Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inconsistencies in Prigozhin’s claims of Ukrainian losses

If I’m honest, I’m not sure how “reliable” (used loosely here) this guy is. Prigozhin’s claim of Ukrainian casualties, he gives two rather different figures. In one, he says his forces killed “50,000”, and in another, he says “3 or 3.2 times as many” as 20,000 dead, which is what he says his troops lost. These aren’t the same numbers at all. In addition, which even Igor Girkin has pointed out, the figures he provided himself leaves at least 14,000 recruited convicts unaccounted for. Not to mention that he also said that the Ukrainians had a total strength of 80,000 soldiers, and his casualty claims exceed even that number. And none of his claims are backed up by any other pro-Russian sources. And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the consensus for the Battle of Soledar page rule that his claims of enemy casualties should not be used? It was on the talk page, but I think it’s been archived by now. Regardless, I believe at least that his claims of Ukrainian casualties should be removed from the infobox, if not from the page entirely, unless more clarification is made. What do the rest of you guys think?

Source links: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6001275

https://m.jpost.com/international/article-739566

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-24-2023

Tomissonneil (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

difficult to say as Prighozin might be referencing to a different context, the article might not have a complete quote etc. I think it is essential to have both sides estimates on casualties. This is in particular important for the Russian part as there're not enough datas presented anyways.

I must ask if it's possible to delete Girkin's claim. if you care to listen to what he said, he just guesstimated 40.000 losses, based on nothing substantial. If we accept Girkin's claim, then we'll have to put every public person estimatation from Twitter or TV. His estimatation could go in the "Casualties" part. 81.246.69.162 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Girkin’s figure was originally combined with the official Wagner claim, but was separately recently into two separate estimates. I have no issue with including Russian claims, as there is one from slightly earlier where 15,000-20,000 Ukrainians were claimed to have been killed thus far. The issue with Prigozhin’s claims are how inconsistent they are, how they don’t line up with his previous statements on Ukraine’s total strength in the battle, and how no other pro-Russian (or any other) sources support or back up his claims, as opposed to the Ukrainian ones, which are supported by various official sources from within Ukraine’s military and government, as well as the United States. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, the infobox is not the place to be adding this degree of detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Change status to Russian victory

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

---

As an extended-confirmed editor I propose that the status of the battle should be changed to Russian victory. I will not cite Russian sources, which of course claim that the Russians won. I will cite just Western MSM sources that unwillingly confirm that the battle of Bakhmut is won by the Russians. There will not probably be no new news, because the battle for Bakhmut ended weeks ago. Battle of Donbas continues, so new developments away from the city of Bakhmut can be and should be written there. NBC News WSJ The Telegraph

Strong support as nominator. BobNesh (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@BobNesh: "It's nothing less than decisive Russian victory, regardless if the Ukrainian ministry of truth is going to admit it or not." You've already proposed this on 29 May: "Voting to change status to decisive Russian victory -- Strong support as nominator. The battle for Bakhmut is over and Russia has won it, even if the Ukrainian ministry of truth won't acknowledge that." Comments such as this one and this one aren't very collaborative either. —Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a new topic, sorry. And there isn't anything wrong with it. BobNesh (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is practically a copy of the request you made a week or so ago. Why ignore all the discussion that has taken place on this page and the many times this issue has been addressed? Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That was actually 12 days ago. In the meantime Ukrainians didn't even try to recapture the city they lost, which is still strong in the Russian hands. So, the battle is clearly over, and Russians have won it. BobNesh (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"the battle is clearly over" -- no it isn't. And you've missed this open RfC entirely: #RFC, battle over. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That can be changed too. It's not Holly Bible. Also, how near is near? 10-12Km? BobNesh (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Support for aforementioned reasons. Mattia332 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Support for the sheer fact that the fighting in the city has concluded for a while now de facto. 42Grunt (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please note that both support !votes above have been cast by users canvassed by BobNesh at their talk page, who selectively did not notify users with opposing viewpoints (e.g., didn't notify those in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#No). In addition, neither has EC user rights, which, according to WP:GS/RUSUKR, means they shouldn't participate in RfCs or similar discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:55, 9 June 2023 (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.

Archiving redundant discussions

This talk page is starting to get utterly cluttered with closed duplicate topics. Can we archive, collapse, or otherwise de-clutter the page, please? Fieari (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have done the archiving. For duplicates, I think after closure, let's leave them there for a day in case there are other pertinent points that come up before archiving. – robertsky (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We should remove Prigozhin’s claims of enemy losses from the Infobox

I’ve already posted something similar like this here recently. While I’m not opposed to mentioning it within the casualties section, at least until it’s “officially” disproved, it definitely shouldn’t be in the infobox. First of all, he gives two different claims for supposed Ukrainian losses, which contradict each other. In one, he says 50,000 killed, and in the other, he says either “3 or 3.2 times” as many killed as his own (20,000). Not only that, but he provided no evidence, and there are no other sources that back him up as of writing. Oleksii Arestovych’s claims were removed from the infoboxes until other, more “official” Ukrainian sources backed them up. Why isn’t Prigozhin treated with the same skepticism, especially since it’s pretty clear he just made this up in order to justify the immense losses his own troops suffered? Can he just make up anything, and we then have to treat it as a “source”? In one, he says 50,000 killed, and in the other, he says either “3 or 3.2 times” as many killed as his own (20,000). Not only that, but he provided no evidence, and there are no other sources that back him up as of writing. Oleksii Arestovych’s claims were removed from the infoboxes until other, more “official” Ukrainian sources backed them up. Why isn’t Prigozhin treated with the same skepticism, especially since it’s pretty clear he just made this up in order to justify the immense losses his own troops suffered? Can he just make up anything, and we then have to treat it as a “source”? I know that there’s at least some people on here who agree with me, but I wanted to see what the consensus will be.

Link: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6001275 Tomissonneil (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If we remove one side's claim (Wagner/Russia) of their enemies casualties, we should be removing both (including Ukrainian), since both sides will be inflating the other ones losses. Its as simple as that. Balance (presentation of both sides POV) needs to exist, regardless what we think about the primary sources. If both claims are removed from the infobox (but kept in the casualties section of the article) I would have no objection. Their own estimates on their own losses (self-confirmed losses) I think would be acceptable to leave in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Between, I think you, or some other editor, mentioned a discrepancy in Prigozhin's estimate of Wagner's losses (I too noticed that and was baffled a bit). I think this explains it [1]. The pro-Russian opposition Media Zona properly translated his estimate (what he originally said), the other Western sources missquoted him. It was 20,000 for the whole war, including 16,000 in Bakhmut. I will insert this in the infobox later. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Prigozhin is technically a private citizen, similar to Oleksii Arestovych, whose claims have since been removed from the infobox. In terms of balance, I think that Prigozhin’s figures should also be removed from the infobox for now, as they don’t match up with his claims of total Ukrainian strength (how could his forces have inflicted 50% higher losses than the total number of Ukrainians present?) His claims also conflict with the “official” Russian claims of Ukrainian casualties, i.e. 15,000-20,000 dead. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

All “unofficial” Ukrainian claims have also been removed from the infobox, but they still remain in the casualties section. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin was, essentially, the overall commander of Russian forces leading the battle for the city (and is listed as such in the infobox), which makes his estimate as one of the main belligerents as "official" as it gets. He is not comparable to Arestovych in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

But it doesn’t mean he’s necessarily the official Russian source for this battle. He’s the commander of the Wagner Group only, not the regular Russian forces, whose current commander in the Bakhmut area is someone I don’t know. His claims haven’t been either confirmed or denied by the Russian MoD, and again, how could he have inflicted more casualties than the total number of Ukrainian soldiers that he himself provided? Also, the consensus on the Battle of Soledar page was to not have his claims in the infobox because he’s not a reliable source, so I think this should also apply here, given as they’re both technically the same battle (or at least the same campaign). Tomissonneil (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Something else that I’d forgotten to mention is the table. Now, as has been pointed out, I added the table to the page, but I was also the one who removed it from the infobox, mainly because of gaps in the historiography. Now, however, I’d remove it if it was still there because it conflicts with the “official” Ukrainian casualty figure’s released by both Reznikov and Podolyak, being considerably higher than them. This is similar to Prigozhin’s figure conflicting with the “official” Russian figures released not much earlier than his, and I still feel that only one Ukrainian/Russian casualty figure should be in the infobox at a time. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place to be adding this degree of detail. Splitting discussions is also not helpful. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Subsectioning

I think it's pretty clear that a second "phase" of this battle has begun, and the number of subsections within "Battle" is getting out of hand. The article Siege of Mariupol deals with this in a simple way - putting the different stages of the battle in different layer-one sections. I propose we do the same thing here, though I'm not sure what to name these "stages" in the sections. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

In the casualty section add Prigozhin's estimates of Wagner casualties (his estimate was around 20k+ killed). Maybe he is not the best source on most things, but he most definitely is the perfect source for Wagner's casualty estimates Slimebor (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Possibly You may have a point, and I'd say it might be okay to do this, but please provide a specific WP:RS with this information, and where specifically you think this information should be listed. Fieari (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Girkin said Prigozhin underestimated by 14,000. Everything Prigozhin says is not necessarily false, but definitely personal propaganda. Refer to secondary sources about these guys’ statements.  —Michael Z. 19:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

I removed the casualties being reported in the infobox here with the summary: Too much nuance/intricate detail for which infobox is unsuited. No consistent reference date. One-fifth NATO is an unhelpful statement. "Casualty" section in TOC serves same purpose as infobox in this case. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It was reinstated by Tomissonneil here with the edit summary: Removing the entire casualties portion of the infobox rather than simply editing it is pretty ridiculous, and the casualties section provides expanded data of what is listed here. I’ve never seen this portion being removed because there’s details of it further down in the page. What the point of even having an infobox then, if parts of it are removed because the information is also in the page body?

