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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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.[1][2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox reports Russian casualties: United States estimate: 100,000+ casualties (20,000+ killed; 1 Dec. 2022–1 May 2023), citing Reuters[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
These sources [4] [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ukrainian casualties Per DPR: 15,000–20,000 killed was added with this edit, citing two sources.[6][7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

These sources [8] [9] 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)[reply]

Date of the Battle

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ukraine still hold a little portion of the city. We need to change the date from 1 August 2022 – 21 May 2023 to 1 August 2022 – ongoing.

OR (if you disagree)

1 August 2022 – ongoing

Fighting inside the city: 1 August 2022 – 21 May 2023 (9 months, 2 weeks and 6 days)

Fighting around the city continues: 21 May 2023 - ongoing DaChigger (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it has been changed Scu ba (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scu ba, can you provide the source where the ISW says Ukraine still holds a small part near the former MiG-17 monument? Super Ψ Dro 19:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[10] Their reports. This is the most recent one. Red is what they assess Russia controls. Orange is what Russia claims to control. White is what they asses Ukraine to control. Blue is what they Ukraine claims to have recaptured. 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bakhmut's administrative borders are marked in a black line. None of it is under Ukrainian control, claimed or confirmed. The ISW stated days ago that there's geolocated footage showing the advance of Wagner forces towards this MiG-17 monument. There is also no kind of evidence showing Ukrainian presence in this sector. I think it's kind of petty at this point to keep showing the battle for the city itself as ongoing. This is a very highly viewed article. Let's keep a high profile in this encyclopedia. Super Ψ Dro 20:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
again, orange is Russian claims that have yet to be verified. Look again, notice the strip in the bottom of the map, Scu ba (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources supporting Ukraine's claim of keeping areas of the city. That's definitively not the case with the MiG-17 monument area. Super Ψ Dro 22:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms, the battle didn’t start when Russia entered the city, but when Russia said it launched its operation to take the city defended by Ukraine. Likewise, the battle doesn’t end based on a criteria some Wikipedians decide it should, but when the two sides are no longer fighting over the city.
Specifically, the battle ends when sources say it has ended. Please show that most sources say the battle is ended, then get consensus to update the article.  —Michael Z. 23:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agreeing with Michael. Until we have a consensus here, continuing to change the infobox and lead to assert an end with an outcome is disruptive. We should also have one centralised point of discussion and not new sections popping up willy nilly just because someone new wants to express their POV and can't be bothered to look through the TP to identifying existing discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the ISW report, I literally just sent. Are you purposefully being dense? Scu ba (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I archive multiple treads about this same issue with the aim of keeping the discussions centralised. Hopefully, experienced editors here can collaborate to steward the talk page and keep these discussions about the result and when in one place. If anyone seriously disagrees or has a better idea, please revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of contention is whether the end of the battle is defined by the Russians occupying (in full) the geopolitical boundary of the city (which may or may not be the urban area if "greater Bakhmut" extends beyond the geopolitical boundary); or, whether it is defined by the fighting "for Bakhmut". The article lead presently defines the scope as the fighting "in and near the city of Bakhmut". Clearly, sources are determining but, they are also limiting because this is a current situation, where we largely rely on topical and news sources and not good quality secondary sources written in hindsight. We need to reach a consensus on "when" there is a result to the battle, while minimising disruption.

