Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for comment on first sentence of lead and scope

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.

---

Should we change the existing first sentence of the lead from the present wording here:

The battle of Bakhmut is a major battle taking place between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russian Armed Forces in and around the city of Bakhmut during the larger eastern Ukraine campaign.

to the following (or something similar):

The battle of Bakhmut was a major battle in and around the city of Bakhmut between the Russian Armed Forces and Ukrainian defenders for capture of the city during the larger eastern Ukraine campaign.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) emphasis added Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The essence of the proposal is to amend the scope from being broadly defined as in and near the city to being more narrowly defined as fighting for the capture of the city. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Diff fixed, etc. by me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Rationale/background

Whether the battle is over or not has been a contentious issue since the end of May. An RfC (closed in July) was held to determine whether the battle should be considered to be over (see here). The consensus at the time was that the battle was not over. This was largely based on the scope of the article as defined in the first sentence of the lead: that the battle was defined as fighting in and around the city of Bakhmut and, since fighting around the city was continuing, the battle was not over. The closer noted: 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.

At its creation on 27 May 2022, the lead defined the battle as being near the city. By early January, the lead sentence had change to the wording in and near the city (see here) As this has been a current event, defining the scope of the article has largely been one of editor discretion rather than one guided by WP:RSs and the further limitation that most sources fall to WP:NEWSORG.

A search of Google news since the start of July 2023 gives 559 hits for the exact string "battle of Bakhmut" (see here) while a similar search for "battle for Bakhmut" gives 742 hits. As a general observation, these would refer to the battle in the past tense and that the fighting was for capture of the city. Searches of Google scholar (here and here) do not appear to be particularly productive nor does a search of JSTOR (here and here). Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Please place comments (eg support or oppose) below this. Editors are asked to comment on the essence of the change rather than the exact wording of the proposal.

• Support. This would be a much more concrete and encyclopedic scope than an overly vague notion of fighting "near" (in an undefined way) the city, which has entirely or mostly fallen to Russian occupation for some time (to the extent it has not been destroyed and abandoned). IF something major changes, then the lead can be rewritten again later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per SmcC above. Focused is much better than vague. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that this will just move argumentation to interpretations of which sources support "for capture of the city", assuming discussion will be about sources instead of the continual OR it currently devolves into. (Hohum ^@) 15:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support based on "Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57 pm" analysis of sources below. diff. (Hohum ^@) 13:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Discussions about the end date of this battle have been a nightmare simply because of this arbitrary scope definition in the lead. Using the word for makes the editors' task of objectively analyzing RS much easier and does the very important thing of tying sub-battles/fights/events by purpose and goal, not by an arbitrary notion of being near (that isn't endorsed in any RS) which disregards the difference in scale of fighting. Note that the RfC proposal doesn't impede an Aftermath section from being created to house some of the information after 20 May. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support vehemently, based on my comment above and responsibly backed by my analyses. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Well, it’s maybe an improvement. But if we disagree about one unsourced geographical bounds, we may continue to disagree about another. Why not say “battle at the city of Bakhmut,” since this is already implicit in the name? (Separate issues: change “Russian Armed Forces” to “Russian forces,” since Wagner Group was significant. Don’t write “for capture of the city” at all, because that is only a Russian objective. Ukrainian objectives included its defence and the attrition of Russian forces.)  —Michael Z. 15:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. These discussions are hyperfocussed on relatively insignificant factors because some editors want an infobox saying “Russian victory” or whatever neat, tidy conclusion on a specific end date, hour, and minute. But reliable sources don’t dwell on defining the battle as “of,” “for,” or “in” the precisely surveyed lines of the city limits. Source after source tells us that possession of the city is of little or no strategic value, that its value became symbolic, and that the major results have been the attrition of 100k Russian casualties and the pursuit of a victory that became a hollow one over the ruins of a razed city completely void of its 70k population (and the following self-immolation of Prigozhin’s Wagner as a force). The subject should be defined as the fighting at Bakhmut in less specific terms. There should be no result listed, unless we can agree on “inconclusive.” —Michael Z. 15:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  We all know what's really behind your vote. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as I am unsure this solves the basic problem, how do we define the scope of the battle? It must be either the city (and nothing else) or other areas around the city. Anything else is not even shifting the gaolpoats just calling them something else. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as Slatersteven says. This would solve nothing - and indeed is there anything to solve? This may well be best left until the fog of war lifts.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment As long as this request concerns the lede, then it is malformed. The changes should be made in the article body and summarized in the lede. In addition, timeline in the article is very confusing. from the top, the narrative move toward June, 2023. At that point, the narrative jumps back to 2022. This is no way to run an article. To bring up another massive battle, Battle of Stalingrad, which may be an apt comparison: very little of the city (a strip a few hundred feet deep in front of the Volga) remained controlled by the defenders. By early the next year, Paulus' 6th Army had capitulated. Perhaps because the area deep behind the Volga had not been watched. There is a lot of work to do before even considering the lede. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment just above. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC) —
• Oppose. Short explanation. This RfC asks if the battle for Bakhmut should be described as currently ongoing (a) or completed long time ago (b). According to best RS on the subject, such as Institute for the Study of War, there were various attacks and counterattacks near Bohdanivka (6km northwest of Bakhmut), Khromove (immediately west of Bakhmut), Klishchiivka (7km southwest of Bakhmut), Andriivka (10km southwest of Bakhmut), and Kurdyumivka (13km southwest of Bakhmut) on December 11." [1]. "immediately west of Bakhmut". Hence, the battle is still ongoing. The answer to RfC is (a). My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A longer explanation Currently, this page covers "Battle of Bakhmut", i.e. not just the city, but also the surrounding areas and the timing up to today. Therefore, it includes section "Resumed fighting around the city (14 June 2023–present)" and a couple of others. Should we narrow down the current scope of the page? If so, then the recent fighting around the city might be included as an "Aftermath" section. It is true that many/most sources treat the subject as the battle for the city of Bakhmut, while others leave this open to interpretations, as was noted at talk [2]. However, simply looking at the map, it appears that the fighting is currently ongoing in the Western suburbs of the city. Therefore, I think all of that should be treated at the same page, i.e. this page, with the current scope. More important, the battle for the city of Bakhmut apparently is still ongoing, even after the city was taken by Russian forces, e.g. [3]: "Even today, Ukraine deploys more forces in and around Bakhmut than any other point along the front line." My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is why I think we should wait until much later, and historians can judge it in hindsight. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That quote does not imply fighting is taking place in Bakhmut right now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does not imply "in the city of Bakhmut". It say this is a battle for the city of Bakhmut. A battle for a city can be conducted around the city. The Ukrainian forces were trying to retake the city recently - according to their statements. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (see "Inside Ukraine's Fight to Retake Bakhmut" and "Ukrainian troops vow to take back Bakhmut, for example). My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

RS (and Telegram on both sides) were quite clear that Ukraine’s operational-strategic goal of recapturing Bakhmut was supposed to be based on a double envelopment, rather than Wagner-style frontal attacks. These operations (last I looked) are covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.

For at least the past couple of months, if not since the end of May, no part of the city itself has been seriously contested. In fact, as of this writing most Ukrainian and Russian primary sources (eg deepstatemap) have Russian troops controlling even the gardening and dacha areas beyond the garage/MiG area, and advancing at a snail’s pace from there toward Ivanivske.

And along those lines, if so then perhaps we should be thinking about creating Battle of Chasiv Yar, which I personally feel would be more than a little premature.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

❤️ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the proposed stricter scope, however this RfC shouldn't only focus on provoking changes in the lead. Also, I am expressing my support for the change of scope, not for this exact wording, we can determine that later. I've argued more my point of view in the discussion below. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Agreed with Super Dromaeosaurus and SmcC. I do believe that the fighting on the outskirts of Bakhmut should be clarified as being considered part of an ongoing battle of Bakhmut, while the result section specifically delineates the fighting within city limits. Jebiguess (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your justification seems a bit contradictory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I sucked at phrasing it, but essentially I support the status quo. Jebiguess (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then you oppose the change, not support it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Seems supported by RS (see above) and is a good starting point. De novo it seems better than the current. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Per arguments of u:Super Dromaeosaurus. Alaexis_¿question? 08:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Does this solve the issue, as how do we define near? Is not the outskirts "near" the city, so if there is fighting in the outskirts its not over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It does solve the issue because, then, we would finally be able to discern what fights on the outskirts of the city actually are part of the "battle of/for Bakhmut" and which aren't. A scope based on goal is much better than one defined on arbitrary proximity. For example, the Russian attack on Khromove recently, despite being right next to Bakhmut would not be part of the "battle of Bakhmut" because the goal there isn't to capture or get closer to capturing Bakhmut, it's something else, likely to try to get closer to Ivanivske. On the other hand, the second battles for Klishchiivka and Andriivka could be part of the "battle of Bakhmut" because one interpretation is that their goal was to encircle and, in the long term, recapture Bakhmut. However, if it's concluded that their goal was simply to tie Russian troops, then they would not be part of the "battle of Bakhmut". Further analysis of RS would be necessary regarding these specific 2 cases. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, but that all looks like OR. How do you (or I) know what the goal is of any military operation, its not as if they are going to state it. Also Khromove is part of Bakhmut urban hromada, so why does it get excluded as part of the city? Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

but what that all looks like OR the part about interpreting the objectives of the Khromove attack might be, but the proposition of lead change isn't. The thing is, the scope change would lay the ground for future, actually productive discussions of RS. We don't need to talk about Khromove in the article (or other article) right now. I've used that example more like a thought experiment to show you the implications of constraining the scope and to give you an idea of how/what future analysis might look like. Also Khromove is part of Bakhmut urban hromada, so why does it get excluded as part of the city? Because nobody has ever stated that this is the "battle for the Bakhmut urban hromada". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And I have stated I disagree, and we will just have the very kind of discussion we are having now, what defines "near the city" and why does "actually being part of the city" not count? By the way this is the "battle for Bakhmut" not "the Battle of Bakhmut city", a point made more than once, this is the battle for the area. My last word on th8is, I do not think this will fix anything. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

we will just have the very kind of discussion we are having now, what defines "near the city" and why does "actually being part of the city" not count? you, are trying to revive this kind of discussion that leads nowhere. The whole point of this RfC is to try to escape from that discussion and actually talk about goals. Being near or not is less relevant than goal. So what if Russia didn't capture Khromove until (possibly) now? Advocating for 100% confident control over a large city like Bakhmut to admit it's over is pedantic and OR. this is the battle for the area you probably didn't mean these exact words, but they are wrong nevertheless. This is the Battle for Bakhmut yes, not the general area. The city of Bakhmut has the most strategic importance and is the only that matters for PR. We only include the battles of surrounding settlements because you need to pass through them to reach and encircle Bakhmut. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol, I missed the most important point of your initial comment: how do we define near? we don't as we can't objectively do that. That's exactly the motivation of this RfC. We're trying to distance ourselves from that mindset/subjective question (like chicken vs egg first: we can't satisfactorily answer that, that's why we shouldn't be discussing it). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I don’t think anyone here would seriously claim that the battle was already underway when the article was speculatively created in May ‘22. Cinderella157 helpfully linked the initial revision there and it’s self-evidently a piece of utter bovine feces and copy-pasting that should have been AfDed and SNOWed with prejudice.

