Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Will the Battle of Avdiivka also be considered a Russian non-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.

---

I am asking becasue Avdiivka looks like it will fall within the month, and it has been described in very similar terms with Bakhmut by main stream sources - large casualties on both sides with Ukraine eventually getting cauldroned, logistically strangled and "boiled" out of the city. So what qualities are there that have been identified as identifying a "non-victory?" Is it too much casualties for Russians? Too much destruction of the city? Too few Ukrainian KIA and WIA? Why was Marinka considered a victory but Bakhmutt not? Genuinely curious because the issues of this debate can theoretically be applied again and again to every future battle of this war, and even the past battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5589:6E00:3169:F12D:B030:CBDD (talk) 16:09, 15 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.

Congrats

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.

---

Congrats editors! The Talk section of the article has so much drama it has become more interesting than the article itself.

I come back daily to see who's bitching at who, it's like a soap opera the wiki way! 83.50.61.121 (talk) 00:03, 17 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.

Problem with Sky News source for Ukrainian loses

While trying to help in the discussion at RSN about sources I've noted an issue with one of the source in the article. Current this Sky News[1] article is used as a reference for the 20,000+ Ukrainian loses according to Western Sources.
However the source actually says "Yet over 100,000 Russians and well over 20,000 Ukrainians have - to date - been killed or injured in this grinding war of attrition", making clear the figures are for the war not just the battle of Bakhmut. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be removed. I have seen a similar report to this (ie it made a reference to the greater war) which was removed also. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Steps that have to be followed to call this a Russian Victory

Hello. What are the steps that need to be followed to finally call this a Russian Victory? I'm new to Wikipedia RfCs and I was wondering what are the steps necessary to end this ridiculous situation. Thanks 83.50.57.69 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

For an IP editor, the most you could do is wait for the result of the RfC above, which is exclusive to ECP editors. Well, actually something you could attempt do is offer new strong and constructive arguments that could be used by ECP editors to enhance the RfC discussion. However, it seems that most arguments have already been raised. But something that's never too much is expanding the size of the array (or making a new one) of sampled sources used to find out what most sources say and find where the consensus is. Though the amount of work to meaningfully contribute in that front is quite high. Even though I tried to encourage, for a long time, other editors to engage in this form of analysis of sources, none actually did (besides Cinderella157 who started it all). Well, I guess that would be expecting too much from volunteer editors. Hope this reply was satisfactory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. When you say "consensus", do you mean that everyone has to be in favor of the decision made, if not things can't move forward? For example if 95% of contributors want to go ahead and mark it as a Russian Victory and 5% do not, is that stuck like that until you find a common ground? 83.50.57.69 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS WP:RFC. (Hohum ^@) 21:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 83.50.57.69 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

😅 I was not clear when I talked about "consensus". I actually meant source consensus, not editor consensus. I unnecessarily attempted to use the term as a rough synonym for "most sources" (thus the rough value I thought of was >70% acceptance). But such duplication implied that the subject was different, which is why I think Hohum thought that I was talking about Wikipedia consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment in the RFC. If you are not allowed to, then please do not ask for this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Result !

This is the first time I've read a battle related Wikipedia article without a result! Russia is the clear winner here. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have something constructive to add to the RfC discussion, RFC Russian Victory (above), please contribute there. In the mean time, opening new sections on this talk page concerning the result or changing the result in the article's infobox can be considered disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Prigozhin claims again

Greetings! @Alexiscoutinho, please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war [2] . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a frivolous accusation! It could equally be argued that you are pushing these extreme Western estimates down our throat and expecting everyone to accept it as a fact when it's, by definition, NOT. You should reread that long discussion we held at WP:RSN and also WP:INTEXT. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's focus our attention on the issue raised. Please reach the consensus first before giving too much weight to Prigozhin claims. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so why are you against a casualty estimates range with intext attribution? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No strawman please. If you don't address the argument - it stays. Prigozhin claims are not estimates, and we don't give them the same weight as academic analysis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me also add that you also didn't reach consensus when adding a single estimate to the aftermath summary. Would you prefer if that whole statement was gone? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're also reverting buddy. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Prigozhin claims are not estimates, and we don't give them the same weight as academic analysis. Fundamentally disagree. It's not our job to judge analyses or estimates per WP:CLAIM. We report them with WP:DUE weight and proper attribution (WP:INTEXT). Something that I truly believe I did in that range statement. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Prigozhin is reliable for statements by the Wagner group. This was already explained in that discussion (you know which one). And you still didn't seem to get that this is not about reliability. These are estimates and they have a lot of uncertainty. Why do you think the IISS said "up to" instead of just four times? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The battle is over, Russia controls Bakhmut, and Prigozhin was present in there(unlike some random "expert" in the couch in London). Hell - he even claimed losses for Wagner. ManyAreasExpert is some grifter pushing an agenda 2804:1B3:A882:8F61:2D08:E614:11CE:FE04 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And you need to read wp:npa. And the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