I would suggest that we start and RfC. This does not mean that we would need to wait for a close. What it does mean is that we need to reach a consensus in a centralised discussion. Discussion forks and edit request can then be quickly closed to keep the discussion centralised. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why an RFC? Are there contradictory good sources on whether the battle is ended?
If the question is “whether the end of the battle is defined by the Russians occupying (in full) the geopolitical boundary of the city,” then that too should be answered by sources and not editors’ opinions.
The battle began with months of fighting without Russian forces in city limits. Why would we insist that it ends the minute Ukrainian forces are not in city limits, if sources do not say so? This is what it is, perhaps a symbolic milestone, but it would WP:SYNTH to claim other repercussion unsupported by sources. Holding an RFC is just claiming permission to do so.  —Michael Z. 14:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I have already said that I essentially agree with your position. Declaring an outcome has obviously become contentious and disruptive. There needs to be a consensus on declaring an outcome. Consensus is not a vote but based on strength of argument and sources, not editor's opinions. Why an RfC? I have already answered that too. It obliges the discussion to be held at one place. Attempts to fork the discussion can be quickly dealt with. D/S also limit participation in an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there doubt over an end date in sources? Do sources give contradictory end dates? Do sources give an end date at all?  —Michael Z. 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, you appear to be arguing against me when I essentially agree with you. The RfC would be about managing the discussion when threads on this just keep popping up. It could be phrased as: "Given the scope of the article as defined by the lead, is the fighting in and around Bakhmut (ie for Bakhmut), at what point is there a consensus in independent reliable sources that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended and when did this end." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is too confusing for me to parse: I literally can’t tell what it means.
ISW today talks about ongoing fighting over Bakhmut, in the paragraph beginning with “the tempo of Russian operations around Bakhmut. . .”[11]  —Michael Z. 07:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don't have to convince me but there are clearly a good number of editors that don't get it. I will try a different way. The RfC would be put as a premise (a defining statement) and the actual question. The premise is: The lead of the article defines the article scope. The scope is fighting in and around Bakhmut (ie the fighting for Bakhmut). For "in and around" one can read "in and near". I understand that you agree with the premise, even if you might state it slightly differently. The premise is a statement of fact. It is not a question. It is immutable. The question is: When is there a consensus in independent reliable sources that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended and on what date did it end? The question is in two parts. The first part can only be answered when independent reliable sources tell us that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended. This does not mean that the sources are already telling us that. That may have been a point of misunderstanding? The second question, the date it ended, can only be answered when the first question is satisfied and there is a consensus among editors that it has been satisfied. The end date also needs a consensus in sources and then, a consensus among editors as to what the sources are telling us. Hope this is clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it is clearer. But is it useful to ask this about sources when few or no sources are being presented as saying the battle is over? Why invoke a dispute-resolution mechanism over a question that’s not actually in dispute? Drive-by editors and anons are invoking SYNTH from a fact, not explicit statements from the sources.  —Michael Z. 12:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, they are disputing your given, that the scope includes fighting around Bakhmut. The RFC question doesn’t to resolve that dispute. Look at #Status below: the OP is on a different wavelength from your proposed RFC question.  —Michael Z. 12:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can argue it as much as they like, it doesn't change the premise and at least they would be doing it in one spot. Is not #Voting to change status to decisive Russian victory convincing? An RfC also defines the question. Editors would need to answer the question and not just proffer an opinion. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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

Update of the status

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 status, shown in the infobox is incorrect. It's no longer "Ongoing". Despite the preferences of the editors of the english wikipedia, it's a decisive russian victory. The ukrainians lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.203.18 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I wouldnt call it a decisive russian victory by any means. But if the flanking attack fails or stalls then I agree by all means is a russian victory. Supermariossj64 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News search for Bakhmut victory: every single result says “claimed victory,” “pyrrhic victory,” “doubtful victory,” or uses scare quotes. Definitely not “decisive,” despite the preference of anon.  —Michael Z. 15:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the battle not over, but this would be nowhere near a Decisive victory. Scu ba (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Status

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is the status still "ongoing"? It is a fact that the russians captured the whole city, acknowledged by the ukrainians. Whether there are flanking attacks or not is moot; the city was captured. Odiseo79 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A battle is over where there are no longer combats over a particular target. For example there was a Battle of Kyiv even if Kyiv itself was never disputed. As long as the flanking maneuvers remain in force, then Ukraine and Russia are still fighting over Bakhmut so the battle continues. If the flanking ends or stalls or it becomes clear is not a serious attempt to retake Bakhmut and its just to fix Russian troops, then I agree the battle if over.
If you want an example of the other side see Vuhledar, the attack failed horribly for Russia, its clear. Yet because Russia keeps sending minor assaults to the city, then there is still technically a battle over Vuhledar and is ongoing. Supermariossj64 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason it was ongoing before the Russians captured any of it.  —Michael Z. 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the source (Reuters) that is being used to support the claim that there are flanking attacks: "Russia said on Saturday it had completely taken Bakhmut, which, if confirmed, would mark an end to the longest and bloodiest battle of the 15-month war". So we're using a different definition than Reuter's to mark the end of the battle. On the other hand, the only source of these "flanking counterattacks" is a dubious statement from the ukrainian MoD. Seems to me that this "ongoing" status is more based on hope than on reality. Odiseo79 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ISW yesterday: “A prominent Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces are not conducting active operations aimed at regaining positions in Bakhmut City itself despite the possible continuation of localized Ukrainian counterattacks northwest and southwest of the city”[12] (source: “локальных атак к северо-западу и юго-западу от Артемовска” [local attacks to the northwest and southwest of Bakhmut (Artemovsk)]).[13]  —Michael Z. 18:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ISW today lists ongoing operations at Bakhmut in the paragraph beginning with “The tempo of Russian operations around Bakhmut remains notably low.”[14]  —Michael Z. 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So can we not get a consensus to declare this battle over? Sng Pal (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with what “Russia said” according to Reuters? Stop the presses!  —Michael Z. 03:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia still doesn't control the whole city, hence the ongoing label. Read the citations if you want clarity but I'm also pretty sure the battle section of the article will suffice. Scu ba (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba Even WaPo is reporting the loss of Bakhmut: "The effective loss of Bakhmut made little practical difference for this artillery unit, which has used a small former farmhouse to direct its strikes on Russian-occupied territory for months.
But the soldiers in the artillery unit admitted that losing Bakhmut was an emotional blow." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/28/bakhmut-wagner-mercenaries-ukraine-withdrawal/
But not us. What are we waiting for? Authorization from the Ukrainian MoD or the ISW? Odiseo79 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
key word, effective. not total. Scu ba (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be a jerk, but the literal first sentence of the article you are using here to argue the battle is over is "The battle of Bakhmut isn’t over."--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia still controls 60% of thr Kherson suburbs yet the other it's considered as a Ukrainian victory instead of ongoing, even the Kyiv infenpendent says the battle of bakhmut is over StovlessStove (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Contradiction