I think there’s a basis in sources to say that the battle began in August or September.

But in any case I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the current infobox gives a (sensible) start date months after the article was actually created. We are dealing with a Franken-article that never had a clearly defined scope to begin with.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

❤️ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer: Why are you opposing an objective step in the right direction simply because it isn't the perfect solution?! There is no magic pill here. SlothingInaction in general wouldn't be helpful/constructive here as this has already dragged for many months and even the counteroffensive is starting to be considered over. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If I could see that step and if it was in the right direction I'd take it. It seems pointless to me. I am always open to persuasion and may not understand the finer points here so if you can give me something to reconsider with I will do just that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well sorry for being a bit rough. If you take a look at #This battle should be considered over you might understand how difficult/problematic/unproductive/vague the previous discussions were. They mostly went around in circles because we couldn't escape the limitation of a vague scope. Any fight around Bakhmut could be interpreted as continuing the months long battle despite the tone in RS being that the term was a done deal. It is a fact that there are still fights around there, but are they really the same battle that Wagner fought? Analysis of RS back then was limited to how they used the term "Battle of Bakhmut", but then many times the analysis would be inconclusive because they would say something like "battles still continue around the city" or "fighting still continues" which doesn't explicitly link it to the subject of this article, only to the general location. Finally, a benefit of defining scope by goal is that that's something that's actually analyzed in RS recently. For example, the ISW said a few days ago that Ukraine went on defensive everywhere except southern front. This would mean that Ukraine would stop its attempts to encircle Bakhmut and whatever battles took place there from now on would actually be Russia trying to expand its control and move past Bakhmut to other settlements like Ivanivske. As I explained to Slatersteven above, considering the objective of fights allows us to discern what is for the capture of Bakhmut (and thus what goes in this article) and what isn't. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Don’t write “for capture of the city” at all, because that is only a Russian objective. Ukrainian objectives included its defence and the attrition of Russian forces. It's implied, of course, that the defender's objective is to defend the city. Furthermore, both sides had this objective of grinding down the other, so I don't see an issue with the RfC's proposed wording. The objective of grinding the other could be explained elsewhere in the article if it isn't already. But if you remove “for capture of the city”, which is the core of the proposal, what would you suggest instead? It would still need to be for something... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don’t think it does have to be explicitly for something. And if it is, then it should be reliably sourced. Is there something unusual here? Everywhere along the 2,000-km front the two sides objectives include control of territory and destruction of the enemy. This being a battle includes these by implication.  —Michael Z. 18:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

then it should be reliably sourced it is much more reliably sourced than the current definition. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Where?  —Michael Z. 01:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

In the sample of sources in that table of the previous discussion, for example. Besides, the rationale already explained the overall background. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No they don’t. Nor does the background, which says nothing about rationale apart from mentioning the Donbas as a strategic objective, and only relates a series of military actions.

In fact what the lead absolutely should explain, and that is practically missing from the article even though several cited sources discuss it, is what is the goal that the Russians expended such extreme resources for. sources say that the city is strategically insignificant, that some analysts scratch their heads over its emphasis, although that it was likely an attempt to satisfy Putin’s need for a symbolic victory, any victory, after “annexing” Ukrainian lands that Russian forces couldn’t even reach in September 2022 and being unable to make any significant advances. This is one of the key points about this battle and what should be in the lead instead of squabbling over whether it ended in Bakhmut independently from whether it ended near Bakhmut, for the satisfaction of writing “Russian victory” in the infobox when Russia expended 100k casualties to control the flattened rubble of a city of 70k.  —Michael Z. 01:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be quite happy if the result said "See Aftermath" if the aftermath section was sufficiently robust to support this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The result of this RfC could influence this a lot though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment my observation of this discussion is that it has gone off on something of a tangent, focusing on in and around the city of Bakhmut, rather than what I have explicitly stated as the substance of the proposal: being more narrowly defined as fighting for the capture of the city. Furthermore, an overview of sources per search results provided would refer to the battle in the past tense and that the city has been captured. The revision is based on how sources have been referring to the battle since the city's reported capture at the end of May. They are referring to the battle in the past tense. They are referring to the battle as being for the capture of the city by Russia. They are stating that Russia has captured the city and they are not reporting that it has been held since. As this is supported by the sources, none of it is WP:OR. On the otherhand, none of the discussion in this section appears to be addressing what the sources are actually saying. Almost all of what I see being said in this section is based on personal opinion, personal analysis of the fighting or a synthesis of defining the city or what in and about means, and that is WP:OR. If anybody seriously contends what the sources are saying, then we can go through these individually - after all, there are only 1301 hits from Google news since the start of July. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  👍 Do you think compiling a list of sources and quotes (like this) would be helpful? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am starting to work on something but different from that table. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I thought a table wasn't the best format anyways. That's why I made a list there instead. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neonorange: Regarding your comment about the lead, while you are technically right the that lead should be updated after the body (to reflect the content) and not the other way around, I believe you are missing the most important point: the proposed change in scope. The lead is simply a representation/definition of the scope of the article. In the context of this RfC, the lead could simply be viewed as an abstract guideline for future development of the article. Without this scope/guideline, we are unsure what to aim for the article, what to include or not (i.e. should the battle of Khromove be included?), how to divide sections, when to start a subsequent article, etc.
Regarding the Battle of Stalingrad reference, as far as I know, there's no concrete evidence that Ukraine permanently held/holds (as opposed to raided) positions on the edge of the city. Besides, as Cinderella157 pointed out, sources so far refer to the battle of Bakhmut in the past. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• General suggestion: please take into account the #Review of sources when voting. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: all sources found by the search "Battle for Bakhmut" also belong to this page. what do you mean? I do not see any reason for changing the scope. well, then what do you think of the reason of trying to align the article, which explains what is the term "Battle of Bakhmut", with reality, history and, most importantly, sources? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Most recent sources say that the city was taken, but the battle continue, see for example [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's from a year ago. And I can see much clearer what sources are saying in the section below. And the general tone is that the battle is over, but that other minor battles/fighting continues. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, most sources focus on capturing the city. I simply think that the subsequent military operations around the city should also be covered on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I simply think that the subsequent military operations around the city should also be covered on this page. They could, but as a bridge to another article (Bakhmut counteroffensive, for example) or simply as something separate/distinct: aftermath, subsequent counterattacks, Ukrainian response, Ukrainian resistance, other minor battles, etc. Although the proposed change in scope/lead would limit what we consider "Battle of Bakhmut" and how the infobox treats the results, I don't see it intrinsically impeding/excluding the info of the section you're concerned with. Am I correct Cinderella157? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Cinderella157 and Alexis Coutinho in restricting the article's scope to fighting for the city of Bakhmut. Slatersteven has expressed worry that this might lead to OR, but I think we have the sources to cite this quite fairly. From 1 August 2022 (by the way, is the start date clear?) to 20 May 2023, it is clear that the battle for Bakhmut was ongoing. Ukraine was reported to still hold a small southwestern tip [5] [6] which the ISW said Ukraine had lost by its 22 May update [7]. This would have ended Russia's fighting for Bakhmut since it captured it. Now we'd have to turn to the Ukrainian point of view.

After this, we had claims from Ukrainian officials denying the fall of the city [8] and claims by Ukrainian officials of counteroffensive measures. This stage overlaps with the start of Ukraine's counteroffensive and saw Ukrainian advances north and south of Bakhmut [9] [10]. They lasted the longest in the south, there were Ukrainian sources claiming advances a bit after the liberation of Klishchiivka and Andriivka. After that, Russia started advancing towards both villages. These advances should clearly not be considered part of the battle for Bakhmut, as Russia already holds the city. The same goes for fighting in Khromove. So, since right now there are no armed forces fighting strictly for taking control of the city, we should consider the battle as already over. The question is when did it end.

Zelenskyy vowed to recapture Bakhmut during the counteroffensive [11], we could argue Ukraine's counteroffensive aimed to recapture the city. However, Budanov claimed that Ukraine's gains in Bakhmut were mainly aimed at pinning down Russian forces so that they were not send to the south [12], under this interpretation Ukraine did not in fact aim to recapture Bakhmut and thus it would be out of scope. We will have to analyse whether most sources consider Ukraine aimed to recapture Bakhmut during the counteroffensive or not.