heavy losses Ukraine suffered during the battle

[3] some observers even linked the heavy losses Ukraine suffered during the battle with the failures of the subsequent counteroffensive - @Alexiscoutinho, I don't see it in source, please provide the quote, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure:

The decision to defend it at all costs was not without controversy at the time, and it was not clear who the attrition in men and munitions would ultimately advantage.

Some observers now believe the results are evident in the southern offensive, and it is Ukraine, which came off worse.

Although Russia lost at least three times as many men as Ukraine in Bakhmut, most of them were press-ganged prisoners or recently mobilised conscripts.

If Ukraine had retreated to the hills behind Bakhmut instead of trying to hold the city at all costs, they might have preserved some of their best and most experienced brigades, like the 93rd Mechanised, a fearsome veteran formation, and the 3rd Assault, the highly motivated successor to the Azov Regiment, for the southern push.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Now, I have asked below why you removed academic estimates but are in favor of adding mass media analysis, as soon as it highlights Ukraine's poor performance. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to explain this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IISS removal from Aftermath section

Greetings! @Alexiscoutinho , I opened a request (link) regarding your removal [4] of academic article estimate. No argument justifying the removal of academic source has been offered however. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: I'm well aware of that and have already replied there. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is only to reference that you provided no argument for academic estimate removal there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Read more carefully, please. I said I had no problems with the estimate, I showed concern though that it was being used standalone in a section with no other counterbalancing casualty figures. The justification to remove it was because the statement was unbalanced if it wasn't a range of estimates, which is only adequate for a single sentence casualty estimates summary. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it is unbalanced now, when you are in favor of adding analysis from the mass media, as soon as it highlights Ukraine's poor performance [5]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Then rebalance it with other sources/POVs. Not suppress them. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources should be used. I'm going to return the estimate then. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Btw, keep in mind WP:ONUS and please read my reply at the bottom of this section. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I urge you or anybody else. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I edited the opening comment but I see no way of removing the link while providing the link to the relevant discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The way it is now is fine. I see you managed to implicitly link to the relevant discussion. 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've cooled down now. I'll take this opportunity to say sorry for my previous heated and sometimes aggressive replies. 😉

@Manyareasexpert: But going back to the question at hand, would you be ok with saying that most estimates are closer to the IISS's or alternatively say that Wagner's estimate is an outlier in the casualties summary range citation? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a win-win for us/good compromise. I.e. "Casualty estimates for the Russian forces range from roughly half, an outlier estimate per Wagner, up to four times more, according to the IISS, than those for the Ukrainian forces, however Ukraine was losing valuable experienced soldiers, and Russian - Wagner forces were likely 70% ex-convicts." or "Casualty estimates for the Russian forces range from roughly half, a fringe estimate per Wagner, up to four times more, according to..." Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• There are two other threads that relates to what I have to say. I am choosing to address the matters here as they are all related. Per WP:RSN, there are reasonable concerns regarding Merkx and how we might use that source.

