WP:VOICE, including numbers in the bar chart should be 'official/known entry' figures IMO, even when we know that in some instances the real numbers could be higher or lower for various reasons. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There is also another problem with the free guesses, which is that they make it impossible to actually update the table. For example, it seems that today the official number has raised to 51,957. If the 110,000 number is accurate it shouldn't take long for the official number to catch up; in the meanwhile I will update the table to 51,957. I also agree with Pincrete that the 110,000 estimate can always be reported in the article's body. --Grufo (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

[1] As of now, the number is 134,000. I really think that, at this point, we should have to settle on what the table is actually about, instead of having not-quite-productive discussions about what is an estimation and what is not, because an estimation is for certain better than the prospect of placing an unrelated statistical product.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some countries - and I believe Spain was among them - 'legalised/recognised' large numbers of Ukrainians at the start of the war who were already temporarily inside the country. Whether that is a complicating factor I don't know. There are two standard formats iro most countries, those who are believed to have entered and those who have submitted to some kind of registration, implying that they intend/wish to stay.Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The problem is that Spain releases random data. An indicator to look at could be the number of Ukrainian children registered for school in the host country. Yesterday Spain declared 15,700 Ukrainian children in Spanish schools. The same day Italy declared 16,045 Ukrainian children in Italian schools. As the number of refugees for Italy is released every day in detail, and Italy currently has about 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, we could guess around 97,000 refugees for Spain. But we need more concrete data. --Grufo (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Even accepting the previous unofficial estimate of 110,000 Ukrainian refugees, it is really highly unlikely that in this phase of the war (in which the flux has slowed down for every country) the number of refugees in Spain passed from 110,000 to 135,000 in less than a week. See also my previous comment. As for what goes into the table, I often update the Italian number, and in doing so I always rely on the number of Ukrainian refugees officially checked by the Italian authorities. I don't know what the other countries in the table rely on. But, for example, Turkey seems quite vague to me. --Grufo (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Timeline of the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis"

§ Timeline of the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis: Is that lengthy section really necessary? --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Grufo, I asked myself the same question (especially when it was in 'pole position') - it achieves nothing that a graph or similar would not achieve rather better if someone knew how to create one (which I don't). I moved it down and it could be a 'hide/show' if people want to keep it. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I made it collapsible for now, but I think a graph would be the ultimate solution (I don't know how to do it). Without a graph I believe maybe the paragraph should be removed. --Grufo (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Grufo:, today I initially moved the section down, as even collapsed it prevented text showing. I've now removed it since I've belatedly realised that all the refs are the same ref- pointing to today's UNHCR figures rather than to those of the relevant day. If someone knew how to make a graph or bar-chart, (we don't), I could see some sense but this is wholly unverifiable at present and a bit pointless IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, I also think that removing it is the best idea. --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children

This is about border crossings, young men are generally banned. This has to be explained.Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Refugees to Russia ?

There are quite a lot of people who fled to Russia but this is not mentioned. I know that it breaks the narrative but it’s a reality. 45.83.216.0 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned - several times.Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis#Russia. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The section is obsolete and mild.Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete data (March)

"Approximately one-quarter of the country's total population had left their homes in Ukraine by 20 March" It is probably more tooday. Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ukrainian refugees from 2022, crossing into Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Refugees and border crossings

The number of refugees is mixed with the number of border crossings in different parts of the article. For instance, the sentence By 19 July, almost 4.8 million Ukrainian refugees had entered Poland. cites UNHCR as a source where the figure of 4.8 million refers to the number of border crossings from Ukraine and the number of individual refugees is significantly lower (see here). This should be corrected all over the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right, and the discrepancies in the figures has grown as some return temporarily or in other ways cross borders several times. I don't have time to fix at present because of real-world commitments.Pincrete (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

People who are return in Ukraine

According to UNCHR about of 3,8 million people are crossed border towards Ukraine https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Charts

There used to be a chart for all countries in descending order of number of refugees and it was easier to see all data at once and now some smart head removed it😡😡😡 196.249.98.49 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

+ 144.206.129.3 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Some non-European and Romani people have reported ethnic discrimination at the border.