If they do not, then the end date should be, in my opinion, 21 May 2023, the day Russia fully captured the city and a day after its victory announcement. If they do, then it should be, again in my opinion, in late October/early November 2023. According to DeepStateMap updates, 1 November 2023 was the last day Ukraine advanced in the south of Bakhmut. After that, Russia started advancing, thus no armies were engaging for taking control of Bakhmut. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

May I also add, we can also wait until the war is over and things are clearer as some users have suggested. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, given my analogy to 'My very best wishes' below, I don't think waiting longer is actually a good or safe option. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Regarding that latest source you included in your vote justification, it doesn't even have the word "battle", let alone mention "battle of Bakhmut" or "battle for Bakhmut". While I would be ok with it if this article was titled "Battles of Bakhmut", "Battles near Bakhmut", "Fighting around Bakhmut" or similar, I consider it as inadequate given the title here is "Battle of Bakhmut", we should respect the subject. It's not as if you're just including extra, uncontroversial information. Expanding (since the end date is currently open, doing nothing implies expanding) the whole scope of the article beyond the well accepted boundaries completely changes its core and infobox depiction. I think we should only have the liberty to add info outside of the scope if it doesn't alter the article's core structure and conclusions. All sources agree that the period between 1 Aug 2022 and 20 May 2023 is part of the battle, but not all sources agree (in fact, most recent sources disagree as shown in my analyses) that the period beyond May is part of the battle. You could think of this as the article venturing into deeper and more dangerous/controversial waters the farther it goes from the well accepted boundaries all sources agree near the beach. Considering WP:OR, I'm pretty sure articles should play safe when characterizing the scope of subjects. Remember that most of the more recent info could be in an Aftermath section or be moved to pages with more affinity. What do you think? ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does not imply "in the city of Bakhmut". It say this is a battle for the city of Bakhmut. The Ukrainian forces were trying to retake the city recently - according to their statements. It does not need to use word "battle". It is enough it says: "For example, Zelenskyy and other officials insisted on trying to recapture the town of Bakhmut, which Russia had conquered after months of bloody fighting. Even today, Ukraine deploys more forces in and around Bakhmut than any other point along the front line." [13]. This is clearly about the successful counterattack by Ukrainian forces, as currently described on the page. Yes, Russian forces have captured the city of Bakhmut, but the Ukrainian forces continue to battle to retake the city.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

While I could have simply argued that that is only a single source in a sea of sources that mostly go against that understanding, I will actually disagree with your interpretation of the article. I've just read most of it and noticed some things. Firstly, the article is clearly focused on something else. The author only does a passing mention of Bakhmut (1 paragraph [actually 2 sentences] out of 20) and as such, I wouldn't really base my argument on so few, superficial statements. I would prefer relying on the ISW for these kinds of statements (where fighting is happening, how many troops are involved, and for what goal). When the author says "in and around Bakhmut" I would immediately start questioning the reliability of the other Bakhmut statements. If he really thought "in" the urban area, that would be a clear mistake which could be explained by him simply not paying that much attention to the details of the current situation around Bakhmut. Afterall, that paragraph is only a passing/supportive comment about Bakhmut to back up his other main statements in the article. The author also says "Zelenskyy and other officials insisted on trying to recapture the town of Bakhmut" which is clearly in the past. Also, just keeping a lot of troops in the region right now doesn't mean Ukraine is attacking. It isn't even certain if Ukraine's armed forces seriously tried to retake Bakhmut right after they were exhausted and pushed out of the city. I don't think we should keep the whole scope of the article tied to such an assumption (that Ukraine's armed forces seriously tried to recapture the city, not just a claim from Zelenskyy), especially a fragile one. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not just a single source, and this is not so much about sourcing. The counterattack by Ukrainian forces with the officially stated intention to retake the city is a fact. During this counteroffensive they retook the significant territories to the North and South of the city (as described on this page), to be able to hit the city of Bakhmut using their artillery. This is also a fact. Does it mean that the battle for the city continues? This might be a matter of interpretation, but it seems obvious to me because of the official stated goal of the offensive and because the fighting around the city continues unabated (also a matter of fact). My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not just a single source, and this is not so much about sourcing. If it's not just a single source, then I would suggest that you do a review & analysis of several sources to support your argument. The counterattack by Ukrainian forces with the officially stated intention to retake the city is a fact. the way you phrase it seems a bit ambiguous or innocuous, i.e. could be technically/semantically true. But just because Zelenskyy declared something to the press, it doesn't mean that that was actually the objective of the generals on the ground. That's something the ISW would have more credentials to affirm. they retook the significant territories to the North those weren't quite significant. to be able to hit the city of Bakhmut using their artillery. WP:OR. This is also a fact. thus not completely a fact. fighting around the city continues unabated (also a matter of fact). a fact but for the wrong reasons: it's Russia that's fighting now beyond Bakhmut towards Ivanivske and Bohdanivka.

Then how about we create an article titled something like "Bakhmut counteroffensive" or "Bakhmut Ukrainian counterattack"? I have no qualms about this proposal. You could argue all that in there and we could explore all the different assumptions and implications of Zelenskyy's promise. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The fighting is described as currently occurring at "on outskirts of Ukraine's Bakhmut" [14]. None of the recent sources provided on this talk page disputes the fact that the fighting continues very close to the city. Is it fighting for the city? The Ukrainian side does not hide the intention to surround the city from the North and South and take it back whenever possible. That is what they openly say. Will they succeed? Maybe not, but they are still fighting for the city. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

they are still fighting for the city. source? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources say that Ukrainians want/wanted to retake Bakhmut during their counteroffensive, for example Inside Ukraine's Fight to Retake Bakhmut (October 2023), Ukrainian troops vow to take back Bakhmut (September 2023). This is a common place. They could not do it so far, but this is another matter. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are months old. You can't use them to say what you did in the previous reply (focus on 'recently'/ongoing). Besides, such sources were already accounted for in the review. They weren't ignored but put into perspective: a clear majority of sources consider the battle long over. Why should we ignore all those dozens in favor of those few you mentioned? We shouldn't because that would be cherry picking. When I have the time, I'll try to do another analysis to test my thesis shown in the end of my focused analysis (test the ratio of sources that consider the battle continuing past 20 May over the months). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

One can use any sources. I noticed you work with ISW reports. OK, let's use them from yesterday [15]. They say: The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Ukrainian forces unsuccessfully attacked in the Bakhmut direction near Bohdanivka (6km northwest of Bakhmut), Khromove (immediately west of Bakhmut), Klishchiivka (7km southwest of Bakhmut), Andriivka (10km southwest of Bakhmut), and Kurdyumivka (13km southwest of Bakhmut) on December 11. "6km northwest of Bakhmut". All these attacks in 5 places are designed to surround and potentially take back Bakhmut. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's use them from yesterday 👍. I've been frequently reading their reports for ages now. They pretty much do these aggregations daily, but they don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Yes, they help the ISW mark the green circles on their maps to show where fighting is happening, but that happens in almost the entire frontline. This is a major war afterall. If Ukraine sees an opportunity to strike anywhere on the frontline, they will, and so will Russia, even if it's just to improve their defensive positions. And that's basically what Ukraine has been doing, they lost a bunch of ground around Bakhmut recently (mostly northern flank), thus Ukraine obviously will try to counterattack before the Russians consolidate their new positions. The same kind of "active defense" attacks happen in Avdiivka, though not on the Russian side (like Putin or the MoD said, idk). The Ukrainians even managed to pull off a successful counterattack north of the Avdiivka Coke Plant several days ago where they recaptured a few positions. Therefore, your comment here All these attacks in 5 places are designed to surround and potentially take back Bakhmut. is unfortunate as it not only is a bold claim, but it's also mostly incorrect. Even if the attacks around Andriivka and Kurdyumivka (where Russia is mostly defending) kinda go in-line with a flanking attack for Bakhmut, they are expressly long-term at best. You don't fight for a major city attacking with a few squads of soldiers. Once again, just because you're fighting near something, it doesn't automatically mean your're fight for it. Hope this answer was elucidating. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether fighting near Bakhmut is still occurring is immaterial to the question of how sources refer to and describe the event they have labelled as the battle of/for Bakhmut. If the consensus of sources is that the event labelled as the battle of/for Bakhmut finished months ago, then the article should be aligned to follow the sources. If individual editors are arguing that we should ignore the consensus of sources and apply our own definition for the event labelled as the battle of Bakhmut, then that is WP:OR and a WP:NPOV issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is no consensus of recent sources "that the event labelled as the battle of/for Bakhmut finished months ago". To the contrary, all RS are saying that the battle for Bakhmut (on the "outskirts of Bakhmut", etc.) is currently ongoing, and this answers the question asked at the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. The scope of the battle should be all about the consensus in sources and how they referring to it otherwise, the article is being based on WP:OR and WP:ANALYSIS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps the OR and analysis are being conducted to identify a consensus in RS when one does not exist, and to define a specific result and date when there is no firm basis for them. Sometimes war is non-specific. The fact that these discussions have been ongoing inconclusively for how long now supports this theory.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you do an analysis yourself then?! I'm tired of your weasel words and loaded replies that only sometimes mask your true motivation. This RfC is bloated with useless arguing. Some people try to highlight the importance of proper randomly sampled analysis while others try to dismiss them and instead focus on cherry picked-sources or personal judgement analysis. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 and RadioactiveBoulevardier: Should we already make a WP:CR or should we wait for another (3rd) analysis? Perhaps one that shows how the understanding changed over time or one simply considering the most recent sources... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that the RfC has run its course. While Michael has posted a recent comment, he is not a new contributor here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac, Slatersteven, Lukewarmbeer, Neonorange, My very best wishes, and Jebiguess: Following my latest and last analysis of sources, the 3rd of the #Analyses of sources section, this might be your last chance to amend your votes. Regards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexiscoutinho, for the ping. I've read all the discussion, some of the sources quoted, and more besides. I no longer think a close of either ended or ongoing is likely. Time is better spent elsewhere.

What became the goals of each side (2,3)? The fighting in Bakhmut seems over. The important question is how the end should be assessed? Tactical win for Russian, strategic win for Ukraine? (Based on casualties and material losses.) Or some other evaluation. Rubbled city? Have not seen such analyses yet. Too soon.

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) —

Per above, it seems to seeon to decide who won or when, let the historians decide. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that while this argument of "let's wait for pristine sources" seems neutral at first, it can be disingenuous/WP:POV depending on context. In such case, it would be just like archiving a topic thread after having made the final comment (having "the last word"). It would be too convenient to call for patience and attempt to lock an undestanding when it already satisfies the person. This counterargument ain't new though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm rocking with Slatersteven on this. We have been having this discussion about the result of the battle for months, and it has gone nowhere. It's best to let historians decide how it ended and an exact timeframe. The current infobox summarizes the situation well in my eyes too. Jebiguess (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Review of sources

The following is a report of random samples from Google news searches for the search string indicated. Every tenth hit was sampled unless otherwise indicated. If that hit was not sufficiently pertinent, made only a passing mention with insufficient detail etc, it was rejected and the next source in sequence sampled. Rejected sources however, have been recorded as hidden text in the report. Reported results were not specifically filtered against WP:RSN, though most would appear to be reliable. Any sources that are not reliable are not likely to be a significant component of the total and therefore, not significant in respect to the result indicated by the review. Any non-RS could be rejected and substituted as indicated above. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Review results