The infobox is for a summary of key facts and, I would add, a simple summary, where WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is best. A infobox is unsuited to nuance. Here, we have multiple figures from multiple sources at different points in time reported separately. As noted, one-fifth (per NATO) really isn't a helpful statement for an infobox - there is no clear figure/range against which this can be referenced. Further, the sources for this aren't giving a clear statement of context (from/to). Wagner is not a separate combatant to be identified separately in the infobox. Furthermore, it would imply the figures are separate from the overall Russian figures. The infobox contains more intricate detail than the table in the casualties section, although one needs to look at the citation closely to realise that the table is actually a collation of sources. If anything, the table and the infobox information should be the other way around. The civilian figure states "See Casualties for more details", which should be avoided since the TOC with the section for casualties serves the same purpose per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

To address the edit summary made in response: The table in the casualty section does not provided "expanded data". Casualties has been removed from the infobox at Russian invasion of Ukraine for reasons equally applicable here (even if it does use a "see section" contrary to guidance). The template doc explicitly states that the casualty parameter is optional. Where a reader is best directed to a section of the article (in this case), WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the TOC serves the purpose of directing the reader there. The material was not removed because there was a section in the article on casualties but because the material reported [Has too] much nuance/intricate detail for which infobox is unsuited. As the article states, the fog of war prevents us from reporting casualties with any reasonable degree of confidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've never been in favor of your removal of info from infoboxes related to the Ukraine war, but until now it didn't seem entirely bad to me because it was information often not present in the main article text. In this case we have the information in the article. The best way to deal with this is definitely not to remove everything, if necessary we can rearrange the information and perhaps remove estimates that may have become superfluous as the battle has developed. But the infobox has a parameter about casualties and we have information about casualties that is also included in the article. We are not going to erase everything. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that casualties should appear in the infobox if possible. We do have the table that represents best consensus on how to summarize, and swapping it with the current infobox data seems like a good solution. It will continue to be improved as new estimates accumulate.  —Michael Z. 14:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, we are advised to WP:AVOIDYOU and direct ourselves to the content of a discussion. Mzajac, I agree that the casualties should appear in the infobox if it is reasonably possible. At face value, the solution might appear to be a case of swapping in the table from the body of the article. However, on closer examination, the single citations given are actually a conglomeration of sources and there is no transparency in the compilation of figures arrived at. In the circumstances, it is questionable whether such a complex compilation is consistent with WP:CALC or is WP:OR. Given that figures in an infobox have a presumed air of confidence in their reliability, is it reasonable to report the compiled figures from the article's table into the infobox? As thing presently stand, I don't believe it is. The situation for this battle is very similar to the overall invasion. These very issues were discussed at the invasion article TP and an RfC determined that it was not reasonable to report casualty figures in the infobox. I suggest that an RfC here would reach a similar conclusion. A first step forward would be to improve the transparency of the present article table, so that readers can more easily see for themselves how the numbers have been arrived at. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to wait as fighting is not over around the city and Ukraine still denies the fall of the city and might release new figures of casualties in the future. Also I think Igor Girkin's estimates were added in the infobox after this thread was started. Information still needs to settle. Super Ψ Dro 07:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The issues with the infobox predate Girkin's figures, which are a further symptom of the issue. It is not a simple summary but falls to writing the article in the infobox - cramming too much detail in and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The state of flux indicated was a significant factor in the outcome of the RfC at the invasion article. It is a substantial reason to remove rather than retain. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of the most questionable numbers from the infobox for now. I think the remaining stuff is essentially fine in terms of reliability but needs to be massively consolidated into a more sane format. HappyWith (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear there is agreement that the present casualty information in the infobox is not acceptable. The degree of detail being placed there is inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE There has been the suggestion to replace this with the tabulated information from the article of the body. While there are issues with how it has been compiled to be further discussed, I have acted upon this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indicated that there are reasonable concerns regarding the figures presented in the casualty table in the article, particularly because the compilation lacks transparency. A further concern is whether this complex compilation, citing a very large number of sources without transparency is consistent with WP:CALC or is WP:OR. There has been a very large volume of edits to the casualty section and the infobox parameter since about early April and mainly by Tomissonneil. I have attempted to raise some concerns about casualties and the infobox with them here, where they were the OP, and in this thread, where they were pinged in the OP. I also raised concerns about casualties in the infobox here. The high volume of edits regarding casualties makes it difficult to verify the changes. The casualty table was effectively created on 8 April with this edit. I then started to review edits to the table.

• This edit of 10 April (with edit summary: Added Ukrainian claims of 100 Wagner dead per day.) citing this from Meduza added 100 to both the upper and lower figures of Russians killed. The article reads: Ukraine says deploying regular troops is necessary due to heavy losses among Wagner fighters — around 100 people a day, “counting only the dead.”. This is clearly not how this report should be used.
• This edit is based on this source that states the source to be the State Border Guard Service, not the Ukrainian Eastern Command (here and others too).
• This edit of 23 April would add 700 to killed as of 26 March based on this source a personal twitter account with no apparent editorial oversight. While 700 is added to the upper range figure, the lower range value goes down by 300 - a computational error which I cannot see having been fixed.
• This edit according to this source increases the Russian casualties by 94 (according to Ukrainian Eastern Command) but the source states: Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of Russia's Wagner Group, who has often claimed unverifiable successes, said that his forces have advanced some 100 to 150 metres (109 to 164 yards) in Bakhmut, leaving just under 3 square km of the city in Ukrainian hands. But he said he lost 94 troops.

I've seen enough. The origin of information is being misrepresented. Non-RSs. There are errors. This sort of compilation, adding a bit here and a bit there piecemeal (day by day) among some compiled figures over longer periods is not encyclopedic. The table doesn't belong here. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

All this from same person who removed all casualties from the infobox, on a whim, with no discussion? And adding daily casualties is not encyclopedic? Based on what, exactly? You’ve seen enough? Who made you in charge? Also, a source said 100 Russians were killed a day. I then added at least 100 killed for that day. And that’s a problem? Wagner guy said he lost 94 men in a day. I then added 94 men lost. That’s a RS, you know. Also, Russia doesn’t officially publish casualty figures, which you should also know. And until there’s a total estimate of casualties, there’s no choice but to add some of it piecemeal, because that’s the information given to us. A lot of the Ukrainian casualty claims come from daily reports, or between two set dates. Would you rather it not be reported here at all? Why? Also, if it’s not from Ukrainian Eastern Command, simply renaming it to the Ukrainian Government, which almost all of these figures originate, should suffice, no? Also, the difference between upper and lower estimates isn’t “300”. It’s 10,100, based on a claim made in January by Mikhailo Podolyak of 10,000-20,000 killed, and another from February by Mark Milley, sighting Ukrainian sources, of 1,100-1,200 killed. And there you go, the difference in casualties. Also, the account belongs to Chuck Pfarrer, who is a NYT correspondent who posted an infographic created from information provided by the Ukrainian MoD. Hardly just some “Twitter account”. If you want more Russian sources, by all means, dig some up. The Russian MoD’s updates on alleged Ukrainian losses are sparse, to say the least, and they’ve never officially released casualty figures. If you want to clean up the table, you certainly can. But removing it entirely, just like you removed all the casualties from the infobox? I respectfully disagree. Tomissonneil (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with everything Tomissonneil said. EkoGraf (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

My actions have not been done on a "whim" and have not been done without an attempt to first engage with Tomissonneil. It is because of the striking similarity between the casualy reporting in the infobox here and what had occurred at Russian invasion of Ukraine and the consensus to remove those figures there through this discussion. There does appear to be a consensus here that the infobox casualty parameters here are populated with too much intricate detail. It is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. As for the table, it clearly misrepresents the attribution no matter how one wishes to slice or justify it. I suggest looking more closely at the links I provided in respect to the arithmetic error and, no matter who he is, the twitter page cited has no apparent editorial oversight and is therefore not a WP:RS. The biggest concern however, is that the table reasonably falls to WP:OR. It is based on an assumption that a collation of figures from sources is complete and results in an accurate representation of the actual casualties. It assumes that there is no omission or duplication in the data relied upon. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

In this version, the infobox attributes to NATO, Ukrainian casualties as One-fifth of the number of Russian casualties. It cites two sources.[2][3] This is not a useful statement to include in the infobox as there is nuance and context that an infobox cannot capture. The second source does verify the ratio stated, with attribution to NATO. However, it gives no indication of dates to which this applies. The first source gives >100,000 Russian and >20,000 Ukranian casualties "to date" (13 May). However, it does not indicate a start date for these figures. Furthermore, it does not attribute these figures at all, let alone to NATO. While the figures given are consistent with a 5:1 ratio, citing this source in support of the claim is a misrepresentation. This edit combines the attributions to NATO and the US under one heading with the edit summary: Streamlining the infobox by combining the NATO and US estimates, which are essentially the same (casualty ratio of 1 to 5 in favor of Ukraine). The text previously read: United States estimate: 20,000+ killed or wounded (1 Dec. 2022–1 May 2023). It cites the first source previously given above. That source is published by Sky News with a writer from the UK. It is not attributed to the US government as implied and it does not report the date range given. The sources cited are being misrepresented. Accordingly, the entry has been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The information was readded under a heading of "Western estimate" per here. As already stated, only source 2 supports reporting a figure and does not report the date range given. Accordingly, the telegraph source and the dates have been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox reports Russian casualties: United States estimate: 100,000+ casualties (20,000+ killed; 1 Dec. 2022–1 May 2023), citing Reuters[4] The article actually states: The White House on Monday estimated that Russia's military has suffered 100,000 casualties in the last five months in fighting in the Bakhmut region and other areas of Ukraine. [emphasis added] The source is being misrepresented as applying to just Bakhmut. Accordingly, the entry has been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that the US Government, including the President and other officials, has now clarified that they meant losses only in the Bakhmut region.