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just by reading portions of the article it appears Russia has captured the city and won the battle. This is in contrast to the ongoing status as supported by the ISW. Personally, I don't know how "South of the city" can be considered part of Bakhmut so I can understand the confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the contradictory line in your edit (the battle is still described as ongoing as Ukrainians still hold territory south of the city) barring further discussion. I don't believe the question of the battle being ongoing is because "Ukrainians still hold territory south of the city," but rather because fighting for control of the city continues in and around its flanks, and that did not end instantly upon Russia declaring full control (just as the battle started even though at that point the fighting was taking place in the city's outskirts.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it could be a flanking situation, in any case it needs to be more clearly presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ISW assesses that Ukraine continues to hold a strip of territory within the city along its southwestern extremity, and that Wagner and Russian forces had never captured the full city. Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don’t know where all of you were during June, July, August, September, October, and early November last year, when the article “Battle of Bakhmut” existed but there were no Russian forces anywhere considered part of Bakhmut.  —Michael Z. 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

maybe have an EL to this WN page in the article

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

wikinews:Ukrainian President Zelenskyy denies Russian claim of capture of Bakhmut
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
One can still put wt:thons opinions here: wikinews:Comments:Ukrainian President Zelenskyy denies Russian claim of capture of Bakhmut
DMBFFF (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too early to write about Russian victory even if the battle is over.

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 is to early to write about the battle leading to a Russian vicotry, as it is to early to evalute the strategic consequences of the battle.

I urge you to remember that most battles that is written about battle in articles on this site is also written a while after the battle occurred. This makes it alot easier to evaluate the strategic context in which the battle occurred and how the outcome of the battle affected a war or a campaign.

According to pro-Ukraininan sources this battle consumed a lot of Russian resources that were assigned to the Russian winter-spring offensive of 2023, ultimately leading to the operational failure of the Russian offensive. Also we do not know what this battle are going to mean for the the Ukraninan counter-offensive that has been promised by Ukranian leadership.