For "battle of Bakhmut" Ten search pages were sampled. [16] (Impact, 15 November) - "It was only until October 2022 that they renewed their offensive to capture the city, but to no success." [17] (The National interest, 21 November) - "Its current operation in Andiivka [sic] is reminiscent of the battle of Bakhmut, a Russian victory that got little attention in the West but serves as a model of their slow, grinding, but successful approach to attritional warfare." [18] (Wavell Room, 3 November) - "By the end of May, the Russians had essentially won the battle." ... "Even explaining away the turn into Bakhmut, this merely leads to the second and third whys: why abandon the encirclement, and why did the Russians win?" [19] (Aljazerra center for studies, 9 July) - "Moreover, the capture of Bakhmut was accomplished through the extensive utilisation of manpower, which was replenished with prisoners." [20] (Ukrainiform, 20 July) - "Kostenko emphasized that in the battle of Bakhmut, the Russian troops suffered the greatest losses since the outset of the war. Still, the Russians never achieved its goal in Bakhmut and, moreover, will eventually be forced to retreat, the diplomat added." (past tense) [21] (Peoples Dispatch, 24 August) - "Prigozhin led the Wagner group’s short-lived mutiny against the Russian government shortly after the battle of Bakhmut in June this year." [22] (WION, 21 July) - "Media reports citing officials continued to say that the cluster munitions are being used not only on front-line positions in southeastern Ukraine but also near the Russian-controlled city of Bakhmut." [23] (WION, 6 September) - "One of the major operations it took part in during the Ukraine war, which has been ongoing for more than a year now, was the battle of Bakhmut." [24] (Guardian, 1 November) - "as the near year-long battle of Bakhmut in Ukraine showed" (past tense) [25] (Firstpost, 18 August) - "who occupied the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and defeated Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut this year." For battle for Bakhmut (Nine search pages sampled). [26] (Business Insider, 25 November) - "The months-long battle for Bakhmut, in eastern Ukraine, was the longest and bloodiest of the war." "The decision to fight for Bakhmut ..." "The Russians bled themselves in trying to take Bakhmut" [27] (Al Mayadeen, 11 November) - "In Ukraine, the battle for Avdiivka is being compared to the earlier, months-long and bloody battle for control over the city of Bakhmut, which ended in May of this year with a Russian victory." [28] (ABC, 18 July) - "During this struggle for the city" [29] (Forbes, 25 July) - "The Russians captured the ruins of Bakhmut in May after a nearly yearlong fight that dearly cost both sides, but especially the Russian side." "The battle for Bakhmut has raged for more than a year now. And it will continue to rage as Ukrainian forces, having just quit the city, now attempt to retake it." [30] (Open Democracy, 20 July) - "In a small town near Russian-held Bakhmut, medics are saving lives against a backdrop of rocket fire" "When the battle for Bakhmut reached its peak before Russia’s mercenary Wagner Group captured it in late May ..." [31] (Reuters, 24 August) - "Wagner leaders took credit for Russian success in Bakhmut" [32] (Euractiv, 19 September) - "It follows Ukrainian forces announcing last week that they had wrested back control of two villages south of the industrial hub, cementing the battle for Bakhmut as the longest and likely bloodiest of the invasion." [33] (ACLED, 2 August) - "Heavily attrited Wagner fighters, supported by regular Russian forces, eventually eased out Ukrainian units from the largely obliterated town around 20 May after a nearly year-long siege." "The Ukrainian rationale for holding Bakhmut and Russia’s – or rather Wagner’s – fixation on capturing the embattled town are equally elusive." [34] (RFE?RL, 21 July) - "Russian forces spearheaded by Wagner mercenaries captured Bakhmut in May, following months of intense and bloody fighting." From capture of Bakhmut (only 6 pages of results) [35] (NDTV World, 29 November) - "Moscow's troops seized Bakhmut in May after one of the bloodiest battles of its 21-month military offensive." [36] (ALJAZEERA, 21 September) - "Since the Russian capture of Bakhmut in late May ..." [37] (ALJAZEERA, 6 September) - "Wagner played a prominent role in Moscow’s war in Ukraine and was instrumental in Russia’s capture of Bakhmut city in May." [38] (AP, 23 September) - "the Wagner-spearheaded capture of the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut in May after months of bloody combat" [39] (Novaya Gazeta Europe, 25 July) - "The only result? The capture of Bakhmut after four months of bloody clashes, where Wagner forces played a key part." [40] (Newsweek, 8 August) - "This marks a sharp shift from the heyday of Wagner's victories in Ukraine, including the capture of Bakhmut" Results fall of Bakhmut (fourteen actual results returned - sampled every fifth) [41] (Reuters, 29 September) - "Wagner also fought in Ukraine and took the city of Bakhmut in May after the bloodiest battle of the war." [42] (WSWS, 10 July) - "In May, following the announcement that the US would send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine amid the fall of Bakhmut" [43] (LA Progressive, 1 July) - >The Wagner forces were being scaled down in terms of logistics and support by the MOD right after the fall of Bakhmut. It appears they were being pulled out of Bakhmut even before its final fall."

Analyses of sources

@Cinderella157: You reverted a bunch of things which I don't see as harmful to the review/discussion/analysis in any way. For example, I included some more quotes which I thought were also relevant and which I planned to use in an upcoming analysis here (wanted to do it today, but those edits that were reverted exhausted me). Regarding the commented out sources which I exposed, I read them carefully and thought some of them had subtle indications/information that could be extracted and used here while acknowledging their limitations. It's not like I cherry-picked them in any way, they're still random, therefore I don't see it as going against the methodology (by the way, I hadn't planned to expose any other sources because that consumed a lot of time, I would only add more quotes to the already exposed sources). Finally, I would like to know if that compilation of sources/review is a "proprietary" work (shouldn't be edited) or collective work (could be improved by others). I'm here to help. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Alexiscoutinho, I was going to write this in any case but I have had some RL stuff to do in the interim. As far as I can see, you added three sources that were previously hidden (plus quotes) and amended three with additional quotes. Where I have reported a source, the text quoted is clear an unambiguous in its meaning in respect to what is being discussed here - ie whether the battle is over and whether the battle was for the capture of the city. The quotes you have added are not of the same type - eg "He claimed that Russia was suffering massive losses in eastern Ukraine, equating them with Russia’s losses in the Battle of Bakhmut, considered one of the bloodiest to date" tells us nothing in respect to the question one way or the other. While you see this as not being harmful, I see that it obfuscates the key information. Subtle is not categorical that is why such sources were not reported. Those sources were commented out to evidence the objectivity of the process as described (ie my process can be verified but not if what I wrote is changed by making the notes readable. Consequently, they probably should be considered proprietary, at least to the extent that any change is explicitly attributed. However, I would be against adding material that questionable/arguable. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• What is the giveaway from this? Can we draw out a conclusion? This is too long to read for the average user. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of results Super Dromaeosaurus, these results would refer to the battle in the past tense and that the fighting was for capture of the city, which is a statement I made in the Rationale/background section above. This is a random sample consisting of 27 samples. Only 2 samples (Forbes, 25 July and Euractiv, 19 September) would support a view that the battle is ongoing and has the wider scope. A clear consensus exists in over 90% of sources that the battle was for the capture of the city and this ended (late May) in a Russian victory. ACLED, 2 August stands out as a source, being a detailed analysis of the battle in the broader context of Russian and Ukrainian strategies. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems a stretch. A source that says, in passing, that the Russians captured the city, does not verify that the source tells us the battle’s over. The Forbes quote proves this, because it says both the one and the opposite of the other.  —Michael Z. 02:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's cherry-picking man. Besides, if you think Cinderella157's summary is a misrepresentation of the sources, you could read my analyses below which do a bit of statistics and still go in line with Cinderella157's conclusion. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Forbes source is ambiguous and consequently unclear. By the review process described, it should have been noted as being unclear and the next source reported. This is the Hindustani Times (17 July): This as Russia rains fire in Bakhmut, which it captured after the longest battle of war. The process was made totally transparent so that any questions, such as this one, could be identified and discussed. One source however, does not significantly compromise what the sources (on balance) are telling us. Calling the summary a stretch based on an ambiguity in one source out of 27 is a stretch. The assertion lacks substance. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bu the way, the Forbes source is by David Axe. While as staff he technically passes wp:forbes, his articles on Ukraine tend to vary between POV and overly melodramatic clickbait. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

❤️ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, what is exactly the aim of the RfC? Stating that the battle of Bakhmut has ended, or also giving it an end date in May? I agree with the former, but disagree with the latter. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As explicitly stated: The essence of the proposal is to amend the scope from being broadly defined as in and near the city to being more narrowly defined as fighting for the capture of the city. Sources are telling us that the scope of the battle is that it was a battle for the capture of the city (per my initial observation at Rationale/background). My summary of the results (and the sources themselves) support this buy directly stating that the battle was for capture of the city or that the battle has ended, be it with the Russian capture/victory. The proposed sentence does refer to the battle in the past tense and therefore, that the battle is over. The proposal also states: or something similar. Depending on the discussion, a closer might find for the essence of the proposal but the specific wording might require further discussion (ie an iterative process). It does follow from the proposed sentence that there is an end date and there is a result. What these are, might be indicated by the sources but they are not explicit in the proposal. It is not like a referee walked out into no mans land on a specific date, called time and declared a winner. One of the sources (I can't remember which) discusses that the start date of the battle is somewhat fuzzy. My personal opinion is that the same applies to the end date. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Analyses by Alexis Coutinho

Focused analysis

In this short analysis I'll only cover the sources and quotes sampled by Cinderella157 in the review above. I will extract conclusions (tags) from each source and then do some basic statistics.

Extraction of "tags"

#Impact, 15 November: Russian goal was/in the city; failure (more context needed) #The National interest, 21 November: "reminiscent" implies past; unconditional Russian victory #Wavell Room, 3 November: ended in May; Russian victory #Aljazerra center for studies, 9 July: city was captured #Ukrainiform, 20 July: past tense; failure (more context needed); Russians would retreat (they wouldn't) #Peoples Dispatch, 24 August: past #WION, 21 July: city was captured #WION, 6 September: past tense #Guardian, 1 November: ended in May #Firstpost, 18 August: Russian victory; past tense #Business Insider, 25 November: ended in May* (using asterisk to note that the conclusion doesn't directly refer to the exact term "battle of Bakhmut"); both sides' goal was/is the city #Al Mayadeen, 11 November: ended in May*; Russian victory* #ABC, 18 July: ongoing as of 18 July; both sides' goal was/is the city #Forbes, 25 July: city was captured; battle ongoing* as of 25 July #Open Democracy, 20 July: city was captured #Reuters, 24 August: Russian victory #Euractiv, 19 September: ongoing* as of 19 September #ACLED, 2 August: city was captured; both sides' goal was/is the city #RFE?RL, 21 July: city was captured #NDTV World, 29 November: city was captured; ended in May #ALJAZEERA, 21 September: city was captured #ALJAZEERA, 6 September: city was captured #AP, 23 September: city was captured #Novaya Gazeta Europe, 25 July: city was captured #Newsweek, 8 August: Russian victory; city was captured #Reuters, 29 September: city was captured; the battle ended in May #WSWS, 10 July: city was captured #LA Progressive, 1 July: city was captured

Counting the tags we have: city was captured = 15; past = 5; Russian victory = 5; Russian victory* = 1; goal was/in the city = 4; ended in May = 4; ended in May* = 2; failure = 2; ongoing = 1; ongoing* = 2; would retreat = 1.