Links:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/17336

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/international/2023/05/01/u-s---russia-has-suffered-100k-casualties-in-bakhmut-since-december Tomissonneil (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

These sources [5] [6] have updates that note the error: that the losses attributed to being for Bakhmut were actually for all of Ukraine. The assertion that the converse is the case is contradicted by the evidence. The consensus of sources is that the 1 May briefing reported casualties for all Ukraine. While Biden does state a figure of 100,000 Russian losses in Bakhmut in his G7 speech, he does not give a date range nor does he give the number killed. Accordingly, the date range, number killed and the source referring to the 1 May briefing have been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A date range was readded to US claims of Russian casualties with this edit and the edit summary: On 2 June, Blinken said that these losses were within a six month period.. In the source added to support this Blinken stated that Russian forces in Ukraine suffered 100,000 killed and wounded “in a meat grinder of its own making” just within the past six months. Bilkin is referring to all of Ukraine and not Bakhmut. Accordingly, the edit has been reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit updates Russian casualties per Ukraine to ~13,300 with this note: Ukraine claimed Russian forces suffered 100,000 casualties in the battle,1 while their own losses were 7.5 times fewer,2 which would represent some 13,300 casualties. Neither of the two sources cited individually supports the claim. Consequently, this falls to WP:SYNTH. This initial edit claimed a figure of ~10,000, citing this source of 7 March reporting a 5:1casualty ratio and this source of 19 May claiming 70,000 Russian casualties. Again, neither source individually supported the figure (which also appears to be incorrect) and falls to WP:SYNTH. Accordingly, the material has been deleted. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties Per DPR: 15,000–20,000 killed was added with this edit, citing two sources.[7][8] The first sources (of 7 April) states: A Russian-installed official said on Thursday that Moscow had killed 15,000-20,000 Ukrainian troops. The second source of 6 April makes a near identical attribution. Quite apart from the DPR having been annexed last year and no longer an entity, the attribution is an assumption (conflation) not supported by the sources cited. The sources are also dated. Accordingly, the material has been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the table within the Military casualties section this same source is used and attributed to the "Russian Ministry of Defence". This is a misattribution and it has been tagged accordingly. In the context of the table, I don't see it as appropriate to report a figure that must be attributed to an "anonymous Russian appointed official". Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner is not a separate belligerent. Reporting this level of detail in the infobox is inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Removed accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This material was originally added with this edit of 25 May. This material has been challenged but was reinstated this edit and the edit summary: Re-adding this, as it’s important to have both Russian and Ukrainian estimates in the infobox for a semblance of balance. Pro-Russian sources rarely comment on their own losses, so for now we’ve gotta take what we can get. Tomissonneil, as this thread was already open, the reinstatement is not consistent with WP:BRD. There is also WP:ONUS. Reporting Wagner casualties here is a false balance, since it is not comparing apples with apples - Wagner being a "unit" and a sub-set of Russian forces involved. There is nuance to the Wagner casualties for which the infobox is unsuited. As only part of the whole, it also falls to "detail" rather than a summary of the whole and is inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Detail and nuance belongs in the body of the article, not the infobox. Infobox information is viewed by readers as having a high degree of confidence (ie factual). The template documentation states that the casualty field is optional. If we don't have particularly good quality information to present as a simple summary range free from intricacy and nuance that compares like with like, we should not be pretending to readers. We don't gotta take what we can get. A sow's ear is no reasonable substitute for a silk purse. Until there is a consensus to return such material to the infobox (if at all), it should not be present. Accordingly, it has been removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

These sources [9] [10] of 1 May are reporting US government assessment of Russian casualties as 100,000 and explicitly noting that the earlier attribution to just Bakhmut was in error. ISW on 2 June reports on Bilkin's speech of the same date here, where again, the >100,000 casualties is not specific to Bakhmut. The consensus of official US sources is that >100,000 casualties is across Ukraine. Biden's speech is a one-off that falls against this consensus. This gives significant nuance to the claim that cannot be captured in an infobox. The figure of Russian casualties per US ultimately attributed to Biden in the infobox is challenged per WP:VNOT and removed accordingly, noting also that WP:ONUS applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A claim of 4,000 civilians killed was added to both the infobox and the Civilian casualties section citing this source. The source has since been amended stating: This article was amended on 9 June 2023. An earlier version said that “about 4,000 civilians had been killed in Bakhmut during Russia’s assault”; this should have said that about 4,000 civilians had been left in the city following the assault. Accordingly, the claim is being removed from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The infobox claims 204 civilians killed since start of invasion (per Ukraine), citing this source. The city has been shelled since May 2022. I added this qualification of the date range (IAW the source) when I removed the erroneous report of 4,000 killed (see immediately above). At Bakhmut#2022 Russian invasion, it is reported: ... Bakhmut became a frontline city in May, and was regularly shelled by Russian forces.[39][40][41] The scope of the article is for fighting from 1 August. The figure cited is not representative of the casualties consistent with the scope. Accordingly, the figure is being removed from the infobox. The Civilian casualties section also refers to this source. The text is being edited to make prior bombardment of the city explicit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox states: Western estimate: 60,000 casualties (20,000 killed), citing [11] [12]. Neither source gives a figure of 20,000 killed. This information is removed accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Tomissonneil, you are correct in that the sources do say "at least one-third" killed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

ISW

A lot of citations link to the Institute for the Study of War. While I do not dispute their authenticity, minus their own observations (take a shot every time they said "culminated"), the article has become oversaturated with sources from them and them alone, leading to possible bias. Hell, the "Continued fighting and Wagner withdrawal" section literally goes with "in their [insert day] report" for every paragraph.

The article should contain diversified sources from other publications and media that either quotes the ISW or find other sources that convey the same information. I'd like to point out that the ISW stated that what they publish comes from publicly available information so other sources would likely have picked up on them as well. ProjectHorizons (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree.

When citing a fact from ISW, check their footnote, and see if the original source is a reliable secondary source worth citing.  —Michael Z. 19:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I had noticed this but was never sure how to bring it up- I completely agree. Reposting their daily reports in the article doesn't really add much value, so I can look to see other sources that share the info stated by the ISW Presidentofyes12 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. The info from these reports is also usually WP:NOTNEWS stuff about minor assaults in vague areas that don’t really get elaborated on later. HappyWith (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Military casualties section

My assessment of the military casualties section is that it reads much like a news tickertape. Furthermore, it does not follow a clear timeline. Much of the content falls to WP:NOTNEWS. Only the most recent casualty assessments/claims for the period of the battle and the few critical assessments would appear appropriately encyclopedic. I intend to review the content accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the easiest and quickest solution would be to add up the casualties from the section that just keeps saying "on this day, XXXX casualties were reported" and make a single sentence something like "from {date} to {date}, {summed casualties} were reported by {sources used}". No need for day by day, it can be easily summed up this way. I don't think this would be WP:SYNTH, as the purpose would simply be consolidation, and I'm only suggesting this as a stop-gap measure-- of course the BEST solution would be to find sources that give the summation themselves. Fieari (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There are now sources that give an aggregate for a substantial period of the battle (save the most recent). The approach you suggest was previously applied. It is premised on two assumptions: that the individual reports are, as a whole, complete, and, that there are no duplications in reporting. It would therefore inherently fall to WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

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

---

The battle ended may 20th so you might want to say it’s not ongoing a couple of probing attacks by azov mean nothing and you know it 2600:8802:180B:3300:68C7:45E3:4047:98DE (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

They don't argue in good faith buddy. It will be decades before anything resembling the truth is posted here, if ever. 2601:85:C100:46C0:E438:4AC5:D747:F6E6 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. If or when they say the battle is over and Russia has won, we will change the article to say that then. This was policy decades before this war started. HappyWith (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:02, 17 June 2023 (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.

What happened to this page?

First of all, why is wagner flag now white with the letter W when their official flag is black with their official logo in the center? Second, why is only the wagner claim of ukrainian losses removed but ukrainian claim about 100k russian casaulties is still there when it's clear that you have to be mentally challenged to believe that? I'm not saying that you should remove ukrainian claim i'm saying that you should add wagner claim back to be somewhat neutral and objective. Third, why are DPR and LPR forces shown as battle participants? They didn't take part in fighting for Bakhmut, only battle participants from the russian side are Wagner PMC and regular russian army including VDV units. And lastly, you locked this page for editing to prevent "vandalism" while only things that are added here are blatant ukrainian propaganda. The terminology used here is shockingly biased. This page is a discrace to objectiveness. Пиротско-источнопчињски комонвелт (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources for each of your claims, respecting WP:RS, and we can work from there. Note that the reason many sources you may be looking for are not used is because there is broad consensus that Russian state sources fail WP:RS entirely. Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight or equal time to both sides. Fieari (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner symbols are the copyrighted logo of a private corporation in Russia. It can be used under fair use only in the article about Wagner PMC. Whatever that white thing is is supposedly uncopyrightable simple geometry and text (so I don’t see how it contributes to this article).

Haven’t reviewed the info, but Prigozhin claims 20,000 deaths, and Girkin says he left out another 14,000. With a low 3:1 WIA:KIA ratio, that could mean around 80,000 to 136,000 casualties (low ratio means lots of wounded die because of inadequate medical). That doesn’t even begin to count Russian military.  —Michael Z. 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

So, why were Prigozin claims about Ukrainian casualties removed? Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As can be found in the thread "Inconsistencies in Prigozhin’s claims of Ukrainian losses" in talk archive 2, the claims were removed because the casualties section of the infobox was already getting way too cluttered, and editors agreed that Prigozhin was an unreliable source who gave internally inconsistent information. HappyWith (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

But this claim was also removed from the body of the article, while his claim about Wagner casualties was left in. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, that was a while ago, I think. You know you can search through the archives yourself to find this stuff, right? HappyWith (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox commanders

The Russian side should have the top Russian military commander in addition to the owner of the PMC. Anyone know who that is?  —Michael Z. 22:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added the Russian C-in-C Gerasimov to the infobox. If anyone knows the sequence of military district/front commanders responsible for Bakhmut, they should replace him in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 19:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see that overall commanders for the “SMO” during this battle were, successively, Zhidko, Surovikin, and Gerasimov. Adding. Still would be better to show the local front commander instead.  —Michael Z. 19:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Additions are not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Zhidko is not mentioned at all. Surovikin is mentioned once as a liason, not as a commander. Gerasimov is mentioned about ammo and "[keeping] Kadyrov out of the Russian High Command" - not as a commander. There is nothing in the article that they are commanders of something, let alone that they have been key or notable in the conduct of the battle as a commander. Contrast this with the other two that are mentioned in the infobox. We have been down this rabbit hole before. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it’s getting more obvious that the complaint is disruptive. You can’t just put only Prigizhin in the in Russian side of the infobox as if he had been in charge of all Russian forces in this battle because that’s clearly misleading. Makes it even more clear that the leadership of a battle is specific data integral to the subject.