Right now I would lable the outcome of this battle as "inconclusive, Russian forces takes control over Bakhmut, see outcome section for more information" 130.238.163.74 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The docs for Template:Infobox military conflict list the acceptable values for the “result” parameter:
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
 —Michael Z. 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to me that sees to confirm that my statement could be used, but with some changes. 130.238.163.74 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or we leave it out until history decides. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There's no reason not to change it.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/podcasts/the-daily/bakhmut-ukraine-russia.html) and (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/world/europe/bakhmut-russia-ukraine-retreat.html?searchResultPosition=2). Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwdwadafsainainawinfi: Right now we have one (primary?) source saying that the battle is ongoing. I would start an RfC on the matter as it would clear up any confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ISW says the battle is still going on. Scu ba (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba And we're relying on this one single source, ignoring the WSJ, WaPo and the NYTimes? Why? I get it that our fellow ukrainians editors have strong feelings about the subject --feelings that I share and sympathize with, but we're an ecyclopedia, and this status is not reflecting reality. We can't continue denying the evident. Odiseo79 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Odiseo79, your remark about the presumed nationality of a group of editors you have defined is not acceptable. Please strike. Or in fairness, give us information about your personal background so we can link it to your unsuitability for editing articles. And tell us more about your feelings.
If you have a problem with specific editors, then specifically say so at WP:ANI. If you have a problem with Ukrainians or any other identifiable group, then there are probably more suitable websites for you. —Michael Z. 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac Of course that I have no problem with any group or nationality of editors. I was trying to underscore the strong feelings this subject can arise, specially when people are being invaded and bombed from a foreign power. I understand that my input is not welcome here, I think that your reply was too personal, and for me, that's it. I won't discuss this article further, much less edit it. Odiseo79 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please, stop beating around the bush and quote WSJ, WaPo, and NYTimes where they say the battle is over. —Michael Z. 04:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the ISW, a think tank that has proven itself and its factual record in the war, when they say that the battle is still ongoing. Scu ba (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the New York Times has published an article headlined "What Does Russia's Success in Bakhmut Mean for the War in Ukraine?" and the Washington Post "Bakhmut Falls But Is It Really a Russian Victory?" while ISW has already done "retrospective analysis of the Battle of Bakhmut" and has recently reported that offensive operations from both sides near Bakhmut is now low tempo quoting a Ukrainian spokesman as saying "only two or three engagements occurred in the Bakhmut direction in recent days and no combat clashes occurred on May 30", it is difficult to see what would convince the doubters. Wagner set itself the strategically irrelevant objective of taking the administrative boundaries of Bakhmut city, and eventually achieved this on May 20 or 21, at which point they stopped their offensive. The Ukrainians made some small successful counter-attacks on the northern and southern flanks outside the city. Wagner forces are being replaced by defensive regular Russian troops. There has been a prisoner exchange just outside the city boundary (NW of Bakhmut), geolocated by open-source intelligence. All these can be sourced, for example through ISW, and in many cases are already linked in the article. --2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:CD76:DA8A:A25E:9CAF (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please go by the text and not the headlines. None gives an end date except as Russian claims. The ISW report literally starts with “The Battle for Bakhmut is still ongoing as Ukrainian forces regained the initiative and are counterattacking Bakhmut’s flanks north and south of the city” and ends with “It is not even clear that the Battle of Bakhmut is yet over.”  —Michael Z. 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself this question: how many days of no reported significant offensive operations by either side in Bakhmut would it take for you to conclude that the battle had finished? 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:CD76:DA8A:A25E:9CAF (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RS saying it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{EC) A lack of source is not a source. Deciding what a lack of information is, is WP:OR in the extreme. (Hohum @) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Age of the ISW report you cited: 7 days. Duration of the battle: 303 days. Appropriate period to wait until just assuming a significant event has occurred without citing reliable secondary sources: forever.  —Michael Z. 15:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the most recent ISW report has the Ukrainian controlled strip unchanged.
Also here is a CNN report where they backtracked and said Russia said they took Bakhmut as well as saying Ukraine says they still control a strip. Specifically “Yesterday, the Ukrainian Armed Forces retained control of certain industrial facilities and private houses area in the southwestern area, the area where the aircraft [monument] is.” The monument of a MiG-17 is in Druzhba Square in the southwest of Bakhmut. “Today, we still have control of this small part of the city. The fighting continues,”" Scu ba (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Change status to russian Vicory

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is the status of the battle still ongoing when it ended 11 days ago 178.221.185.235 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false. Scu ba (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite sources.  —Michael Z. 02:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it really continues. Parham wiki (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. We wait until we can reflect what reliable sources have published. There is no rush to get a scoop. WP:NOTNEWS WP:Recentism (Hohum @) 15:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_deadline_is_now
People are reading the article right now and it may never get the same traffic it did when the city fell weeks ago, Wikipedia should have been up to date. The only sources that say the battle is still ongoing within the city cite the UA MOD which is clearly biased.
[15]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/23/bakhmut-s-fall-raises-russian-anxieties-about-the-expected-ukrainian-offensive/351bdf84-f921-11ed-bafc-bf50205661da_story.html 121.45.253.83 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the only sources that say the city has fallen cite Prigozhin which is clearly biased. Scu ba (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:The deadline is now, an essay, says
"This page in a nutshell: When an article contains unverifiable content or lacks vital content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it."
This directly in line with WP:V which it links to, and WP:RELIABLE. The focus is on reliable sourced information as soon as it available, and not including poorly sourced information immediately. (Hohum @) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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

File deleted. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [16]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

File deleted. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bakhmut Has Fallen, Whats the Dispute About?