Therefore, we can clearly conclude that the city was unconditionally captured as no source implied a "but" or gave any significance to the early Ukrainian claims of control on the edge of the city. It's generally understood that the significant goal was for the capture of the city as, besides the 4 direct mentions, most sources do treat it as the most important subject. In fact, only the #Euractiv, 19 September sample treats Bakhmut with less importance, as a more distant goal. Given the previous conclusion and noting that the terms "battle of Bakhmut" and "battle for Bakhmut" are often used interchangeably, i.e. no source treats the terms distinctly, I will treat the tags with and without asterisk as one. Thus, combining the past and ended in May tags (they are mutually exclusive) we have 11 sources directly treating the battle as over, vs only 3 as ongoing. We also have 6 sources categorically treating the subject as a Russian victory/win.

However, there seems to be an emerging pattern that more recent sources tend to treat the battle as over and revert the end date back to May. For instance, if we filter out the earlier samples from July, we're left with a ratio of 10:1, which equates to a percentage of 91% in favor of being over vs 79% in favor from the previous ratio (considering all samples). This cutoff is not arbitrary, in fact, it's objectively good as more recent sources have a better overview/"bird's eye view" of the situation and tend to be closer to real historic assessments. My theory is that many sources were tempted to consider the battle as continuing in the first weeks and months after 20 May because there was a big expectation that Ukraine's counterattack would be capable of re-encircling the city and possibly recapturing it in a similar scale to the Wagner offensive. After the advance in Klishchiivka and Andriivka stalled (or simply finished/concluded, depending if the Ukrainian goal was to just stop there to pin Russian troops), it became clear that that wouldn't be the case and therefore those sources reverted to the May end date to better portray the difference in scale, scope and goal of the battles before and after 20 May.

This focused analysis therefore supports the proposal of the RfC and my vote.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent analysis

In this analysis I'll extract conclusions from each source, like in the previous analysis, but I will cover all sources since December 2023 that contain the term "battle of Bakhmut". Since there aren't too many, there is no need for sampling. Note that tags with "*"s mean the conclusions were made based on indirect indications.

Review of sources since December

[44][45] (Business Insider, December) - "While Russia claimed victory in Bakhmut in May of this year, the battle did not pave the way, as Russia had hoped, to major territorial gains in the east." ... "In the months since Prigozhin declared victory in Bakhmut, Russia's troops have made little forward progress. The battle was not decisive for either side. Ukraine launched its counteroffensive in June. Bakhmut has become one of its three main axes, but despite heavy fighting so far only small bits of territory around Bakhmut have been reclaimed. Another winter may slow what fighting continues." ended in May; counteroffensive is distinct subject (further note that the author stops using "battle" after May, but instead uses the more generic "fighting") [46] (EL PAÍS, 4 January) - "Russia punishes it with constant shelling, as it did earlier in the war in the Battle of Bakhmut." implies somewhat distant past, thus ended in May* [47] (Kyiv Post, 9 January) - "The AFU’s 30th Brigade, drawn from Ukraine’s north-central Zhytomyr region, is a veteran outfit with extensive combat experience including the 2022 Battle of the Siviersky Donets river crossings and the 2023 Battle of Bakhmut." battle over [48] (Atalayar, 3 January) - "As you recalled, the beginning of 2023, these first months of the year, were marked by the two bloodiest battles to date: the fight for the city of Solitude and the great final battle of Bakhmut, which concentrated the media spotlight until May when it could not hold out and fell into Russian hands." ended in May** (this is a quote from the interviewee though) [49] (The Guardian, 23 December) - "“There is suddenly gloom and doom in the west, but since the battle of Bakhmut the Russians have not captured anything except one large village,” he said." ended in May** (another interview and he's likely refering to the capture of Novoselivske in August) [50] (BulgarianMilitary.com, 27 December) - "The victorious capture of Marinka by the Russian army has, therefore, been widely recognized as one of the most pivotal developments since the victory at Bakhmut." victory, thus battle over [51] (ScheerPost, 10 January) - "As we saw during the battle of Bakhmut, the Russians adapted perfectly to the strategy imposed on Ukraine by the West, which prioritizes the defense of every square meter." battle over* [52] (The National Interest, 31 December) - "they kept Russia from encircling their troops in the first Battle of Bakhmut" distinct battles [53] (EL PAÍS, 9 December) - "During the intense Battle of Bakhmut last spring, up to 300 drones were deployed over the eastern Ukrainian city" ended in May* [54] (EL PAÍS, 5 December) - "According to the UK Ministry of Defense, in the last two months during their offensive on Avdiivka, Russian forces have similar or even greater losses than in the battle of Bakhmut at the beginning of the year." ended in May (seems to be considering the more intense battle in the city) [55] (The Kyiv Independent, 10 December) - "The tactics used by the Russians are reminiscent of the Battle of Bakhmut" implies past, thus battle over* [56] (Daily Kos, 2 December) - "During the battle of Bakhmut the role of drone as spotter came to the forefront in coverage (the actual practice having started far earlier, I’m only referencing the prevalence in coverage). And then this last summer, we saw just how hard it is for Ukraine to advance through minefields which are under constant drone surveillance." summer came after the battle, thus it ended in May [57] (New York Post, 7 December) - "During the battle of Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces inflicted enormous losses on the Wagner Group, the mercenary outfit the late Yevgeny Prigozhin founded." Wagner Group is considered the major player here, thus implying the battle ended in May*, during their participation [58] (PRAVDA.Ru, 13 December) - "The Battle of Bakhmut started in the summer of 2022 and continued for as many as 224 days." ended in May [59] (dedefensa.org, 15 December) - "Therefore, given the need to maintain the plausibility of a Ukrainian victory, it is not surprising that NATO intelligence has claimed that the Battle of Bakhmut saw Russia lose at least five KIA soldiers for a Ukrainian soldier." past tense implies battle over* The sources below were analysed several days ago and don't currently show up in the Google query (perhaps it's considering them as "duplicate" now?): [60] (PRONEWS, 5 December) - Translated: "Within a few hours they have cleared the entire perimeter of Bakhmut and are heading towards Chasiv Yar" not exactly about battle though ... "With the latest Russian advances north of Bakhmut 85% of the lost positions on May were recaptured. For a better visualization the following map shows the maximum advance made by Russian Army and Wagner PMC during the battle of Bakhmut." from Twitter, mostly unrelated... fighting past Bakhmut [blacklisted] (Ruetir, 11 December) - "The city is surrounded on three sides by Russian troops and has suffered increasingly intense attacks since last October 10th, so that, after the very long battle of Bakhmut, for some time now the battle of Avdiika has been spoken of as the new symbolic battle of the war in Ukraine." ... "The fear of many in Ukraine is that Avdiivka will turn into a bloody battle that will last months, will take on increasingly relevant symbolic contours and then end with an occupation by Russia, as has already happened in the last year in Severodonetsk, Soledar and, the most famous case, Bakhmut." ... "The battle took place largely in the urban center" battle over

Well, the review speaks for itself. The trend noted in the previous analysis continued and by now, sources as a whole agree with the RfC's proposal. In total, ended in May was concluded 4 times, ended in May* 3 times, ended in May** 2 times, battle over 3 times, battle over* 3 times, counteroffensive is distinct 1 time, distinct battles 1 time and fighting past Bakhmut 1 time. Most notably, no sources say or even imply that the "battle of Bakhmut" is ongoing. And to "add insult to injury" fighting is already clearly past Bakhmut as Russia aims to advance towards Chasiv Yar. Among the sources, the second Business Insider article stands out and gives a comprehensive and pretty historic account of the battle. It also clearly distinguishes the scope and timeframe of the battle and the subsequent counteroffensive.

Therefore, it's very safe to conclude now that the "battle of Bakhmut" is over and ended with a Russian victory in May after the capture of the city. It was then followed by the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive which is considered a different subject in the sources. Once again, a thorough review and analysis (3rd) of randomly sampled sources supports my vote and, most importantly, the RfC's proposal.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2024 (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.

So much discussion about the end date – what about the start date?

Greetings all, I've been looking at the Battle of Donbas (2022) article and I'm of the opinion that much of the information there regarding July–September combat in the environs of Bakhmut (e.g. Vuhlehirska Power Station–Novoluhanske, Berestove, Soledar, Travneve–Hladosove, etc.) would make more sense to be included here, for reasons of geographic/time continuity and scope.

One thing that gives me minor pause is that the start date is defined here as 1 August. Normally a few days difference wouldn't really be an issue, but considering the legendary debates this article has had about the end date, I thought it best to check if there was some sort of consensus you all have reached regarding 1 August, or if this date could be a little more flexible.

Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion of the start date is necessary just in case, to build a lasting consensus, though I disagree with this specific proposal for my reasons stated here [61]. If I remember correctly, 1 August 2022 had official Russian statements regarding the start of a new offensive towards Bakhmut, though there was fighting towards the city before. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus: I'll try to keep most of our conversation contained to the other talkpage, but with respect to the official Russian statements regarding 1 August, I've just placed a failed verification tag on that claim because the sources (CNN and ISW-CTP) actually say something quite different. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How should we split the content of this page?