You may, of course, add the Russian MOD military leadership into the article so the infobox will be consistent with the body at any time.  —Michael Z. 12:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your edit[13] makes it look like the Russian 72nd brigade and any other Russian army, airborne, and navy units mentioned in the article were under Prigozhin’s command. It makes it look as if Prigozhin was commanding the Russian forces there still. These assumptions made reasonable by the infobox content are wrong. This has made the article worse.  —Michael Z. 12:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Longest Battle in History?

It has been 324 since the initial assault on Bakhmut started, this would make it 18 days longer than the current title holder Battle of Verdun admittedly the battles of Avdiivka and Marinka do have longer durations but the information on these battles is scarce and even reports if combat is actually happening don't exist. unless these get reclassified as sieges than Verdun simply is no longer the longest battle. a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

True, but I fell we need RS to say it. As you say three may be others. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Our dating of the start is based on Russian statements at the time. At a minimum we would need sources that say in their own voice that the battle started August 1, or perhaps that Russia and Ukraine both publicly recognize that as a start date (I doubt that this is a thing they do). But it would be preferable to have sources that clearly say it is the longest. If it is the case, then I expect they will be forthcoming sooner or later.  —Michael Z. 21:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources including Reuters (NYT) that say something like “the battle for Bakhmut, the war’s longest-running sustained fight.”[14]  —Michael Z. 21:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a matter for good quality sources - not WP:NEWSORG. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Good news orgs have fact checkers, so I think an unimbiguous statement from two or three of them could satisfy me. I’ve only scanned the headlines so far.  —Michael Z. 00:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"the wars" not "histories". Also the war is not over. This is another situation where it might be best to wait till it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the war’s. A superlative remains until it doesn’t. There’s no reason to wait to report what a number of sources are saying, even if you had a crystal ball that said it will change.  —Michael Z. 23:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2023) has lasted longer. Givibidou (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow.  —Michael Z. 23:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As others have said RS are needed to say this, and it'll take some time until people can say in retrospect that Bakhmut was history's longest battle. And from a non-RS focused (and thus technically invalid) standpoint, it still isn't- Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016), Siege of Deir ez-Zor (2014–2017), Siege of Homs (all in Syria), along with Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2023) and Battle of Marinka (2022–2023) in Ukraine, and Battle of Benghazi (2014–2017) in Libya all lasted longer too. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

In the Continued_fighting_and_Wagner_withdrawal_(June_2023) section, in the June 24 paragraph (last paragraph as of this edit request), "flair up" should be changed to "flare-up". Jeremy Beatson (Use this button to talk to me) 22:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

More reliable sources

To add to the next discussion of whether and when the battle finished:

"One month ago Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner group had just conquered the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut after a nearly year-long battle, crawling forward by a few dozen metres a day." The Economist June 24th 2023

2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:F939:B56D:C77F:BD75 (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

See the thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

This edit of 01:43, 18 June 2023 added material to the infobox re Wagner's strength and casualties. It was challenged with this edit and the edit summary: Inappropriate detail for infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Wagner is not a separate combatant. Should be added to body of article. This edit of 19 June readded the information with the edit summary: There’s no need to gut the infobox, especially since it’s pretty bare compared to some other page’s. There’s no consensus on that, especially since most other users are against it. The page body is already very extensive, comparatively much more so than the infobox. While Wagner fights for Russia, the claims they make aren’t necessarily sanctioned by the Russian government, also its consistent with what’s already in the infobox. There was an open discussion on casualties in the infobox, now archived here at 07:24, 18 June 2023.

• In respect to Wagner's casualties, three sources are cited: a journalist's twitter blog, which lacks editorial oversight and is therefore not an RS; Kings and Generals YouTube channel not considered an RS (see RSN archived here; and, a Euromaidan Press article.

• Euromaidan Press appears to be making its own assessment of the casualty estimates, based in part on milblogs by Girkin. ISW treats Girkin very circumspectly. However, these are treated, by virtue of being presented in the infobox as "fact". While we might report and attribute what is said by Girkin, it is not fact check through editorial process. Euromaidan Press is a WP:NEWSORG. It is questionable that it is an RS for analysis.

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarize ... key facts. These figures are far from "factual". A [simple] summary does not separately list varying reports from separate sources - this falls to detail. An infobox cannot capture nuance. Also per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose.

• [The infobox is] pretty bare compared to some other page’s falls to WP:OTHERCONTENT. This is not a valid argument to add information just to fill up the infobox.

• Wagner is not a separate belligerent nor is it the only Russian force engaged. Information specifically about Wagner falls to detail. It is also misleading when Wagner is the only "strength" mentioned in the infobox.

• There’s no consensus on that, especially since most other users are against it. If material is challenged, there is a WP:ONUS (see also WP:BRD) to establish a consensus for readding material. This has not happened. The broader community consensus is represented by WP:P&G cited. As I have said before, when the question was specifically ask at Russian invasion of Ukraine the consensus was to remove casualties from the infobox - largely because of uncertainty in figures and much as we have here.

[S]o for now we’ve gotta take what we can get is not a substantive reason for adding substandard information to the infobox. These are optional parameters and should only be populated with a significant degree of confidence. Please achieve a consensus for this material before reinstating. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As its not even over (and we are not a live news feed) lets just leave it all out, until its over. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A Wagner strength of 85,000 was readded to the infobox with this edit by Tomissonneil with this edit summary: Even if the claims of their casualties aren’t added, the Wagner group has stated how many of their fighters were in the battle, while we still don’t have any numerical figures for the numbers of Russian regulars in the battle. Even Ukrainian sources seem to believe him on his personnel figures, which is why I included one. The strength of one of the two combatants is not “excessive detail” for the infobox, nor does it need a consensus, especially when no one is contradicting it and it is the... This discussion here specifically refers adding Wagner's strength to the infobox. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus here has not been met. This figure is not supported by the body of the article. This may be the total force Wagner has committed but it is not their peak force. Wagner's strength is not [t]he strength of one of the two combatants. How the infobox is populated does need consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re getting ridiculous at this point. It is absolutely mentioned in the body of the article. Prigozhin said that he had 35,000 mercenaries and 50,000 recruited convicts, which is mentioned in the article, in the casualties section. This is becoming disruptive. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My error but still no consensus here for this to be added to the infobox. So, readding it at this point would appear to be contrary to P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This will be your final warning before I report you. Stop your disruptive editing and edit warring. The figure is mentioned in the page body, and both Russian and Ukrainian seem to believe it. A consensus is not necessary, as it wouldn’t be on literally any other page, especially because there is literally no reason to dispute it, Consensus also doesn’t mean just agreeing with you, and it’s ironic considering you removed it multiple times without gaining a consensus. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The material was added and challenged. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, there is an onus to gain a consensus for readding the material. The discussion here does not support readding it. This is not just my view. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources confirming Russian victory.

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

---

Reposted because it is simply unfair to remove this overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be submitted to the RFC, where it was outright removed instead of being struck, as well the thread presenting it being "archived". This must be left up to ensure for all who support changing the status to Russian victory, especially ECP users, have the resources available to fight for a neutral and good wiki article.

"Brutal Battle for Bakhmut Leaves Russia With an Uncertain Victory" "The nine-month battle for the small Ukrainian city of Bakhmut effectively came to an end on Sunday." - WSJ 21st May

"Russian forces capture Bakhmut, a symbolic but costly victory" "President Vladimir Putin's first major battlefield victory in nearly a year is a symbolic prize that comes as his troops are being forced onto the backfoot around the city and beyond." "Russian forces have claimed full control of Bakhmut, ending an intense months long battle for the eastern city that came to embody Ukrainian resistance." "The news will serve as a symbolic boost for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but his first major battlefield victory in nearly a year may be a fleeting one, with his military forced onto the backfoot around the city and beyond." "It holds no longer, but Kyiv may believe it has served its purpose." "Western officials and military analysts have said that Russia's capturing Bakhmut would be a blow for Ukraine but was unlikely to prove a decisive turning point in the conflict."- NBC News 21st may

"Putin's hollow victory: The capture of Bakhmut in numbers" "The capture of Bakhmut may be hailed as a victory in Moscow, but the battle also served a purpose in Kyiv. Russia finally has a win. But at what cost?" - Telegraph 22nd May

"Fall of Bakhmut would signal ‘a Pyrrhic victory for Wagner’" "This is a Pyrrhic victory for Wagner,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy chief of the General Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces, told Al Jazeera." "But the counterattack was apparently aimed at saving the remaining Ukrainian servicemen, a military analyst said. “The goal has been achieved,” Nikolay Mitrokhin of Germany’s Bremen University told Al Jazeera. “The [city] has been abandoned.”" "Bakhmut’s fall may delay a much bigger counteroffensive in the south, especially in the Zaporizhia region, where Kyiv had been amassing forces in recent weeks, he said."- Al Jazeera 22nd May

"Bakhmut falls, but is it really a Russian victory?" "The 200-plus day siege may be over, but what comes next is not exactly to Moscow’s benefit" "The eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut, captured by Russian forces after more than 220 days of house-to-house fighting, is unique in that it comes with its own supply of bubbly to celebrate the victory." - Singapore Straits Times (OPINION) 23rd May

"When you think about the difficulty Russia has had taking Bakhmut, it doesn't bode well for the future," Jeffrey Edmonds, a Russia expert and former CIA military analyst, told Insider earlier this year." - Business Insider 23rd May

"Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar said on May 23 that Kyiv's forces had made some progress "on the flanks to the north and south of Bakhmut." But she acknowledged that Russian forces had taken the control of the city itself and continued to "clear areas" they held." - Radio Free Europe 23rd May

"Moscow’s ‘pyrrhic victory’ in Bakhmut prompts unrest in the Russian military" "You’d be inclined to agree with the description proffered by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) that this was a “pyrrhic victory”. - The Conversation 25th May