I believe the statement does not belong to the lead. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC) In another place 'racial'. The wording is biased. The legal status of Ukrainian citizens and citizens of many other non-EU countries was totally different, so the 'discrimination' was obvious. Several countries support the Russian invasion, which made the refugees unwelcome in Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of conjectures, early in the crisis, discriminatory practices were occurring both on leaving Ukraine and on entering neighbouring countries. The discrimination was also reported by UNHCR and national embassies/student orgs, it was largely about skin-colour, or other perceived racial differences. A high percentage of those on the receiving end were students, or those of student age. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

And male, healthy and fighting against mothers with children.Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Racial discrimination ?

The current text presents both the discrimination and pro-Russian propaganda, so perhaps rather 'Racial discrimination and its instrumental usage'? Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Internal refugees

What about millions of internal refugees? Is there a separate page? Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Such people are usually referred to as "internally displaced" and they are covered (poorly perhaps) in this article. A refugee is - by the usual definition - someone seeking refuge outside their own country. Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I believe that the "internally displaced" deserve more place in the article.

If Crimea is 'de facto' annexed, so Crimean people are 'de facto refugees'.

Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add any available info about 'internally displaced' - though I think beyond (often out of date) numerical estimates, not much info is available at present. Claiming that everyone in any annexed territory is a "de facto refugee" would be pure WP:OR, I'm not even sure what it means. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Renaming to include 2023

The article has recently been renamed as 2022-2023 Ukrainian refugee crisis. I'm not sure that this is the best way to reflect the change of year, nor even necessarily that the crisis is generally referred to in that way (as 2022-2023). The new title is certainly fairly 'clunky' and unlikely to be anybody's search term. There is a related move discussion on the main 'invasion' page and it might be a good idea to see how that move goes before deciding what to do here.

Personally I find this move unnecessary, but can see that a move of some sort might be necessary. The peak of the crisis is probably past, but the refugee situation is likely to continue as long as the war does, possibly beyond. Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian figures are inflated

The figures for the Russian Federation are simply the number of crossings from Ukraine (ignoring both onward movement to 3rd countries and returnns to Ukraine - also NOT those registered for protection, as is the case with other countries). This significantly distorts the figures - were the same approach adopted for Poland for example, the number crossing would be over 7.27 million, rather than the 1.47 million which we record as those registered for protection (and remaining in) Poland. I would add a note to the RF figures, but don't know how to do this. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like they are merely inflated but that it is extremely misleading. There is a graphic on the page that shows these numbers that are completely apples to oranges side by side but it should really be either showing the border crossings for all countries, no data for Russia at all or there should be two different charts. 2001:14BA:4616:2900:4D10:283C:1DD1:8CE (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the 'note' attached to the figures to make clear that Russia's figures are not based on the same criteria as those of other countries. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an improvement but to me it does seem like it really should not even be included because many people are only going to look at the graph without reading the note. 2001:14BA:4616:2900:819D:181E:527D:2D80 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but a source please? @Pincrete Firestar464 (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Firestar464, the UNHCR figures make the different basis of calculation apparent - they don't say Russian figures are inflated, so I removed that. btw, I didn't add that text. Pincrete (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops thanks for pointing that out; I totally missed that.  Self-trout Anyway, the footnote in the bar box is enough, and the note on the top reads like a disclaimer. Firestar464 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Guess it is just me (same person who commented on this before with just IP) but I think presenting a graph where two entirely different categories are mixed and where you could use the same metric for all countries instead is just extremely misleading as well as nonsensical whether you add some notes that most people will never read or not. Just because the UNCHR site has made this mistake I don't see a good reason to make it on Wikipedia too. Now it makes it look like Russia is the number one recipient of refugees from Ukraine which is completely untrue considering the border crossings to Poland have been many times as much and this false impression is also convenient for Russian propaganda to cite. Postivene (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that the figure of refugees for the Russian Federation are simply the number of crossings from Ukraine is not supported by any information provided on the page of UNHCR.