Following the RfC closure, do you agree to move the bulk (keep only some bridging/linking information) of the text about the Ukrainian flanking counterattacks to the counteroffensive page and move all information after it (late November, when Russia regained the initiative) to the eastern Ukraine campaign page? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a logical way to split the information, although it's possible the Russian military regained the initiative a bit earlier than late November. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I already made the bulk of the moves. The rest is going to require more elaborate work. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This should not be used as a way round the RFC. Sorry but until we have a clear consensus as to the scope of this article, its scope should not change. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to contest a RfC closure. Accept it or appeal following the "due process". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As should you "There isn't a consensus to call the battle a Russian victory. Both sides achieved their stated strategic objectives. Russia said it wanted to take Bakhmut, and Ukraine said it wanted to extract a heavy price for Bakhmut and to pin down Russian forces in the area. If this was a Russian victory at all, it was a Pyrrhic one." Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And its now been edited warred back in, it does not matter if it is rememd out, it should not be there. This is just what I meant by circumventing the RFC. We should not say it is a Russian victory. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just what I meant by circumventing the RFC. Stop trying to distort the situation and framing yourself as "the one following the rules". Then you should have reverted just that part, because reverting everything the way you did was a much greater violation. That "Russian victory" status was there for a while, way before the RfC closure. I just commented out the parts that were seemingly out of scope. What was left was the "Russian victory" conclusion, because "ongoing" definitely shouldn't stay. It's questionable whether the closer should have made a comment/closure on a subtopic that wasn't in the essence of the RfC and which wasn't extensively debated though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually what was there for a while was not just Russian victory, nor do we get to pick and choose which parts of an RFC we ignore. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Guess, you'll force us to make another RfC to deal with this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

NO, I am asking you to obey the one we just had. Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the closer's comment on the result of the battle isn't final as the essence of the RfC wasn't that and not much discussion was made on it. And don't forget that your comment until we have a clear consensus as to the scope of this article, its scope should not change. shows an even greater disobedience to the RfC, so don't come at me with this "obey" loaded word. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If my arguably selective commenting out of the, then, "status" parameter bothered you, all you had to do was remove the comment marks or remove/comment out the whole parameter, like it was done afterwards. But no, you chose to revert everything, including the vast majority of which was perfectly fine. So don't try to hide your mistake, I won't hide mine. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Only if you believe the obviously fake Ukrainian reports which western journalists that interviewed the soldiers while the battle was still ongoing disputed hard! 2A02:587:E803:3E69:1803:8589:5C6:239C (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We should have an "Aftermath" section in this article that gives a brief summary of what's happened near Bakhmut since, plus links to the relevant part of eastern Ukraine campaign. HappyWith (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be good. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a section for subsequent operations. This could either be a stand-alone section before an aftermath section or part of the aftermath section. We definitely need an aftermath section to discuss the result. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• There appears to be some toing and froeing about the result of the RfC. S Marshall, the closer would state:

  If our topic is the Battle for Bakhmut, i.e. the fight to control the city itself, then the battle is over and our article should be written in the past tense. It is a fact that Russia has taken the city, at very heavy cost. ... In the discussion below, Wikipedians reach a rough consensus that the proper scope of this particular article is the battle for Bakhmut, and if we do want to cover the ongoing battle in the general area, then we should do so in a separate article.

  In line with this and what sources tell us, is that the city has been captured by the Russians and that this occurred about the end of May. The closer would also observe that the result is not so straight forward. Many sources do call this a Russian victory but it is qualified because it came at a great loss. Some specifically call this a pyrrhic victory but (per MOS:MIL) we don't use this in the infobox. As the closer observes, both sides achieved their military objectives. There is clearly nuance to the result which prevents us from simply labelling this as a Russian victory. The two options permitted us per the template documentation are Russian victory - see Aftermath section or See Aftermath section. I would tend to the former, since a the consensus of the sources we have at our disposal would label it as a Russian victory, even if it is a qualified one. Adding see Aftermath section tells us that it is not a straight forward victory. Regardless of which of these alternatives are ultimately used, (per HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith) we need an aftermath section discussing the result before we can direct the reader there. Our first task is to bash the article into shape to conform to the revised scope. Then we can deal with the lead, the infobox and the result - not the otherway around. In the mean time, the result parameter should remain unpopulated. If, once we have an aftermath section, we cannot agree on which of the two applicable permitted alternatives to use through discussion, then we may need to take this back to an RfC - but not yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  👍. Guess I was too hasty... If only I had waited for your reply to act, that prior engagement wouldn't have happened. 😅

  stand-alone section before an aftermath Do you envision this as a section with a similar level of detail to the section I moved as comment to the 2023 counteroffensive page? both sides achieved their military objectives After moving the goalposts, any side can claim it achieved its objectives... I would tend to the former, since a the consensus of the sources we have at our disposal would label it as a Russian victory, even if it is a qualified one. Yeah, exactly. If, once we have an aftermath section, we cannot agree on which of the two applicable permitted alternatives to use through discussion, then we may need to take this back to an RfC Given the previous RfC on a much less controversial matter was so heated, I doubt a discussion on the result would be any less. So I urge us to jump straight to formal RfC when the right time comes. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Without having a close look at what was moved, subsequent operations would be a brief summary. No where near the detail I recall (post May 2023) that was in the article. both sides achieved their military objectives This was an observation made by the closer. But there is information from before the fact that the Ukrainian objective was not to hold the city but to pin and bleed the Russians. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The result is not stated

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 seems that wikipedia can not admit that the russians won the battle 196.114.152.219 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read the RfC closure and discussion above. This article is still being "ironed out". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to iron out with respect to the outcome of the battle. The Russians won it for certain. 2600:1702:3163:CA40:101B:AEBC:9F6A:3A02 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not according to those who claim the losses Russia suffered meant they in fact may well have lost. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2024 (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.

It should be called 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.

---

Sure, thousands of Russian men died to take the town, but so did thousands of Ukrainians die defending the town. In the end, Russians took the town. So it should be declared as Russian victory in the info box. Now, we could argue it came at a high cost of lives for Russians. But, high cost is subjective and relative. For a country of 1 million people, losing 1 thousand men in a battle is obviously quite high. But for a country of 1 billion people, losing 1 thousand men in a battle is obviously not high. Wikipedia should not be subjective. A win is a win. It should be put in the infobox as a Russian victory.

204.197.177.46 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

See talk above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to see. Its a battle over a town, a town that ended under the control of one side, which is the side that won the battle. Stop coping and delaying, you did the same with the end date, and kept at it for months 62.4.44.220 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ther is a discussion above, join that. We do not need 15 threads on the same issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think we need 15 more, because its one of the most egregious distortions of truth and facts, and is fueled by 1 user, which is you 62.4.44.220 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (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.

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased

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.

---

You do not get to decide that Ukraine magically won the battle when ALL consensus is that it is over. No matter how much you kick and scream Ukraine lost lost lost, it lost like almost a year ago. I follow this war on the daily and no major media reports on Bakhmutt for months, certainly no one reports that Ukraine somehow won even though they were driven from the city, a city that is now Russian.

As far as the question of phyrric vs non phyrric that is nonsense, a win is a win phyrric or not, but if you really want to go down that road Bakhmutt was a strategic disaster for Ukraine since they sacrificed some of their most elite units against Russian mercs, half of whom were litearl drug addled convicts. As far as "phyricc attrition" its Ukraine not russia that got oblitered in terms of human resources and material. Furthermore, because Ukraine devoted such massive forces to Bakhmutt, including many of the "counteroffensive" units, the southern push into Crimea withered and died because they were spread too think to "blitz" through. This has been repeatedly documented - American generals literally BEGGED zelensky to stop squandering manpower in bakhmutt but the great hero zelensky knew better.

Anyway I dont care, this is hilarious, I just busted out laughing when I saw you guys removed the Russian victory tag, literally hahaha at you guys, COmE ON, take yourselves seriously!!!

This is why we have the RFC above. comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2024 (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.

Russian Pyrrhic victory

The main argument I've seen for not calling it a Russian victory is that the losses Russia suffered outweighed the worth of the territory they gained, but we have a term for that. A Pyrrhic victory is defined as a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. So why not just call it a Russian pyrrhic victory? Djodjor (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the RFC, I would rather wait for historians to judge who won. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The result of the RfC clearly demonstrated that that is not how it works. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Because its not. The only sources claiming that the Russians suffered some tremendous casualties are coming from Ukraine itself, or other sources who are not impartial to the conflict. A pyrrhic victory would mean getting Bakhmut, but in the process destroy the ability to attack again / completely exhaust its forces.

This is not the case. As of right now, Russia is the one advancing along the entire front. Bakhmut was a hard won fight, sure, but not a pyrrhic victory. Its just a Russian victory, no matter how much it displeases some people. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Not in fact true.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin%E2%80%99s-pyrrhic-victory-bakhmut-retrospective-battle-bakhmut#:~:text=Search-,The%20Kremlin's%20Pyrrhic%20Victory%20in%20Bakhmut%3A%20A,on%20the%20Battle%20for%20Bakhmut&text=Russia%20declared%20victory%20in%20Bakhmut,city%20for%20nearly%20a%20year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/world/europe/bakhmut-russia-ukraine-retreat.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-captured-bakhmut-cost-tens-thousands-troops-remaining-soldiers-exhausted-2023-5?r=US&IR=T

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/22/russia-ukraine-war-capture-bakhmut-putin-victory/

So no, not just Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read what I posted, you would notice I said "Ukraine itself, or other sources who are not impartial to the conflict."

USA and UK media, just like USA and UK in general, are clearly not impartial, since they poured hundreds of billions into helping and arming one side in this conflict. These articles should not be taken any more seriously than random tabloids from Kremlin itself. Its the same publications that said things like "Russia will be bankrupt in 3 weeks" 2 years ago.

Besides, you don't have to take my word for any of this, you can just open your eyes. The battle of Bakhmut never prevented Russian forced from continuing the war, from completely stopping the great Ukrainian counteroffensive, to now having the initiative across the entire front, from Kharkiv to Ugledar. In the Bakhmut area, they were never closer to Ivanivske of Chasiv Yar than they are right now. This is not an opinion of mine or any publication, this is represented by both Ukrainian and Russian war mappers, and this factual state of the frontlines is the only thing that can be taken as truth right now, not cherry picking news articles from one side of the fence.