"What to Know About Russia’s Capture of Bakhmut in Ukraine" "Ukraine, whose forces have made small gains on the outskirts, has signaled that it is now focused on making it difficult for Moscow to hold onto the city." "Whatever comes next, Ukraine’s setback in Bakhmut is a significant moment in Russia’s invasion, its first military success since last summer." " but Kyiv has all but conceded that the intense and bloody defense of the city is over." "But on Monday, a deputy Ukrainian defense minister, Hanna Maliar, essentially acknowledged that the city had been lost, saying that the Russians were “mopping up” to clear the remaining Ukrainian soldiers from the ruins." - NYT 25th May

"Moscow’s forces will struggle to capitalize on their first major victory in months after a battle that depleted them" "Russian forces have succeeded in taking control of the small eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut." - WSJ 25th May

"The capture of the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut by the Wagner paramilitary group has given Moscow a rare and very costly victory." - NYT 30th May

"After 10 months of warfare, ground assaults have largely come to a halt and the guns have mostly fallen silent in the city of Bakhmut." "“There are no active battles there – neither in the city, nor on the flanks,” Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar" - Al Jazeera 31st May

"Ukrainian battalion commander Oleg Shiryaev warned his men in nearby trenches that Russian forces were advancing across a field toward a patch of trees outside the city of Bakhmut." "“The goal in Bakhmut is not Bakhmut itself, which has been turned into ruins,” military analyst Roman Svitan said by phone. The goal for the Ukrainians is to hold on to the western heights and maintain a defensive arc outside the city." - AP 4th June

"Moscow hammered Bakhmut, while Ukraine tried to hang onto the eastern city for as long as possible. The Ukrainians finally withdrew from the city last month" - WSJ 5th June

@Bobnesh FYI

Nebakin (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We have an RFC, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

They can't, cuz of the general sanctions. – robertsky (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If they can't post there their contribution is pointless, and they are wasting out time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This post is literally a copy of this. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

One possible way is to agree on whether these sources can go into the Sources section in the RfC. I think we should on good faith. – robertsky (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If people think it will make a difference nothing is stopping anyone. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That evidence is not very discriminating.

Anyway, today’s news:

• “Ukraine goes on offensive in Bakhmut, regains 1.2 kilometers in last day,” New Voice of Ukraine (Yahoo! News).

 —Michael Z. 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If the Battle of Bakhmut only constitutes the fighting in the urban areas of Bakhmut, then the starting date of 1 August is also false. But so far the article encompasses the entire concentration of fighting around Bakhmut. Ultimately, the segmentation and naming of battles is not an objective thing, it's up for convention. It's not uncommon for battles to be named of the nearest major landmark even if no fighting is going on exactly there - Kursk, Verdun, etc. It might make sense to segment the urban fighting in Bakhmut that did end around 20th May, and the larger-scale battle in and around Bakhmut. Like how the Battle of Stalingrad commonly refers to more than just the urban fighting within the city of Stalingrad. Or the Budapest offensive is more than just the urban fighting in Budapest.

The important thing is, will fighting continue. If the Ukrainian counterattacks continue for the control of Bakhmut, then there is currently a battle going on for the control of Bakhmut, even if not IN Bakhmut (whatever that exactly means), much like how the Russians can fight the Battle of Avdiivka without really entering the urban core of Avdiivka. If there was a gap in the fighting, it might make sense to segment it as two separate battles, but that's not the case, the counterattacks started even before 20th May. Still, the fighting might die down, and in retrospective we can draw the end wherever it make sense from hindsight.

This is not about trying to hide the fact that Russians control the city itself. It's that we need to have an article for the current fighting too, and it makes no sense to segment it into another article if the fighting before and around the urban core isn't. Vauia Rex (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

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

---

Yevgeny Prigozhin is not currently commander of the Battle of Bakhmut. Wagner Group is also not currently fighting on the Battlefield.they withdrew all their forces from Bakhmut on 5 June 2023. Thus, it should be written as :

Yevgeny Prigozhin (Until 5 June 2023)

PMC WAGNER (Until 5 June 2023).

Sources :

https://web.archive.org/web/20230525144139/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/25/world/russia-ukraine-news

And

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/25/world/russia-ukraine-news The above sources are in the same Battle of Bakhmut article. If you think you want more sources you can search them yourself as well.

DitorWiki (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Stop bludgeoning this talk page with the same request. If you do it again I will report you for disruptive behavior.

It is up to you to provide reliable sources to back up your requested changes.

I am reviewing your previous identical request, and will respond to you there. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

can't you see I have PROVIDED YOU THE SOURCES. if you didn't see, see it again. DitorWiki (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion above, asking the same question twice might be seen as a form of wp:bludgeoning. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The Edit is done. DitorWiki (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (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.

The battle is over

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

---

This is a biased article and should be changed Napalm Guy (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Give some reliable and latest sources DitorWiki (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19476&ved=2ahUKEwid3qz18pKAAxV5d2wGHc6TC6cQxfQBKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw1VBvifkOtKrd5kxMcx_kly

The battle is still ongoing DitorWiki (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to add Redut PMC as an involved unit for Russia

Please add the private military company Redut (company)/"PMC Redut" to the info box list of pro-Russian involved units. Per ISW, the Redut formation "Veterany" is operating in the Battle of Bakhmut on the flanks of the city. The intelligence firm Grey Dynamics also reported that the ISW designated Redut formation "Veterany" conducted offensive operations in the Battle of Bakhmut Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done. I used the original ISW report linked to in the Yahoo News article. The other citations were redundant. Xan747 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

New Russian side commander

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

---

Who is the new Russian side commander of the battle of bakhmut? According to me we should write Valery Geresimov DitorWiki (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2023 (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.

Remove Wagner as combatant

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

---

Russia has begun assimilating Wagner elements in Ukraine into the regular forces. So should it not be included under Russia or be removed altogether? Sng Pal (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

no, thats not how this works. Combatants are groups that fought in the battle. are you claiming wagner was never present in bakhmut? Scu ba (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

it should be written as :

Wagner Group (until 5 June 2023)

Yevgeny Prigozhin (until 5 June 2023) DitorWiki (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Xan747 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (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.

Edit Request 10 July 2023

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

---

I Request an Edit request because their are many mistakes (e.g Yevgeny Prigozhin was the commander of the battle of Bakhmut but now he is not & The Wagner Group is currently not a combatant) even after many Talk the changes aren't being made. DitorWiki (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Valid points who is the current commander of the Russian forces in the battle? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Valery Geresimov is the overall commander of all the Russian forces in Ukraine. So If we don't no who is the commander of the region we can write Valery Geresimov. DitorWiki (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What I said in the section above. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:RS would be helpful here. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Done DitorWiki (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

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

---

Battle is over and ended with a Russian victory Napalm Guy (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/world/europe/russia-bakhmut-war-what-next.html Napalm Guy (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19476&ved=2ahUKEwid3qz18pKAAxV5d2wGHc6TC6cQxfQBKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw1VBvifkOtKrd5kxMcx_kly DitorWiki (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Source provided also failed verification. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19476&ved=2ahUKEwid3qz18pKAAxV5d2wGHc6TC6cQxfQBKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw1VBvifkOtKrd5kxMcx_kly

The battle is still ongoing DitorWiki (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes Parham wiki (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also read wp:bludgeon, do not past the saem question twice. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2023 (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.

Battle has been over for 2 months

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

---

It needs to be changed to Russian victory Napalm Guy (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

HAs it, see the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

read the RfC, to summarize, Russia never fully controlled the city, and there is still fighting in the suburbs. the battle also started before Russian forces entered city limits.Scu ba (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2023 (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.

RFC, battle over.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no. Despite a general recognition that the outcome here should be based on consensus in reliable sources, there has been no analysis of any sources in this discussion. Any future RfC on this topic should include some kind of source assessment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Should we say the battle is over, and that Russia has won? Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Notes

1. The scope of this article is defined by the lead, which states: The battle of Bakhmut is a series of military engagements in and near the city of Bakhmut ... [emphasis added] (ie it is about the battle for Bakhmut).
2. The question of whether the battle is over is determined by a consensus of independent reliable sources explicitly telling us that the battle for Bhakmut is over.
3. Statements like: Source X says "blah blah blah" therefore the battle is over, fall to WP:SYNTH. Sources should be telling us the battle is over or make an unambiguous and conclusively similar statement that requires no analysis or interpretation.

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes - The battle is over, even though there still remains small pockets of resistance in the outskirts and suburbs. Can Ukraine retake the city in a hypothetical future "spring"-offensive, or in a new attack a year or two from now? Sure, but that's hypothetical and speculative. The fact of the matter is that right now, the battle is over and the Russians have won and are in control of the city. If this battle is to be regarded as still ongoing, we also have to change the status of other battles that are listed as won by the Ukrainians to ongoing, as there are still attacks from the Russians on many places held by Ukraine. Even the Battle of Kyiv (2022) or Battle of Kharkiv (2022) can be changed to ongoing as there are still attacks with drones and missiles and the Russians can try to retake it later. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:25D3:B49C:68AA:E95D (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC) striking non-WP:ECP user !vote, per WP:RUSUKR sanctions. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Battle of Bakhmut ended on May 21, 2023 with Russian forces victory, controlling the city and expelling Ukrainian forces. If the battle starts again, a Second Battle of Bakmut can be created. emijrp (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  What reliable sources make a distinction between the fighting happening in and around Bakhmut right now and the fighting that took place before May 21st? Is it a majority of sources or a minority opinion? Fieari (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No