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Ukraine have both confirmed that Bakhmut has fallen. The dates should be changed to show the battle for the city has ended on May 20th 2023. Any future battle or offensive into Bakhmut can be recognized as the “Second Battle of Bakhmut”. Please don’t distort historical facts on wikipedia page for political purposes. Accuracy is important. Aug 1 2022 - May 20 2023 needs to be on there along with Russian Victory. 2600:1700:D87A:1A60:4592:695B:B851:9A2A (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's always going to be a propaganda war and mental gymnastics in place in order for people to get the version of their reality to be the status quo. Right now, this article is an example of that, where some people will claim that the battle is over while others will claim that it's still ongoing as long as there's some sporadic attacks at the city. So technically, the battle can go on for years and decades as long as there's an attack of some sort at the city. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:B436:B0E3:FD1B:5007 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cue their silence over Energoda, Donetsk, Kherson and etc. which are all facing the same situation as Artemovsk now. Nebakin (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are wholly different situations. Enerhodar, Donetsk and Kherson are being shelled, from a distance, by artillery. There isn't active fighting with on the ground personnel in any of the three cities you mentioned. Scu ba (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this is your first edit, welcome to wikipedia. I'm not sure where you're going with this one. Sporadic attacks within the city would qualify as an ongoing battle. There would be fighting in the city, hence a battle in the city. Scu ba (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, it's not worth it to waste your time on these people. Russia can capture all of Donetsk and they will still claim battle of Artemovsk is going on so long as no "reliable source" says it's over. Nebakin (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this is your first edit, welcome to wikipedia. The answer is that multiple sources, including the ISW, say the battle is still on going and that Ukraine controls a sliver of the city along the T0504 highway. Scu ba (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They actually don't say they control a sliver of the city. What they actually say is that they control a sliver in the city's outskirts (outside the city). EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading comprehension sure is hard, here is the ISW report itself [17] in this one they note that Prigozhin himself conceded that Ukrainian forces still control a portion of the city. Scu ba (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change the status from Ongoing

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 is basically over, Russia claims victory, Ukraine stays silent. Why can't the status be something like "contested" the battle ended nearly two weeks ago. StovlessStove (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is a brand new account, so welcome to Wikipedia. There are several threads on this talkpage that answer this question. As a general point, articles reflect what reliable sources say. This is not a news site; we can comfortably await the comprehensive historical view rather than relying on the day by day claims of protagonists. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 3 June 2023

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Russian has won the battle of Bakmut 109.120.249.41 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit extended-protected)) template. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a faq so we can just reply "see faq"?and save a bit of time. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a good idea. Scu ba (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I have been suggesting an RfC at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Date of the Battle as a means of managing this disruption. Don't know if you have followed this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to know what thread to follow. An RFC might be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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

See #RFC, battle over. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 has ended, no need to keep the status as "ongoing" just because there's clashes in some areas near the city since they aren't part of it, I'm afraid of Wikipedia's neutrality and honesty since this article is obviously has some sort of bias towards Ukraine Gattor1 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See all the talk page threads above, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I rather get a convincing answer than a passive-agressive reply, the status should be changed Gattor1 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered multiple times already. (Hohum @) 15:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then answer me if you don't mind Gattor1 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See all the threads above, we do not keep on answering the same question. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite rude, but I'll do search for your "answer" above, I hope it's not what I expect Gattor1 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you the answer is there, I am telling you to join in there, as we cannot have any meaningfull discussion in 15 separate threads. Discussion has be focused so that we do not have to monitor umpteen threads at once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion, thanks I'll join there Gattor1 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as per Prigozhin himself Russia never fully controlled the city and Ukraine still holds a portion of the city's southwest. Scu ba (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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

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)[reply]

Yes

No

Discusion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sources

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

"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)[reply]

Sources from May 21st onwards confirming it is over

Close discussion fork. See #RFC, battle over. WP:ECP editors should contribute there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

According the latest RFC, the criteria for sources as stated by @Cinderella157: "Sources should be telling us the battle is over or make an unambiguous and conclusively similar statement that requires no analysis or interpretation."