If you think it is the case the you should provide a clear reference. Karam72 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The Russia border crossing and 'in the country' figures are identical and 10 months old. That is an impossible coincidence. At that time only border crossing figures were being recorded or published. How to deal with these and other anomalies is not sraight-forward, but ignoring them achieves nothing except knowingly creating a false impression. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

User:Karam72, the UNHCR figures for Russia are fundamentally different from those for other crossings. UNHCR does not even put them in the same chart. The Russia figures which we use are border crossings - the other countries are protection scheme registrations. We IGNORE any other figures or colums. This gives the most realistic detail possible, though it may be imperfect for Russia and for other countries.

Regardless of whether you agree with this procedure and representation, since it is the long-term one, the WP:ONUS is on you to get agreement here on talk to make the changes you wish to make. You have not even sought to do so and have simply edit-warred your preferred version which inflates the numbers in Russia (which are unknown since only the border crossings are reported, not returns or 'move-ons to other countries). We can discuss how to resolve this anomaly in available data, but knowingly giving figures without context is not an option. The feeble excuse that the same figures can be found in a different column simply points to an anomaly in the gathering of figures - it doesn't justify misrepresenting data. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The UNHC clearly put in their table for Russia a number for "Ukrainian refugees recorded in the country". This number is the number quoted for Russia in article. No notes is necessary.

Your note "- Note: figures for Russia are based on border crossings into Russia while figures for other countries are based on the number of Ukrainian refugees registered as living in that country" is contradicted the information on the UNHCR page, as you are someone who claim to be familiar with the data I can only conclude you are deliberately lying.

I don't see the point of discussing with someone acting in bad faith. Karam72 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Karam72, I am not lying, and that is a personal attack, and you don't get to choose which editors you engage with. Also, as you see above, the need to have some clarification is endorsed by other editors, only you object to doing so. I agree that the available data is shown somewhat ambiguously by UNHCR. If you want to strictly follow the UNHCR figures, we will remove Russia from the chart and put it into a seperate chart as UNHCR does in order that the reader can judge what the figures mean.Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attack. Calling someone who knowingly spread misinformation a liar is not a personal attack it is simply stating a truth about that person.

The data in UNHCR are not ambiguous. There is a clear column for "Ukrainian refugees recorded in the country". It seems that for some reason you don't like what UNHCR shows under that column but I don't choose what is on the source data and neither do you. Karam72 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Karam72, yes it is a personal attack - (if you only knew what a cliche that defence is!). Yes you are edit-warring against the consensus above - and yes the UNHCR figures are ambiguous Simply pointing to a single heading without considering the other figures, does not alter that fact. But the ambiguities are resolvable - either by splitting the figures or adding markers as to which figures are border crossings, which protection schemes and which are some other basis. Another option is removing the chart altogether since it no longer represents a coherent narrative (it originally showed border crossing into all countries - which represented a coherent, if flawed narrative).

Simply edit warring your own favourite version is NOT an option and you have now reverted more than 3 times and are in breach of rules, for which you can be blocked. You have shown no willingness to meaningfully engage on talk to address the issues or to seek consensus. Unless you revert to the long term version, you will be reported for edit-warring and risk being blocked. Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

UNHCR charts are clear. They clearly label the data, you claim them to be ambiguous but this seems to be because you don't like them.

The chart currently shows for Russia the same number as you will find under the column "Ukrainian refugees recorded in the country" as per UNHCR data, the same data is used for most countries. This is coherent.

Your note is misleading as someone would would not check the original source would get the impression that UNHCR would have either a different number or no data at all for "Ukrainian refugees recorded in the country" for Russia.

You claim that I am in breach of the of the three revert rule but that's accusation is simply not true, that's another lie from you. You should read again the rules before making accusations.

I don't see the point of arguing with someone who is not intellectually honest. Karam72 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Pincrete the note you wrote is in contradiction with the data and text from UNHCR page. In its current state this note is misleading and you know it. That note should either be removed or profoundly changed. Karam72 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Karam72, "I am right" is not an answer to either the edit-warring charge, the no personal attacks, charge, nor does it exclude you from the need to get agreement from other editors when seeking to make a change to long-term agreed text. I don't exclude the possibility of representing the UNHCR data in some other fashion, since it is internally inconsistent, but repeating the same refrain is not going to move matters forward, The Russian figure is identical to the Russian border crossings figure (so no one who entered Russia has gone back to Ukraine or moved on to a 3rd country?) in the case of other countries, the numbers under protection exceed the number who have entered(!) as figures for the latter are out of date. In the case of Poland the number 'protected' is 1/5 of the number who have entered Poland. A way of resolving the anomalies of the UNHCR figures need to be agreed - or the bar chart abandoned as too anomalous or only used for consistently based figures. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The note was added a few weeks ago, hardly a long-term agreed text.