• No Just because the city is in Russian control does not mean the battle is over, as Ukraine is still conducting attacks to re-take the city. I don't intend this example to be a false equivalence, as the scale is wildly different, but the Battle of Stalingrad did not end simply because the Germans took the city, as the battle continued. Curbon7 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, as stated below, reliable sources are still in agreement that the battle is ongoing, despite Russian claims. Curbon7 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• No Per lack of WP:RELIABLE sources and WP:RECENTISM. As soon as reliable sources confirm the situation, then we should reflect that. (Hohum ^@) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• No Prigozhin himself conceded that Russia never fully controlled the city and that the Ukrainian army still holds portions of the city's southwest. Scu ba (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No. There may be a case to say that a battle is over here. I see some sources implying it is ended, while avoiding explicitly saying so. But “Russia won”? Well the infobox certainly should not say “Result: Russian victory.” Many sources say “claimed victory,” “pyrrhic victory,” “doubtful victory,” or uses scare quotes for “Russian ‘victory.’” Virtually none say Russian victory. It’s likely Ukrainian forces accomplished what they intended: exploiting the defenders’ advantage to massively attrit Russian forces over ten months (taking the ruins of a town of 75k pre-war population at a cost of 100k casualties!), while the Russians wasted their initiative and 300k mobilization until their offensive culminated. Sources say so in so many words (e.g., “After Russia’s abortive and ill-conceived winter offensive, which squandered its opportunity to consolidate its forces, Ukraine is in a relatively strong position”).[15] That is not victory, according to reliable sources. —Michael Z. 03:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No - Sources I've seen are pretty much in agreement that while Ukraine is out of the main city, the battle isn't over. The flanking and attempts at encirclement are reported as being a continued part of the same battle, regardless of physical presence inside the city. Fieari (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No: I can't even find sources reliably stating that the battle is over, let alone a Russian victory. Wikipedia isn't The News, and we can afford to wait for meaningful information before making significant changes. Akakievich (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• So far - No Noting the scope of the article, I have yet to see sources presented that would unambiguously tell us the battle for Bakhmut is over. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No As it is not clear (as RS disagree) its true. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No see my last edit regarding village of Berkhivka. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No, but it'd make sense to add some sort of divide between the Russian seizure of most of Bakhmut by May 20-22, and Ukrainian flanking counterattacks. If not, then it should stay as is, since Russia is known to lack a good grip on the situation, and many sources say that the battle is ongoing, primarily in flanking areas. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No At least for now. I would not be totally shocked if, at some point in the future, there is more clarity among reliable sources in assessing that the May 21 time period would be considered the end to the battle. But there is certainly not yet that consensus. Thankfully, we are not the news, and have the luxury of waiting and assessing this consensus rather than piecing together a determination ourselves in real time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• No. Even if the entire city was taken (it was not or very much in doubt), that would not constitute a "victory". The battle is currently ongoing in a large area around the city and close to it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems to me time for an RFC, as we are getting nowhere. Please keep comments brief if possible. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Note I have only given two options as either the battle is over (and someone won, and no one has claimed that is Ukraine) or it is not over, so no one has won. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we also not change the page, until we have consensus? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural question Are non-ECP editors allowed to participate in this RfC, considering WP:RUSUKR? Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  They are not. Point A.1. specifically mentions RFCs.  —Michael Z. 03:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Added notes to this effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Slatersteven, as you will see, I have added a "Notes" section to define and focus discussion/responses. This is more or less drawn from discussion about formulating an RfC at #Date of the Battle. The first point is a statement of the article scope as defined by the lead and quoting from the lead. The second two paraphrase the most prevailing WP:P&G - WP:RS and WP:OR. As the OP of record, I would ask your concurrence. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I took it as read that any closer will take these into account, as any arguments must be policy based. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    • True (or it should be). I added it to help "guide" the discussion and that editors simply adding their opinion are not addressing the P&G and that this isn't a vote. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Note wp:v it must say X. So sources saying "effectively came to an end on Sunday." do not say it has ended. They have to say it has ended. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is why we are not a newspaper, we can't have daily live updates. We should wait until the dust has settled and we have a clear idea of what and who. Lets the historians decide when it ended, and who won, and then we repeat them, not new paper clickbait. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Note as well that the RFC closer may only take note of arguments made here, not on my talk page or in other threads. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Also (right now) we are heading for a snow close as there has not been one policy compliant yes vote. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In terms of managing the disruptive editing at the article and the TP, it is beneficial to keep this open - perhaps until we can say that the battle is over. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a good consensus that the battle has not ended and recommend a close so we can get to other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I agree that the consensus at this point is that the battle is not over at this point in time. However, this is a dynamic question, in that the question remains valid until the battle is actually over. Furthermore, editors will continue to press the question. The RfC serves the purpose of centralising such discussion and minimising disruption. Considering all of this, there is good reason to keep this RfC open until the real world issue is resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest only leaving the RFC open until the typical 1 month duration has elapsed, and only start a new one if NEW information is available, or if someone can say that reliable sources at that point are starting to find consensus towards declaring the battle over/to have been over. But I do think leaving it open for the 1 month is wise, simply because following procedure to the letter can work as a nice shield against brigading and trolls. Don't give them any ammunition, even if a snow close would usually be fine. Fieari (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

---

We can certainly wait until there is more clarity and there is consensus in RS. However no one disputes that at the moment the city itself is under control of the Russian forces and this is important enough to mention in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

we are an encyclopedia, not a live news feed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we close this RFC? The overwhelming consensus for "no" has been clear for weeks. HappyWith (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Its been clear since day 1. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"despite Russia’s claim of victory " https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukrainian-troops-not-backing-down-despite-russias-claim-of-victory-in-bakhmut

"Ukraine says battle for Bakhmut continues in the outskirts of the city" https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-battle-bakhmut-continues-170453374.html

"repelled but Wagner chief says ground lost in Bakhmut" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-ukraine-war-putin-counteroffensive-latest-b2351361.html These all seem to say it is not over yet. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Kyiv claims gains in Bakhmut" https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-claims-gains-bakhmut-amid-reports-counteroffensive-russia-hanna-maliar/ Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

Yevgeny Prigozhin is not currently commander of the Battle of Bakhmut. Wagner Group is also not currently fighting on the Battlefield.they withdrew all their forces from Bakhmut on 5 June 2023. Thus, it should be written as :

Yevgeny Prigozhin (Until 5 June 2023)

PMC WAGNER (Until 5 June 2023).

DitorWiki (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

You habitually fail to provide citations to support the changes you ask for, which is considered wp:disruptive behavior. If you continue doing this, you may be reported. Xan747 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230525144139/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/25/world/russia-ukraine-news

And

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/25/world/russia-ukraine-news

The above sources are in the same Battle of Bakhmut article.

If you are still doubting it then you can check it yourself. DitorWiki (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I only updated the Infobox, with "Until June 2023" since the precise date isn't in the references used.

You must always support your edit requests with explicit citations, no matter how easy you think they are for someone else to find. In this case the New York Times article you gave was still not adequate: the article was published on 25 May, and said Prigozhin intended to withdraw Wagner by 5 June. Intention to leave is not the same as having actually left. In the interest of being done with this I found two supporting sources and used them instead. Please properly cite your requests in future. Xan747 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Who is the current commander from the Russian side❓ DitorWiki (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. Xan747 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So I think we should write it as Valery Geresimov because he is the overall commander of All Russian operations in Ukraine.

Sources :

see Valery Gerasimov DitorWiki (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You've been asked several times to stop making the same argument in different talk sections. Especially stop creating new talk sections/edit requests raising the same issue like you did again below after being warned to not do it. This is wp:disruptive behavior because it unnecessarily clutters up the talk page and spreads the same conversation all over the place, making it extremely difficult to know if the question has been answered and whether consensus exists or not.

The proper section for this topic is Commanders and leaders, which you started on 7 July. I am going to copy your request up there and answer it. Xan747 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

LNR

The cited source does not seem to mention the LNR.[16] The article doesn’t either. I can see no evidence that the LNR (2nd Army Corps) was active in the battle. I’ll remove it from the infobox unless other info arises. —Michael Z. 19:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders section

Yevgeny prigozhin is not the Russian side commander since he completely withdrew all his troops from in and around bakhmut on May 10.the commander of the Russian forces should be written as unknown if someone doesn't no who is the commander DitorWiki (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It should list the military commander in charge of the military district or grouping of forces that includes Bakhmut. The info may be buried in ISW’s special backgrounder on command,[17] but I ran out of time trying to find it there.

See also Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 2#Infobox commanders.  —Michael Z. 01:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your point DitorWiki (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As I have said before (eg Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 2#Infobox commanders), such entries in the infobox should be supported by the article to tell us why they are key or significant - per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation. This is done for the two that appear at present. A bare name in the infobox (what is required when placing an entry there) tells us nothing about them without supporting material in the article - noting that an article must be able to stand alone. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us to include key specialized information in the infobox. Every belligerent force in every battle has a commander with unique influence on it, and their identity is k.s.i.  —Michael Z. 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

thats not how infoboxes work. they list all combatants and commanders throughout the battle. are you claiming wagner and prigozhin where never involved? because that is the only way they would get removed from the infobox.Scu ba (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin and the Wagner group were involved in the battle of bakhmut until their complete withdrawal from bakhmut on June 5. Thus, it should be written in Belligerent and the Commander & leaders section that prigozhin and the Wagner were Belligerents until June 5. DitorWiki (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

For continuity of this discussion, the following is copied from Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 by Xan747

So I think we should write it as Valery Geresimov because he is the overall commander of All Russian operations in Ukraine. Sources : see Valery Gerasimov DitorWiki (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your original suggestion to put Unknown is better, and that's what I will go do after responding to you here. Explaining the logic of using Gerasimov in the infobox would just clutter it up and defeat its purpose. It would also be borderline wp:synth to put him there, so best not to. Finally see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If any of the sources in Gerasimov's article explicitly say that he is directly commanding Russian troops in Bakhmut, then you could use that. Xan747 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Syrskyi, currently in the infobox, is the top commander of Ukrainian ground forces and the land campaign. Gerasimov is the top commander of both the overall Russian armed forces and of the “SMO” campaign. It certainly makes equal sense to include both of these in the infobox until we can identify more specific local commanders of the military direction or of the Bakhmut area of operations.  —Michael Z. 17:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Syrskyi is included in the infobox because the body of the article evidences the role he has played, making him a significant or notable commander - satisfying both WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation. Gerasimov has three passing mentions that do not evidence him to be significant or notable to the conduct of the battle. These mentions are in fact more about the significance of Prigozhin. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Gerasimov, not Prigozhin, is a military commander responsible for the Russian military’s role in the battle.  —Michael Z. 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

ISW’s May 24 Bakhmut Retrospective[18] says:

Wagner forces began to intensify their offensives northeast, south, and southeast of Bakhmut following the appointment of Wagner-affiliated Army General Surovikin as the theater commander on October 8. Prigozhin later claimed that he and Surovikin began operation “Bakhmut meatgrinder” to pin Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut shortly after Surovikin’s appointment.