There are equally as many articles from Russia or Russian leaning media, but they are equally as meaningless, so I won't get into link pasting battles with you. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, if you do not think these should be RS take it to wp:rsn, but I think |I can predict the result. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, Russia was never really exhasted. It captured Bakhmut, had enough manpower to mostly hold the line in the Ukrainian counteroffensive, and now still has quite some gas to advance on all fronts and capture cities/villages in the process. Ukraine, on the other hand, seems to have little prospect of renewed large scale offensives, they are committed to a hard defense. Whoever said the battle was a pyrrhic victory in the past was wrong since clearly Russia could soak in those loses (who were mostly ex-convicts by the way). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is a Pyrrhic Russian victory. If anything, Bakhmut was a strategic defeat for Ukraine. For one, everyone and their grandmothers who knew about Bakhmut, knew it was a trap designed by the Russians to buy time to entrench themselves for the upcoming counteroffensive. The bait was beyond obvious and it worked because the amount of PR being placed on Bakhmut in the first place, which created a political pressure valve that Ukraine, specifically, Zelensky, couldn't ignore. It was literally admitted by Pringles himself, that the operational goal for Bakhmut was to bait and bleed the UAF pure white. And again, it worked. It has been admitted among some Western sources like the Conversation, that the UAF traded elite, high quality trained troops for cheap, disposable Wagner penal battalions. And it cost Ukraine, a lot. Given the rough casualties as per this page, and given the report from the Conversation, the amount of loss from the elite troops of the UAF was staggering if we were to take those figures seriously. Meanwhile, as aforementioned, Wagner only lost cheap penal battalion units. As far as cost analysis is to be viewed, Russia barely lost any high-trained troops. Ukraine on the other hand, had a number of its very best being bled white. And we know this because of the consequences from Bakhmut. Bakhmut dragged for months which allowed Russia enough time to recuperate and really dig into their vast defensive trench systems, whilst preserving most of their forces. Ukraine on the other hand, lost too much of its elite troops, eventually lost Bakhmut which led to them failing on their counteroffensive (I know other factors played a hand for the failure of the counteroffensive, but the high casualties from Bakhmut played a major factor too). 42Grunt (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia would need high quality Reliable sources to agree and specifically state that this was a Pyrrhic victory for it to be included in the article. We don't go by editor opinion or synthesis. High quality sources for this are military historians, military experts, not journalists.

If this discussion continues without the required sources being provided, it should be closed. We already have a discussion thread on the outcome. (Hohum ^@) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources were given above The Kremlin’s Pyrrhic Victory in Bakhmut: A Retrospective on the Battle for Bakhmut | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I do consider ISW pretty reliable, the author has credentials in an associated field, but I expect some editors will complain that she is Ukrainian.

So, that's ONE potential source, which is an outlier if alone.

To put a result in the infobox is speaking in Wikipedia's voice, so it would not only need to be sourced, but be the strongly majority opinion of relevant sources. It could be used in the body of the article as an opinion with attribution though.

Other editors, will, no doubt, have their own thoughts. (Hohum ^@) 21:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree.

On the other hand, which sources of the same or better reliability characterize battle as "Russian victory" no strings attached? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I misspoke. The results section of the infobox shouldn't use terms like Pyrrhic.

Ref what do ther reliable source say? Go and find out. (Hohum ^@) 21:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources as shown in the closed RfC. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't find, probably missed it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

#Analyses by Alexis Coutinho. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see there is "world socialist" propaganda website included. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So what? Have you read Cinderella's method justification? Even if you remove specific unreliable sources and replace them with other randomly sampled sources, the pattern is still the same. That's why dozens of sources were sampled. This is very similar to an argument Michael Z used in the RfC, which was confidently replied/addressed by Cinderella. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My proposal is to give prerefence to war studies - oriented sources available today like, for example, ISW and IDSA Strategic Digest. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the most adequate solution. Even though they are subject matter experts, they're still very "involved" in a sense in favoring Ukraine (I'm assuming IDSA is like the ISW, in fact I know nothing of IDSA). The ISW is notoriosly in favor of continued military aid for Ukraine for example. Therefore, it may be inadequate to rely solely on them for value judgement decisions. We should use them mostly when it comes to reporting of facts. But I think Cinderella157 and RadioactiveBoulevardier would be more qualified to answer this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• The issue of the infobox has been raised at #How should we split the content of this page? and I find I am having to repeat things because new discussions keep popping up rather than continuing a discussion where the topic has already been raised. The key issue is that the infobox (and the lead) must be supported by and reflect the body of the article. There is little point in saying "here are sources" if they are not incorporated into the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't write the article in the infobox. This article still needs a lot of bashing around post RfC before we can think about addressing these finer points. What we are lacking is an aftermath section and a discussion/analysis of the result per sources. We really need this before we can contemplate how the result parameter is populated. In short, don't put the cart before the horse. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: So, could I add a citation to the aftermath section similar to "The bloody battle has been generally considered an important Russian victory. It was the first major city captured since the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives. It was also the major contributor to Russia's net positive territorial gain in 2023."? With proper sources of course. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A few points. I think you have already found plenty of sources that differ on whether taking Bakhmut was important (miltarily, politically?). Major city? Was it even in the top 50, 40 Ukrainian cities by population? "Bloody" is MOS:PUFFERY, also "major contributor" to a mostly static frontline? (Hohum ^@) 01:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

important removable; Major city mostly a fact, it really shouldn't be a big deal whether it is included or not, I think strongly contesting this would be kinda pedantic; "Bloody" replaceable, just needed an uncontrovertial adjective that showed that the battle was hard fought; "major contributor" fact for anyone following the maps, a specific ref would accompany it anyways. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bakhmut is Ukraine's 58th most populous city out of 461. If it isn't major, it's at least reasonably large. If this is still inadequate, it's certainly the largest city captured/recaptured by either side in 2023. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it as this: The battle of Bakhmut was fought for control of the city of Bakhmut. The Russian goal of the battle was to take the city. Ukraine's goal was to not lose the city. The Russians took the city, accomplishing the goal, and therefore, a victory. There is no ongoing fighting for control of the city itself. There are no Ukrainian troops inside the city, there is no contest. The battle is over. Now that it is (finally) agreed among editors to be over, there was a result of the battle. What was the result? Russians took the city = Russian objective completed = Russian victory, just like Marinka, etc. Just have the infobox say "Russian victory → Russian forces capture Bakhmut" and call it a day. No "pyrrhic victory" qualifiers are necessary, as the argument that "high russian casualties = we cannot declare it a victory" seems superfluous at best and I'm not sure why we're entertaining it for this article out of all other articles. And no, we do not need to wait another half year for CNN, Hanna Maliar, Shtupun, "historians", or other western RS's to officially, openly, and verbatim declare the battle a Russian victory before editor consensus can update the infobox. But that is my personal opinion. RopeTricks (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be common sense. Number of casualties vastly differ from sources on both sides, and while I do not mind both estimates being stated on battle articles, I question their significance considering its all really impossible to verify.

What is, however, very possible to verify is the the frontline, for which there are dozens of videos that can, and are geolocated every day. Both Russian and Ukrainian leaning mappers agree on the contact line almost to a tee. And from this resource, its pretty clear what happened, day to day, during the battle, and up to today.

Debating numbers that cannot be reliably verified, numbers that either side "can afford to lose", whether trading a wagner convict for a 47th mechanised soldier is good or not, is at the end of the day all speculation that is preventing this article from stating the obvious - Russia won the battle.

Implications and consequences can be added later once they are clear, but I see no reason this article should be the only one with no result stated, especially considering its the most known battle of the conflict so far (possibly the single biggest one as well) Jovanmhn (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I generally concur. Just like the infoboxes for the battles of Lysychansk, Soledar, and Sievierodonetsk, and Marinka, this article's infobox should not be held up. Delaying posting the results almost 10 months after the end date is confusing, bizarre, and misleading. Let the infobox reflect the territorial reality: a simple Russian victory, nothing more, nothing less. The casualty figures should barely factor in to it at this point when the city was still taken. "Pyrrhic" has its own implications that needlessly complicate things and just leads to more endless discussion over what should be a straightforward consensus. We do not need "historians" or Ukrainian officials to tell us Bakhmut is no longer contested. There is no ongoing battle. The infobox needs to reflect the results of it. RopeTricks (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is we have sources for all of the suggestions, thus the issue is too complex for one line in the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You're relying on cherry picking and obstruction for the 100th time. If there's no consensus for a complex definition of victory (one that accounts for losses), then a simpler definition should be used in the interim (one that only accounts for territorial changes). Assessing the impact of past losses in the course of future battles in the War is something only historians can contemplate. As such, it was very premature for the ISW, for example, to call it a pyrrhic victory since the negative impacts to the Russians are yet to be seen. Therefore, we must stick to facts and simpler definitions in the interim as was done in every other article. Nuance can be given in the "Aftermath" section, there's no sound reason to bog this down any further. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

We are all cheery picking sources that support our version. No we should leave it until there is a consensus among RS as to what it was. And no we do not deal in "facts", as facts can change in a fluid situation like a war.14:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How is #Analyses of sources cherry picking?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So lets have some more

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/europe/2023/05/23/pyrrhic-victory-russia-claims-bakhmut-but-at-what-cost/

https://www.cnas.org/press/in-the-news/russia-claims-bakhmut-but-some-see-a-pyrrhic-victory

https://theweek.com/news/defence/960925/bakhmut-battle-coming-to-an-end-russia-victory

Its not just one source. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you are replying to me: are you stupid? Are you even capable of answering anything without distorting and answering something completely different? I asked about how is analysing randomly sampled sources cherry picking, and you answer with even more cherry picking (linking to articles that show up in a "Russian Pyrrhic victory" Google search). If you weren't replying to me with those links, please say so and I'll strike through this reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, if there is a dispute we (per wp:npov do not take sides (its called wp:policy). We do not have to have a result, we can wait (per wp:notnews) until there is post event analysis that assigns victory and places it in a wider context. So do we need even more sources, making it clear this is not, in fact, a clear-cut Russian victory? This is why I say wait until the war is over, when the dust is cleared and no one has anything to gain. If this was a clear-cut (both tactical and strategic) Russian victory RS will say so, and then so can we. We can wait. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As expected, you went on another tangent to "escape". Well, at least the timing was better since de-escalation was welcome here. But this "cane"/argument of yours won't work forever. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Its not a new argument, I have been saying this from the off. And with that, I will not be responding to you anymore until you can stop commenting on me. Assume that silence is not acquiescence, but is, in fact, opposition, until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Its not a new argument, I have been saying this from the off. Exactly, most of us know this already. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There is always a "dispute". If we had to always take marginal positions into account (and not just note them), nothing would get done here. So, the question is: is this a prominent position among reputable sources 'right now'? Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian losses "per Wagner"

Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose.

Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure. It can be left within article body but I'm removing it from the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither side is reliable for statements of fact regarding casualties because ultimately there is no fact around them. Only Ukraine, Russia and Wagner know their own losses and this won't come out until well after the war. Saying one estimate is more reliable than the other when they ultimately can't be seems like cherry picking to me. Furthermore, it makes the infobox imbalanced. Show both sides in a balanced way and with proper atribution, or show none. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither side is reliable for statements of fact regarding casualties
— User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No, US estimates, BBC estimates, and Journal of Advanced Military Studies article estimates are much more reliable regarding losses, and Prigozhin has no reliability at all. Even Ukraine estimates are more reliable then Russian sources estimates.