You write "So no one who entered Russia has gone back to Ukraine or moved on to a 3rd country?" you can't say that based on the information published by the UNHCR.

There is no anomaly in the UNHCR data, you simply have to read the information at the UNHCR page.

You write "the numbers under protection exceed the number who have entered(!) as figures for the latter are out of date." where did you get that information that the latter are out of date? Karam72 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but the Russia figures are from March 2022 - at that time the only available figures were border crossings and I believe I am right when I say that at that time the Poland border crossing figures were approaching 4 or 5 million. Even at that stage we needed a note to say that border crossings did not mean remaining in the country (some people moved on to other countries, some returned to Ukraine). Since then more reliable figures for most countries based on registrations have been produced and UNHCR has made several changes to the way it presents info - including putting Russia/Belorussia into a separate chart.

There are many anomalies within the charts and we have modified our 'notes' to clarify the anomalies as much as possible. The most glaring anomaly is Russia, where the figures are 10 months out of date, the border crossing and 'in the country' figures are identical (no Ukrainian has left Russia in 10 months? Even to go home?). Russia is also a participant in the war and technically claims that Ukraine does not exist as a separate state. For some other countries, some figures haven't changed for months, while other figures for the same country have altered. There are many ways these anomalies could be rectified - or the chart abandoned, or split in the same way as UNHCR does by 'hiving off' the two Russias, and 'protection scheme' countries and other countries, but being highly selective about using the figures so that wholly different figures are presented alonside each other helps no one. There are substantial numbers of refugees in Russia - how many at the moment we actually don't know, most other countries we have fairly up to date and reliable figures for.Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Canada Refugee Intake to Date

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/ukraine-measures/key-figures.html 207.194.98.29 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

the number listed for Canada in the "Number of Ukrainian refugees in each country" bar graph is out of date. up to date info can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/ukraine-measures/key-figures.html 75.157.203.222 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Tricky one. Canada provides data on how many people with Ukrainian (but not Canadian) nationality who have entered Canada, and separately how many have applied/been accepted under the temporary program, but is counting people who already held PR or another status in Canada prior to the war re-entering, but who happen to have Ukrainian nationality (and thus were not necessarily displaced by the war) in that count of entries by Ukrainian nationals. I'd personally feel more comfortable on sourcing from secondary sources who specifically have interviewed our immigration minister about how many refugees eg temporary permit holders have entered, which is not data on that page you provided. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Another solution I thought of would be removing Canada and US (the only countries in the bar chart whose figures are not from UNHCR) and covering them in the text only. I agree with Lizthegrey, comparing Canada and US (and Russia) to the (mainly European) countries is comparing wholly different statistics. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Let's wait for consensus and then re-open the request, as per WP:EDITXY. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Neighbouring Countries order

"Neighbouring countries are listed in order of the number of refugees who have entered them; others are listed alphabetically."

It seems the list is neither in terms of number of refugees, nor alphabetical? One would have, for example expected the order of the first three to be Russia, Poland, Germany but it's actually Poland, Romania, Russia? 2A01:C23:60F0:8200:2CB3:15CD:20AF:ECAB (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

Please remove Russia from the graph "Number of Ukrainian refugees in each country" as it compares different types of numbers and actual numbers for Russia are not available.

The source quoted for the graph has the same numbers for Russia in the number of crossings from Ukraine and the number of refugees from Ukraine recorded in the country (2,852,395 for both), which is clearly a typo. https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine

For comparison, see the same numbers for Poland: 1,564,711 refugees recorded in the country VS 10,168,089 border crossings from Ukraine.

This data misrepresents the situation making it look like Russia is the most popular country for refugees to stay.