Sergei Surovikin, as theatre commander, is identified as responsible for conduct of the battle from fall 2022. He served as theatre commander from October 8, 2022, until January 11, when Gerasimov took over and started the Russian winter offensive, whose main effort remained Bakhmut until May–June.

During the course of the battle, the Russian theatre commenders have been Gennadii Zhidko, Surovikin, and Valerii Gerasimov.  —Michael Z. 20:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And also Prigozhin (until June 2023) DitorWiki (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes.  —Michael Z. 04:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Please add the flag of PMC redut DitorWiki (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done File:PMC Redut Logo Upscaled.png is a non-free image and cannot be used in this article see WP:NFCC. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kathleen's bike I'm not a very experienced Wiki user, can Redut be considered a de-facto governmental organization, as it is included in the regular Armed Forces through MoD contracts now? They should be legal combatants now. Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually have an answer to that question. My previous reply is solely based on the fact that the non-free logo of Redut cannot be used in this article, no matter what their classification as legal combatants or otherwise. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should battle of Bakhmut be the first battle that never finish?

Note that this question was raised earlier at Battle has been over for 2 months, which I have closed as a duplicate of this one. Xan747 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This is biased. I do not want to see such low quality wikipedia article.

206.176.151.170 (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive comment, and also this is a relatively high quality article compared to other ones. The lead section is pretty strong and the reason why it's going on for so long is bc it's a fiercely contested city. Do you have any actual complaints or suggestions for improvement? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fighting Continues in and around the City. Russian forces Haven't captured all of the city some portion of Bakhmut are still under control of Ukraine Where heavy fighting continues. That's why it is called the Longest batte of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.DitorWiki (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It won't be, at some point the war will finish and then RS will decide if this was one battle or many battles. At that point historical analysis will tell us when it ended, and who won. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't bother, even if Putin somehow managed to conquer whole of Ukraine but Zelenskyy claims that they are still fighting, they would still list it as ongoing. All major media outlets confirmed that a Pyrrhic Russian victory on May 24 and even Ukrainian officials implicitly accepted that it is lost. I hate Putin and seriously condemn the invasion but the lack of neutrality and obvious bias in this article is grating. They took no time to report minor Ukranian gains in the 2023 counteroffensive despite the big citation needed is on it but adamantly refuses to change this for months now. I'd been okay with a more detailed and neutral: "Russian took control most of the city. Ukranian counterattack ongoing" like they did in the 2023 counteroffensive article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.6.19.137 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Proposed delete of all discussions (Talks) which are over or are closed. This will clear the uneccassary Talks and discussion. DitorWiki (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

They should be archived, not deleted, but I don't know how to do that. Xan747 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

so, someone else can do it. DitorWiki (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: there is no need to so, and in many respects, those discussions (which are not that old) can still be helpful. They will be archived when their time comes. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, there are discussions I closed which were duplicate requests that I would have archived if I knew how. Xan747 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't delete, archive them if anything. See Wikipedia:One click archiving for details on how to do so. HappyWith (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

But I don't know how to do it. DitorWiki (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

DitorWiki, you have already been told to archive and not to delete. If you can't work out how to do it, don't fuck with it. Also, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and specifically, WP:TALK#REPLIED. One does not just change one's posts silently unless this is done immediately after it is posted (as a correction) and before anybody has reasonably had a chance to see the original post - save perhaps an obvious typo and even then, only if that has not been commented on. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I literally just linked a page explaining how to do it. Read that, then report back if there is continued confusion. HappyWith (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@DitorWiki Stop deleting old discussions. You've been told about this many times and seem to not get the point. HappyWith (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I am of the view that this is disruptive. I for one am getting tired of putting things back to right. WP:CIR? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is battle of Bakhmut start date is not 2014?

If Bakhmut battle is not about the city but all the areas near it, then it should have started in 2014.

168.91.60.147 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Because the 2014 fighting was a different battle. HappyWith (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ended 2014, started again 2022.  —Michael Z. 21:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Change status

I agree that while Bakhmut city has fallen to Russia, the fact that fighting is ongoing in the region is grounds not to mark the battle as over. However a change of status in the wikibox is necessary. Something like "Russian forces take Bakhmut city proper. Fighting ongoing." Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The infobox should only contain the most basic information. Anything more complex than a word or two is something for the lead or the main body of the article - where this is already dealt with. There is also already a note link providing additional information after the word "Ongoing". (Hohum ^@) 00:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualty estimate

Why is the casualty estimate not shown from the Russian perspective, also the 20 000 number is wayy too low and far more than 20 000 (100 000 or so, if I remember correctly) ukranian dog tags were retrieved by Russians alone after the city was taken by them 85.40.196.122 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of this page. "Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements." (Hohum ^@) 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

pro Ukrainians hijaked wikipedia

They refuse to acknowledge the loss of the city and refuse to put the end date of the battle in May. This is ridiculous. They claim the battle never finish.

162.221.126.248 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut/Archive_2#RFC,_battle_over. (Hohum ^@) 16:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

True Sterge08 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

Result:Russian-Wagner group victory Jesssiemen (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive as to why not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

referring to the battle

@Tomissonneil, regarding latest undo [19] , SkyNews https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-the-battle-of-bakhmut-is-not-about-seizing-vital-ground-it-is-about-maximising-enemy-casualties-12879310 The fall of Bakhmut will not bring the end of the war any closer, nor will it have moved the frontline substantially. Yet over 100,000 Russians and well over 20,000 Ukrainians have - to date - been killed or injured in this grinding war of attrition. says well over 20,000 Ukrainians have - to date - been killed or injured in this grinding war of attrition , it's referring to the war, our article should say what the source says, thanks. Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not referring to the whole war. By May 2023, total Russian casualties were estimated by Western observers at well over 200,000 troops, with Ukrainian losses at just over half that. Meanwhile, Russian losses at Bakhmut, just prior to Wagner’s withdrawal (and the last total estimates of Russian losses since they ended their offensive) were about 100,000, with Ukrainian losses in the battle were estimated by Western officials at one-fifth of their opponents, which is 20,000.

Links: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/world/europe/pentagon-document-leaks-ukraine-war.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-casualties-5-times-ukraine-soldiers-bakhmut-nato-official-2023-3?amp

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/17336 Tomissonneil (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Losses and killed are different numbers. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s a ballpark figure, as there are no exact figures for the battle thus far. Tomissonneil (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement been killed or injured in this grinding war of attrition is ambiguous, particularly when a contemporaneous US estimate here gives the total killed in the war as 112,000. There is a WP:ONUS to establish consensus for inclusion which has yet to be achieved. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

total killed in the war as 112,000
Please mention that this figure includes civilians. Officials also said 50,000 Russian forces have been killed, which continues to rise, and 180,000 have been wounded. Ukrainian forces, while not as severe, have also suffered greatly with 20,000 killed in action and 130,000 wounded over the past nearly 15 months. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it is an estimate. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Poropsal

I propose a compromise, seeing as many people on this article claim the battle should be listed as over. I proposal a separate article be created about the battle directly in the city itself which should be dubbed The Battle In Bakhmut. My Reasoning for this is that the Battle of Berlin and Battle in Berlin are separate articles that go over the battle of the general area, and the battle in the city itself. Now I believe this to be a reasonable way to end the dispute over whether this battle should be listed as over, but I do wish to hear how everyone else thinks about this proposal. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:D855:FF03:883E:63F9 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources do not treat these as two different subjects, then we should not.  —Michael Z. 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess that's a good point, feel free to end this discussion. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:359C:2F8C:9DEF:24D5 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

But would the parent article refrain from explaining the battle in the city itself? Would it only cover the battles for the surrounding settlements? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

My idea was, like the battle of berlin article, this article would become mainly about the skirmishes surrounding the city. Granted it should also contain some info about the battle in the city itself. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:4022:A9C0:E447:B16C (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea and great compromise.

@Mzajac: What do reliable sources have anything to do with this though? This is purely an organizational problem. If it still makes sense to the reader and the connections between the articles are appropriately done, then the encyclopedic value would only increase as more details could be provided in both articles and the debate of the end of the battle in the city proper would finally subside. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG tells us that an article can be written if its subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. If RS write about separate battles of Bakhmut and in Bakhmut, then that may be a reason to write separate articles about them. Please demonstrate that that’s the case first. And then outline the scope of the proposed articles in more detail, especially explaining what are the start and end dates of these two supposed battles according to which sources.

But disagreement over whether the battle is ended or not is not such a reason to write two articles, and anyway I don’t see how the proposal is a compromise that resolves the disagreement. It looks like a WP:CFORK that lets us write two versions.

I suggest you make a more detailed proposal with supporting sources and ask editors who have participated on this earlier for their opinions.  —Michael Z. 15:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm not an avid wikipedia bulk writer, so I'll pass on this more extensive effort for now. I'll give my opinions if someone does this though. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:C14:9304:30FA:2376 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bakhmut not the longest battle of the war

In the lead section it states that the battle for Bakhmut is the "longest and bloodiest battle of the war so far." Though the bloodiest part is probably correct, the battle of Marinka has been ongoing since 17 March 2022 while the battle of Bakhmut began 1 August 2022, Wouldn't this make Marinka the longest battle of the war so far since it began a few months earlier? Astapf (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we have sources saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

NAFO trolls prevent the battle from being over

The battle should be about the city, not about some areas 5 or 10 km away from it. Hence it is called battle of Bakhmut, not battle of whatever else.

