Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Bakhmut article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 21 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Battle of Bakhmut, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Wagner or Russian troops be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about whether the battle is over. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.

Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

WP:ECR[edit]

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.

Per WP:ECR: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

Non-ECP users may not initiate or otherwise participate in discussions at this talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

15-20% of what[edit]

@Slatersteven, regarding your undo [1] , the source says with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is what we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was saying "15 - 20% of Russian" under Casualties and losses, what is there to say it better? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A, its not a figure, B, why not say (if we have to have this range) 15-20% of Russian casualties? Also (at best) this is a snap shot (both sets of figures) that will change daily. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not say (if we have to have this range) 15-20% of Russian casualties?
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The column title already says that but I'm not against it.

Also (at best) this is a snap shot (both sets of figures) that will change daily.
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

They aren't changing since the battle has ended. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd as I am sure elsewhere people have said it might. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source, it’s clearly referring to total losses. Full quote, "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." Tomissonneil (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the proposal would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10-20% of Russian losses (or casualties, it doesn’t matter). Tomissonneil (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As in, that’s what it should say in the infobox. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how and why did that suddenly become "10-20%"? 213.47.35.190 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, because he said that Ukraine’s losses were 10-20% of Russia’s? Tomissonneil (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figures from the article by Gilbert W. Merkx were commented out in consequence of this discussion at WP:RSN. Furthermore, if something cannot be simply summarised in the infobox (ie a range), rather than the extent of detail we have now, it does not belong in the infobox. Per WP:VNOT, this did not and has not achieved consensus to be reinstated to the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Why Prigozhin figures were left in the infobox then? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should all go. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the range for Ukrainian figures can be left out, since he doesn’t technically provide an exact figure, but he does for the Russians, so I feel that at least should be included in the infobox. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make page for "Battle of Ivanivske"?[edit]

This is just my opinion, but I think we should create a "Battle of Ivanivske" page for the ongoing battle in Ivanivske.

The village/small town of Ivanivske is one of the main gateways for the RFC to enter the city of Chasiv Yar, similar to the Battle of Soledar which was the gateway for the RAF to enter the city of Bakhmut.

In addition, some news media reported that the RFC is trying to capture the village/small town[1][2][3], and the ISW reported that there is intense fighting (in my opinion) in Ivanivske[4][5][6]. Bukansatya (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for this discussion, Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the right place to discuss this? Bukansatya (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Russo-Ukrainian War‎ might be a start. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for helping Bukansatya (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Verdun & Stalingrad comparisons in lede[edit]

I understand these are sourced, but I feel the need to question and ask for other Wikipedians' input regarding the inclusion of comparisons to the battles of Verdun and Stalingrad. Having spent much time reading and studying these battles, particularly Stalingrad, I fail to see a correlation between the two. Those battles were on such a more massive scale, had many more strategic implications, and bear few resemblances to these battles in general. Does the inclusion of such comparisons really improve the article?

The sources seem to be articles by large news corporations making largely sensationalist comparisons, with scant tangible historical evidence in said articles to support them. Typically just vague statements like: "the Battle of Bakhmut echoes Verdun/Stalingrad" citing "urban combat", "house-to-house fighting", and other vignettes which could be drawn from practically any other large conventional war of the last century. I do not think such associations contribute much to informing readers about the actual content of the Battle of Bakhmut itself. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are unnecessary editorialising unsuited to a Wiki article, particularly when sourced from WP:NEWSORG. Every second battle appears to get some such comparison. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that the historical comparisons to larger, more strategically significant battles should not be mentioned in the lede as it does not seem like an appropriate comparison and seems to be more editorializing sourced by sensationalist news reports than strictly encyclopedic. I would support removing mentions of historical battles from the lede, but keep them in the Analysis section. RopeTricks (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After checking, everything after "The battle of Bakhmut has been described as a "meat grinder" and a "vortex" for both the Ukrainian and Russian militaries." should be removed from the lede in my opinion. Just let that be the last sentence. RopeTricks (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties in infobox[edit]

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox is a place for simple summaries of key facts from the article. It should be supported by the article and the article should remain complete with the infobox removed. Unfortunately, we often see editors more intent on populating the infobox rather than editing the article such that the two are inconsistent. We should not be writing the article in the infobox. The casualties section for Ukraine is populated with conflicting information from multiple sources, which, in cases, are given as ranges or lower limits. The quantum of casualties from the battle cannot be described as a fact. It cannot be simply summarise. There is nuance to the reports that we do have, for which the infobox is unsuited. Consequently, the casualty information should be removed from the infobox and, where information has not been incorperated into the casualties section of the article, it should be added there. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sid it before and I repeat it, let's leave it out until the war is over and historians talk about it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement here. There is no way to know the casualty figures. The only "estimates" we have are from contemporary Western sources, which have an obvious vested interest in inflating those numbers. Even more so for Ukrainian claims. We likely won't know the true numbers for decades, until the the Russian Ministry of Defense declassifies them, or they are released in some other way. True Soviet casualty figures for many battles from WWII were not known until the 1990s, for example. Better to leave it empty until we have multiple reliable sources after the battle has been properly studied. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Territorial Changes to "Russian capture of Bakhmut" Hollowww (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That phrase doesn't seem to appear in a location where your proposed change makes grammatical sense. PianoDan (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]