It is also not advised to assume that border crossings from Ukraine to Russia represent the number of refugees, because border crossings would include forcefully deported Ukrainians and child abductions which are not the same as refugees.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for_Ukrainians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

According to UNHCR, refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country. https://www.unhcr.org/what-is-a-refugee.html

Crossing the border in the case of deportation or abduction doesn't make a person a refugee. Yuliyary (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the Russia figures are inflated by many factors - which we attempt to point out. But nonetheless, many people left for Russia, even if they had little choice about that destination. We use UNHCR figures, not work from UNHCR definitions to create our own figures. Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not whether those numbers are technically accurate, but rather how they're presented. Right now, Russian border crossing numbers and number of people who actually opted for refugee status in other countries are presented as equivalent, which they most obviously aren't. Because of this, the reader may indeed infer that millions of Ukrainians have decided to seek refuge in Russia, which is most definitely not the case. The note in the beginning of the section does help a bit, but it's disjointed from the actual chart and doesn't cover all biases involved in the chart's data sourcing. Tyrrrz (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a note at the beginning of the section pointing out that the Russia figures are compliled on a different basis - they aren't 'equivalent'. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the chart itself still represents them as if they are equal. Adding notes doesn't really fix that, it's just a poor bar graph that is mixing entirely different types of data. Postivene (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2.8M for 5 days, 570 thousands refugees to Russia per day in late-February 2022.

The article says there were 2.8 millions refugees to Russia for 5 days ("up to March 2022"), this is approximately 570 thousands refugees to Russia per day in late-February 2022 (statistics is about "2022–2023 Ukrainian refugee crisis" that "began in Europe in late February 2022"). Just wow! I have to once again remind students to not trust wiki without checking every single fact. 174.211.114.171 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The figures are UNHCR figures, not ours and many were 'encouraged' to leave, or had left before the war began up to mid-March 2022. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is making up these figures, they are reliably sourced. You can't just disagree with the fact that these are the numbers reported by the relevant UN body. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of "refugees" to Russia cannot be classfied in the same domain as the rest of the countries

The note in the section "Number of refugees" says:

> - Note: Refugee numbers for Russia are based on border crossings into Russia up to March 2022. Figures for other countries are refugees registered for protection in each country or, if this figure is not available, refugees registered as living in that country.

Disregarding that Russian authorities would be heavily biased to over-report the number of border crossings into Russia (as already mentioned, 2.8mln in 5 days is an insane number), the fact that the basis for calculating the number of refugees is completely different for other countries makes the comparison chart misguiding and irrelevant.

For example:

• Not all Ukrainian refugees who escaped to foreign countries claimed the refugee status, for a variety of reasons. If the refugee number was derived from the number of border crossings for those countries as well, the number would be severely higher.
• Not all Ukrainian refugees who crossed the border of Russia did so with the intent to stay there or seek asylum. Many Ukrainians found themselves on occupied territory, with the safest option to escape being to cross via Russia to the Baltic countries or Turkey, as opposed to trying their luck returning via the front line checkpoints. Because of this, it's highly disingenuous to suggest that all of the individuals who crossed the border were "refugees to Russia".

Because of that I suggest that the refugee numbers chart should be changed in either of the two ways:

• Move the Russian bar to a separate position at the end of the chart, with a note explaining the heavy discrepancy in numbers (what I wrote above).
• Remove the Russian entry entirely because it adversely impacts the usefulness and informativeness of the chart. Tyrrrz (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree and out of your suggested options my preference would be just removing Russia from the chart entirely because that is really the only proper way to make the graph.

If border crossing figures are to be visualized they really need their own completely separate graph or they can just be mentioned in the text if this figure is only available for a couple of countries for example. Even then the dubious nature of the numbers provided by Russia should be noted. Postivene (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk of Ukrainians in Russia as refugees

If Russia is forcefully importing Ukrainians into Russia, can we really call them refugees? Even if Russia says so? Genabab (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine zaporizhzhia 3 village evacuation order

Ukraine war Ukraine zaporizhzhia 3 village residents Moldova escape 182.224.89.144 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine Donetsk 1 village evacuation order

Ukraine Donetsk 1 village evacuation order 182.224.89.144 (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

The "part of" field of the infobox should be changed from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to Humanitarian impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)