"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

It is clear that "Russian Victory" and "battle of bakhmut is over" is a common conclusion among many of WP's "reliable sources". "Military experts" and "analysts" are also stating that the city was abandoned by the AFU and that they are now on the defensive, with reports of Russian troops advancing in fact. This is further supported by UA's dep. Defense Minister admission that there are no active battles in Bakhmut or its flanks since 31st May, with the latest movements from the AFU only reported from yesterday. All of these means that it is clear the current battle is over, with the declaration that the AFU has abandoned/withdrew from the city. The last time the Russians did this the Ukrainians were awarded an immediate victory, despite the same actions taken by the Russians to secure a defensive line with minor counterattacks just like what the AFU is doing now. Therefore there's no reason to view it differently.

Russian victory, 21st May 2023

P.S. a new topic was created to ensure that this cannot be struck off due to the other topic being a discussion. Nebakin (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources debunking every no vote in the RFC above. Nebakin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven then why are you commenting under my topic???
I've already made it clear I started a new topic so it cant be struck off and get pretended to not exist. If I do that, it gets struck and I post again I get accused of spamming. I present counter arguments there i get accused of spamming. I ain't dumb, I've been on wiki for years already.
So no, I don't really care. Ive done what I needed to, I've provided ample proof to show that this article and the decision making behind it is a farce and a joke.
More than enough evidence have been shown to change the status already. Ball's in yall's court.
Have a good day. Nebakin (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome reliable sources, but these seem to have cherrypicked phrases where other parts of the articles are far more ambivalent. "Uncertain victory" - concentrating on victory far more than uncertain is particularly egregious emphasis. Additionally, several of those sources are weeks old, and reliable sources have since said there is continued combat, so the claims seem to have premature. I'll remind you again of WP:Recentism. (Hohum @) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum 1) There's no cherry picking involved. Theres only selective focus on relevant parts to the status change.
2) As per above, selective focus is needed because we are looking to chnage the status to Russian VICTORY. Thus it is fully appropriate to only focus on the victory part and not other parts that are clearly a biased negative spin to discredit any Russian achievement. Likewise, if this was was a pro-Ukraine article that wrote "heroic defeat for Ukraine" I believe we would all too only focus on the word defeat and not any other biased connotations attached to it.
3) The fact that you used the "uncertain victory" example again shows you have never read the article. Anyone who read it will have ZERO doubts that the title didn't meant that victory was uncertain but the consequences of it. I have already it quoted that part TWICE in previous comments so I'm not going to quote it again. If you are incapable of reading the article, I highly suggest googling on how to read those articles behind pay walls. Likewise I would like to remind you that pay walls are not a legitimate reason to dismiss a source.
4) The timing of these articles matter as they show a constant acknowledgement of Russian victory over the battle since the very day they announced it 2 weeks ago. As such recentism cannot be applied to this. In fact, most sources do not explicitly link any of those ongoing skirmishes to the main battle itself, as almost all of the articles I've provided acknowledged Russia has won the battle and that there are still fights going on. Both of which can be true and non-contradictory. For example, the battles of Energoda, Kherson, Gorlovka are all settled despite constant attacks by both sides onto these areas. Nebakin (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is cherry picking. Admitting you are trying to get a certain outcome instead of seeing that sources are contradictory, ambivalent, and superseded is telling; so is whining about imagined editor bias; look in the mirror. Recentism is specifically applicable. This is not a news site. Read WP:TENYEARTEST to get a perspective on the encyclopaedic approach. (Hohum @) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum Since you wanna go down this path of pointless argument and insults:
Why not detailedly show us what is unsatisfactory about EVERY source I've provided so we can actually find one that makes yall happy.
You can't just dismiss all my sources without a proper explanation as this will severely impact the validity of the entire article and the neutrality of editors.
So go into every article and quote the stuff you think violates the criteria and explain in detail how.
And why when most of them fit the criteria perfectly but there's somehow always some other issue.
Criteria states "source says X" and nothing else. I've shown that almost of these sources said X, so please, give us something detailed, breakdown every article on why they are not good enough despite claiming X specifically.
I'm sure we would all love to learn from you about this. Nebakin (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's up you to gain consensus, not for me to pick apart everything thrown against a wall in the hope some of it will stick. (Hohum @) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Change status to Russian victory

If you are extended confirmed, please participate in #RFC, battle over. Don't scatter the discussion, that will just end in confusion for everyone. Fieari (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
This is a new topic, sorry. And there isn't anything wrong with it. BobNesh (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support for aforementioned reasons. Mattia332 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Categories