Saying one estimate is more reliable than the other when they ultimately can't be seems like cherry picking to me
— User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that's stating facts. Prigozhin estimates have no reliability at all.

Furthermore, it makes the infobox imbalanced. Show both sides in a balanced way and with proper atribution, or show none.
— User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The balance is achieved among and using reliable sources. We are to not to use unreliable sources to achieve balance. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Still dispute. Wagner's estimate, the main party in the battle, is at least quite relevant. This feels like an abuse of the argument of reliability, maybe a simplistic interpretation of the principle. By the way, this is all WP:AGF, that's why I'm using words like "feels like" and "maybe"... While I agree that an academic source is surely more reliable, I thought it was quite inadequate to keep the "less reliable" estimates only tending towards one side. This ties to your initial comment of: Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure., which I found quite concerning as it seems like a crude and convenient oversimplification. I would really appreciate if other uninvolved editors weighted in on this too. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Still dispute. Wagner's estimate, the main party in the battle, is at least quite relevant.
— User:Alexiscoutinho 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's called notable, not relevant. That's why we include it into article body, attributed. That doesn't make it reliable.

it was quite inadequate to keep the "less reliable" estimates only tending towards one side. This ties to your initial comment of: Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure., which I found quite concerning as it seems like a crude and convenient oversimplification.
— User:Alexiscoutinho 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Russian-side sources are widely unreliable and this is their problem, not wikipedia's. We are still to not to use fringe sources to achieve a false "balance". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Another thing. The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize and give an overall view of the content of the article. This implies fairly and in a balanced way representing the views of the article. If in the process it makes an unbalanced representation of the content, then it's not fulfilling its purpose and is doing something wrong. It doesn't make sense for only the infobox to have a higher threshold of reliability. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, there are no proofs in this discussion for Prigozhin numbers reliability, and he is unreliable thus has no place in the infobox. He is unreliable per any threshold of reliability and return of his numbers is unwarranted. Balance is about balance among reliable sources and is to be achieved using reliable sources. That has all already been discussed and answered and we are in no need to repeat. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also no proof that those other estimates are more reliable for statements of fact, they don't refer to confirmed numbers after all. The publishing sources are all generally reliable. However, there is no proof that the figures of each viewpoint/party are really accurate. As such, we give WP:DUE weight to each viewpoint and properly attribute them. I fear that unless more editors participate here or this discussion is moved to WP:RSN, the discussion won't progress.

As an alternative, I propose moving all the varying estimates of strength and casualties from the infobox section to the body of the article and keep only a generic word like "Heavy" for each side or just link to the sections, like was done in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive page. This would be the least controvertial and most impartial solution and would clean up the infobox. We should only keep facts there and information that there is consensus on. What do you think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Prigozhin vs Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx casualty numbers reliability for the infobox ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to say my piece. I agree totally with Alexis Coutinho. We can not pick and choose which estimates we use. Both sides claims are equally reliable or unreliable. The most balanced and neutral way is to present both sides estimates of their own casualties and those of their enemy and attribute them properly for the reader to have a proper understanding. Which is generally done in all war articles. If we removed Wagner's estimate of Ukrainian casualties, we should also remove Ukraine's estimate of Wagner's casualties as well. Removing Wagner's, while leaving Ukraine's creates a non-neutral disbalance. An alternative would be to just say in the infobox that the estimates of the casualties vary and provide a link to the casualties section where all of them would be mentioned. EkoGraf (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx reliability

In fact, I would ask you to demonstrate how that "academic source" you cited is objectively "more reliable" than all the other estimates. I've checked the publication and I really wasn't impressed. Firstly, it's a review piece that talks about the war as a whole, thus talks about a bit of everything. The only part I found that was related to casualties in the battle of Bakhmut was this: In Bakhmut, the most intense of these battles, recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. That's it. In a sea of other text, the author only says this. And it doesn't even seem like he made the estimate. It seems like he's drawing from other estimates. Which estimates? Ukrainian estimates? US estimates? It's not clear and maybe we just can't know. The only nearby reference [45] is from a NYT article from the start of the war. So I really don't see much credibility with that statement. At first glance, that "academic ref" just seems like an adornment and, as such, I'll partly comment it out until consensus is gained for its inclusion. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Project MUSE - Russia's War in Ukraine: Two Decisive Factors (jhu.edu) is published in Journal of Advanced Military Studies (usmcu.edu) and JAMS uses a double anonymous peer review process to evaluate submissions. Subject matter experts who specialize in military history, national security, international relations, social science topics are recruited from internal and external agencies to support JAMS's annual publishing process. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the author's attribution: Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx is professor emeritus, Department of Sociology, Duke University, where he also served as vice provost for international affairs and director of the Center for International Studies. He has published eight books and 200 articles and chapters, a number of which deal with military and security issues. Looks to me like he knows a bit (or enough) of many things. In fact, his degrees are all in Sociology. I'm not saying he's lying. Those estimates he's referring to are very likely real. But the thing is, it doesn't seem like those are his estimates, so his qualifications are mostly useless to that statement. That is not an article dedicated to battle of Bakhmut, let alone the casualties of it. Therefore, the citation is malformed or at least misrepresented. Furthermore, it doesn't mean very much what JAMS talks about itself. There are plenty of "bad journals" out there that would say good stuff about themselves. Ideally, another source should say how qualified JAMS is, or simply other well respected editors here. But once again, I'm not implying that JAMS is unreliable/lying, I'm willing to believe it is good even without knowing much about it. I aimed mostly to nullify that unsatisfactory argument as a sole response, ie. I wanted you to use a stronger argument to convince me or advance the discussion elsewhere (ie. how to reach a compromise instead of who's right or wrong). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention, even if there is indeed a double anonymous peer review process, I wouldn't be surprised if not all statements were fully fact checked. I believe the purpose of the check is to mostly validate the general conclusions and most important statements of the publication. How could the reviewers fact check vague/opaque statements like that? This is not natural sciences... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This journal is used more than 150 times " Journal of Advanced Military Studies" site:wikipedia.org - Google Search currently so I'd say there is a consensus regarding its reliability now. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just note that this isn't my point btw. As a side note though, reliability of a journal doesn't really come from the number of Google search hits, it comes from the amount of citations in other journals. I'm not asking you to provide this info and I get your point of reliability of JAMS. I'm just trying to help you out (make stronger arguments) for maybe future discussions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement of results

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 this even an issue? It's very clear Russia has won the battle, the objective for the Russians was to take the city which they succeeded while the Ukrainian objective was to defend and hold the city which they failed. There seems to be some potential biasness that had caused the delay of the results. There has been excuses from "it wasn't a Russian Victory because no reliable sources says it was" to "Russian forces suffer a lot of casualties so it wasn't a victory". This is ridiculous, I see that a ECR and RFC was created but these are useless as they have failed to resolve anything, the only thing we have gotten from them is that it has exposed certain editors of being potentially bias and supporting a side in the conflict which is unbecoming of an editor. I already expect these same editors to explain to me how a consensus needs to be reached even though the majority of the editors in the RFC agree it is a Russian Victory. I don't expect it to be resolved anytime soon and I really won't be surprised if Russia took all of Eastern Ukraine and they still won't consider the battle a Russian Victory. TheMilitaryHistorian1939 (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh you don't even know the full timeline of it!

Before the whole result shenanigans, the same editors held this page in the "still ongoing" limbo, refusing to acknowledge the battle ended in May at all. The idea behind it was probably to buy time for the, at the time, so very anticipated Ukrainian summer counteroffensive. And they held it in that limbo for a good 6 months give or take. Only once it became clear to everyone that the counteroffensive petered out, and there was no chance in Bakhmut getting liberated (although there was no sign of fighting in Bakhmut proper past May), does the scope of the article revert to Bakhmut, and a new chapter of the saga begins - who won? Yes the fight ended in May, they succumbed, and yes Russia controls the town proper for close to a year now, but who really won, asked the editors?

Apparently, the goal of the Ukrainian army was to lose the town, but inflict "a lot" of casualties on the Russians, and, apparently they won. They never wanted the town to remain in their territory, that would be silly. Totally didn't push for retaking it either during 2023. Nonsense.

In short, there are some serious mental gymnastics at work here, but its not all bad. The silver lining for me personally, was to open my eyes at the fact that wikipedia is sadly infiltrated by politics, at least when it comes to current events. Battle of Bakhmut got way too much press for it to lead to a wiki article with Russian Victory plastered all over it, it seems. It will get there eventually of course, it has to, but this journey sure is bizarre. Jovanmhn (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

See RFC/ 11:10, 21 February 2024 (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.

Why aren't results showing?

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.

---

Because once again editors on Wikipedia can't admit that it's a Russian Victory so they rather have no results then show it as a victory for the Russian side . This is the reason why nobody takes Wikipedia serious anymore it's literally Reddit 2.0. I'm not going to waste my time writing a proper argument because their just going to take it downb anyways. Shame on you editors, the reality of the war won't change because you don't accept it. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

its being discussed, above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the discussion? Russia took control of Bakhmut so they won, it's very simple. The matter of the fact is that the ukrainians supporters are trying to do some type of mental gymnastic to try to avoid admitting it , if it was the other way around you guys wouldn't even discuss it, you would quickly just say it was a Ukrainian victory. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Mental gymnastics indeed. The whole stance that Ukraine won this battle because it traded positively with Russia is honestly kind of ridiculous.

By that logic you could say the Germans won every battle in world war II just because they traded positively in most, if not all, their battles with Russians.

By applying this "logic" you could say that they chained 50 victories that led to an unconditional surrender. Utter nonsense. it's kind of ridiculous that this is even being entertained to be honest 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note moving forward every reply I will make to these comments will be "comment in the RFC". Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, you're not going to say anything new you would just make up some excuse for not accepting the actual results of the battle just to avoid saying that it was a Ukrainian defeat LegendaryChristopher (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah, because that is where you are protected from the outrage of the average non-500-edits wikipedia reader.

The fact that so many of these threads are appearing all the time tells stories for itself.

No one agrees with your stance in the rfc either, just like no one agreed with the ones before, its just something you use to delay edits you don't like by months on end. Just like it was for the end date/ongoing debate, just like it will probably be for something else once this is completed.

I presume you are not really breaking any rules, but this is a prime example rules should be changed. You shouldn't be allowed to initiate any more of these rfcs, you delayed this page long enough. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2024 (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.