216.165.211.123 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

So using your logic, there was not a Battle of Moscow in WW2, not a Battle of Waterloo or Austerlitz, not a battle of Kursk, and many more things. It is extremely common for battles to be named after the nearest settlement, and since the goal of the attacks is Bakhmut, it still makes since to lump them in with the battle for the city. 5km is not that far, the town is visible from that distance. DragonLegit04 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Russians still hold the actual city of Bakhmut though, control hasn't alternated since the Russian victory in Bakhmut and subsequent seizure of the the city. The Batttles of Moscow, Waterloo, Austerlitz, and Kursk were decisively concluded when the defenders of the settle lost effective control or repelled an attack. Ukraine decisively lost control over Bakhmut proper and the Russians have so far repelled incursions into Bakhmut proper so by any historically consistent measure the Battle of Bakhmut has concluded and any Ukrainian counterattack to take back control of Bakhmut would begin the Second Battle of Bakhmut from a historical perspective. If we take your logic to its natural conclusion then the battle for Kiev, Adriivka, Robotyne and any other settlement that has alternated between Ukraine and Russia is still ongoing since Russia is still launching ongoing strikes all over Ukraine. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We don’t have articles on the “Battle of Robotyne” or “Battle of Adriivka” afaik but if we did (we shouldn’t) these two would indeed be “ongoing”. Battle of Kyiv has concluded though. Anyway. Sources. Volunteer Marek 19:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I agree the battle of Kiev is concluded because effective control was decisively settled, Russia still launches strikes against Kiev but that doesn't mean the battle for Kiev is still ongoing, and like I said if Russia were to re-initiate an invasion of Kiev it would be the Second Battle of Kiev not the ongoing Battle of Kiev. Likewise Bakhmut is controlled by Russia now after it's subsequent victory in the Battle of Bakhmut despite Ukrainian incursions into areas outside of Bakhmut that doesnt constitute an ongoing nature of the Bakhmut itself if Ukraine has lost control of the namesake settlement in battle, already. Its quite simply really. As for sources, well theyre pretty much universal in recognizing Russian military victory in Bakhmut:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/podcasts/the-daily/bakhmut-ukraine-russia.html?showTranscript=1

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin%E2%80%99s-pyrrhic-victory-bakhmut-retrospective-battle-bakhmut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOouiqfCwc4

https://kyivindependent.com/russia-takes-bakhmut-taking-stock-of-the-wars-bloodiest-battle-so-far/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-23/bakhmut-s-fall-raises-russian-anxieties-about-the-expected-ukrainian-offensive#xj4y7vzkg 97.103.129.121 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There is still fighting, not just shelling. Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In the villages and areas outside of Bakhmut, but the city itself was captured and fighting in the city has ceased for months now. Any Ukrainian attempt to re-initiate an attempt to capture the city now would be a Second Battle of Bakhmut. Please be logical and facts based instead of denying reality to conform to popular bias. 2607:FB91:18E5:5EA6:1071:22CB:3E96:E09E (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not according to other sources, which have already been presented in the talk page (more than once) so this needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The only sources not recognizing the decisive occupation of Bakhmut by Russia are Ukrainian sources citing the Ukrainian government's unwillingness to recognize the loss of Bakhmut given its symbolic nature. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Battle of Bakhmut" is not just about the fighting in the city, after all the Battle for Moscow never got nearer than 10 miles towards the city. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

who cares, ukraine themselves are referring to the countless "probing attacks" as the 2nd battle of Bakhmut (Artemovsk), they themselves acknowledge that /it's over/ 93.86.22.71 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Bakhmut battle is over long time ago. By keeping it "ongoing" you're not helping Ukraine but compromise the reputation of this page as a reliable source of info and I'm a neutral spectator not Russian. There is clear double-standards when recognizing Ukraine's victories vs Russian's. Fighting for Bakhmut has seized, Ukrainians has not attempted even once to take the city, they are trying to take villages in the south and north. The situation in the Battle of Moscow in 1941 is different, the Germans were actively trying to enter the city it's not about how close or far the Germans were from the city limit, it's about the goal they're trying to achieve and the defenders were trying to prevent, The Germans were engaging the forces that stood between them and the city of Moscow itself there's no intermediate objective they need to capture first. Had the Germans prevailed in that very battle they would've entered Moscow no such fighting for Bakhmut has taken place at least not yet! 2.88.198.178 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FAQ

I’ve added a FAQ to the article, accessible from the banner at the top of this talk page. Feel free to improve the text, but let’s keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.  —Michael Z. 15:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You might want to add "as with other battles for cities (such as battle for Moscow) the article is not just about the fighting in the city, but around it". Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Please improve the wording. I also added a round-in-circles template to encourage reading before posting. I think new discussions about the end of the battle should be summarily closed unless they bring something new or the facts change.  —Michael Z. 15:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we need Q2, why do we say it is ongoing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We should change the section "resumed fighting in the city"

This is blatantly false there is no ongoing fighting in the city. The only action in the Bakhmut area is is Ukrainian counterattacks on the flanks (berkhivka, Andrivka. Kischivka etc.) and Russian offensive operations ON THE FLANKS.

 Done Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Casualties on infobox

Why do we have russian casualties according to wagner but not the ukrainian ones from the same source? They are obviously inflated but we should still have them for transparency, since we also have the russian casualties according to ukraine, which are inflated as well. Not one of the figures is accurate, but we should still have them to reduce bias and increase transparency. DuckTheDucker (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Done.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera: Bakhmut "fell" in May

Al Jazeera wrote in a recent article that Bakhmut fell to Russia in May: "Russia has doubled down on a campaign to capture the eastern Ukrainian town of Avdiivka during the 88th week of its war in what appears to be a repeat of its year-long campaign to capture nearby Bakhmut, which fell in May." Perhaps a relevant implicit indicator that we can declare the Battle of Bakhmut as having ended in May with a Russian victory? RealKnockout (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Except other sources say it was still being fought over, as pointed out before the battle of Moscow (WW2) never actually even has fighting in the city. So this is about the battle for the city, not in it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

But it is not written that the battle is over. Sources should be telling us the battle is over or make an unambiguous and conclusively similar statement that requires no analysis or interpretation. See WP:SYNTH Parham wiki (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ISW published a "retrospective analysis of the Battle for Bakhmut" back in June. I think a more thorough survey of RS is needed to determine whether they consider it one battle or two.

It's also worth keeping in mind that this article seems to have been created before RS began covering the area as a major battle. RS don't necessarily clearly delineate individual battles until the military histories are written. That is precisely why we had all those issues with the same user creating articles for individual sectors as "battles" when RS didn't devote WP:SIGCOV to them.

Finally, it's no exaggeration to say that Wikiality could potentially result in feedback loops here.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit: ISW's thingy was actually at the end of May:

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin’s-pyrrhic-victory-bakhmut-retrospective-battle-bakhmut

The author is Kateryna Stepanenko, who has been one of the original contributors to their RUSUKR content since well before they expanded the team with less competent reinforcements (resulting in a steady drop in quality). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote from WSJ [20]: The nine-month battle for the small Ukrainian city of Bakhmut effectively came to an end on Sunday.

Anyway, I'll save further comments (besides the summing-up below) for a later time. I have better things to do than stir up a hornet's nest.

Essentially, it's a question of scope. Potentially a very subtle one. I would argue that consensus at the AfDs I alluded to earlier implies a community consensus to keep battle articles narrow. So yeah, in my view the question is not "do RS say the battle is over or ongoing?" but "what is the scope of this article?" RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s an incidental mention, doesn’t explicitly state the battle ended, and it’s unclear what period or precision is meant by “year-long” (if the battle ended when the city’s territory fell, that would imply it started around May 2022, but we have it starting August 1). This kind of thing could be useful if it were consistent with a consensus in numerous sources. On its own, it’s not the basis for a major realignment of this article.  —Michael Z. 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Liberation of Andriivka

Hello, https://t.me/ab3army/3148

According to this map https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/15-september-3rd-separate-assault-brigade-confirms-liberation Ukraine regained an important city south of Bakhmut. I'm not a verified user so maybe someone else can add this to the article? 2603:7000:D03A:5895:C0CE:B13E:9444:E102 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not a city, its a village, and we can't add each village recaptured (after all we do not mention its initial capture either). Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe Klishchiivka and Andriivka are called strategic locations for control of Bakhmut in some sources. Anyway, these towns that have been contested for weeks are significant milestones of the ongoing fighting. Their significance is not how big they are, it is that they are defensible locations flanking Bakhmut that Russia has lost control of.  —Michael Z. 21:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe we should first modify this article to accurately reflect the decisive Russian conquest and occupation of Bakhmut from Ukraine 97.103.129.121 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Different issue, and this needs to stop being bought up.We have discussed this at length. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Andriivka is probably not going to be considered a big deal.

But there is no doubt in my mind that both battles for Klishchiivka will get plenty of coverage when the histories are written. However, I don't see that much about it in the initial wave of RS (news etc.) so I'm inclined to wait.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Given how offensives are progressing a settlement a months, it's not overly detailed imo. Vauia Rex (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Layout and section names

The way the article is structured, particularly its division into sections and the names of those sections, appears to be a POV issue. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That is very vague. Can you explain exactly what's wrong and what specific changes you think are required? (Hohum ^@)

Is battle of Bakhmut the longest battle?

I mean, considering it won't end for decades, wouldn't that make it the longest battle?

216.165.208.163 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, and please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CRYSTAL. Parham wiki (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Decades? I guess you have noticed Medvedev's comments... His "conflict will last for decades" prophecy is because the "special operation" was supposed to be quick, yet the Russians failed at Kyiv. Then, being unable to take even Bakhmut (!), they just changed their tune. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:6170:B15C:9472:B6AA (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The battle is quite literally over, I dont know why wikipedia is so biased but it should be corrected. Bakhmut has fallen. 195.78.92.151 (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not that Wikipedia is biased, but more that a few editors do not accept normally reliable sources and even object to the long list of such sources that have been provided being repeated, making Wikipedia a joke. It is lucky they were not dealing with the 12 Battles of the Isonzo, involving fighting over 30 months with 1.5 million casualties. The effect is that Wikipedia's position is that the Battle of Bakhmut has not ended and can never end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:B520:15D2:BA66:7C85 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the scope of the article includes the surrounding settlements and fighting on these flanks hasn't really stopped. A distinction should be made in the infobox. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope my latest edit appeases everyone. It really isn't the end of the world to say that the battle IN the city itself is over. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Your update seems correct, a clarification was needed. I recall Zelensky saying in August their aim was to recapture Bakhmut. In other words he acknowleged the loss of the city.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Status of the Bakhmut

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

---

I believe the Battle of Bakhmut should be considered a complete Russian Victory as the page was created to write about the battle within the city not outside it and since the battle for city itself ended on May 21 that means the battle is over ignoring what is ongoing outside the city. If anyone wants a separate page can be created for the fighting going on outside Bakhmut. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I know but I felt it was better to start a new topic over it because the other one is full of people having an agenda. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2023 (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.