1. While Merkx cites other sources in what he writes, the casualty "figures" are attributed without a source. There is too much focus on populating the infobox to the detriment of improving the article. There is some support at WP:RSN for my view that discussion of casualties should be left to the body of the article for the present.
2. The IISS paper should be attributed to its authors. My take is that this is more an Op Ed by experts without clear evidence that is peer reviewed. It is nonetheless a very cogent analysis of how the war has been conducted through 2023. It particularly considers how Bakhmut relates to and has impacted the campaigning last year. This should have a prominent place in discussion of the result of Bakhmut. It should be compared and contrasted with other commentary from the better quality sources touching on this. Consequently, I would disagree with how and where this source is being introduced.
3. The present structure of the article after the battle section is a legacy of an ongoing battle. It requires a top-down structural review to produce a more coherent summary of the aftermath of the battle.
4. In respect to casualties, we should introduce and contrast (individually) the various sources that report on casualties. Prigozhin's claims do have a place in this. However, we are not really in a position to report a range of casualties at present. However, I would also have issue with the fuller text where this was done. Changing how the IISS article is discussed makes this particular point of contention redundant.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I accept your points. Then the estimates range isn't ideal. Perhaps my attempt to condense that much information in one phrase doomed it. But I'm a bit confused, are you suggesting us to explore the casualty estimates only in its dedicated section, or also talk about them in the Aftermath, perhaps in a dedicated paragraph? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that the present structure after the battle (section 3) needs to be reviewed because it is a legacy from an ongoing battle. The IISS paper is an analysis of the war and of this battle in the greater context of the war. Which is the best order to do things in? Analyse the war and then the casualties or the casualties and then the war? Probably the second but this is not how the article is presently structured. I'm not quite saying that the two need to be totally separate but we can't get sidetracked halfway through discussing one by starting to discuss the other. Summarising what the IISS paper has to say will significantly change the shape of the aftermath section. That particular section/paragraph (as written) will probably not have a place in a reshaped aftermath section. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's Russian forces estimate

There is a problem with the (50,300 troops, 330 tanks, 140 artillery systems) estimate now. It is dated to 30 June, when the battle (as defined here) was long over. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If so, then it's very out of scope. Should be substituted. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Move the end date to 21 May 2023

As I argued in the December 2023 RfC, sources indicate Russia hadn't captured the totality of Bakhmut by 20 May 2023. We don't have a reason to stick to Prigozhin's victory announcement.

• „98 bis 99 Prozent in russischer Hand“: Geisterstadt Bachmut vor dem Fall [“98 to 99 percent in Russian hands”: Ghost town of Bakhmut before the fall]. 20 May 2023. "Russian forces have virtually completely occupied Bakhmut. Videos from Bakhmut show that there is only fighting for the last few blocks. “Basically, between 98 and 99 percent of Bakhmut is in Russian hands,” says Colonel Markus Reisner of the Austrian Army. “There are only a few fights left on the western outskirts of the city over four high-rise complexes,” said Reisner in an interview with the editorial network Germany (RND). From these high-rise buildings, the last remaining Ukrainian soldiers could repel the attacks more easily."
• Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 21, 2023. 21 May 2023. "Ukrainian military officials reported that Ukrainian forces control an “insignificant” part of southwestern Bakhmut City around the T0504 highway — a tacit acknowledgement that Russian forces have secured the rest of western and northwestern Bakhmut, if not all of it.[1] These officials’ statements indicate that Ukrainian forces withdrew from the remaining areas in Bakhmut except those adjacent to the two highways into the city."
• Russia Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 22, 2023. 22 May 2023. "Geolocated footage published on May 21 shows that Wagner forces advanced towards the T0504 entrance to southwestern Bakhmut."

Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should be really certain about the details of the events to be able to say that a specific date is truly correct. I'm talking about knowing confirmed dates of geolocated footage, knowing dates of when an interviewed said what, etc. For example, in the first source you linked, it's unclear when those videos were published and when Markus Reisner said that. Furthermore, I must note that right after the transcribed text you provided it is said: "András Rácz, an expert on Russia's foreign, security and defense policy at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), confirmed to the RND: "In practice, the city is now completely taken over by the Russians."" which would suggest 100%.

I would also highly discourage contemplating the arguments of those Ukrainian military officials without evidence. It is natural for the defeated side to claim redeeming things. It happened a bunch of times already and from both sides. The latest case, I think, was the battle of Marinka where Ukrainian officials initially denied the fall of the city but were debunked a day later by the top general, iirc.

And regarding the final source, sadly just because the video was published on 21 May it doesn't mean it was filmed that day (this is specially true for drone footage, which from my experience seems to have a longer turnout time than, say, a news agency video [but I'm not a specialist to say this, it's just my feeling]) and it doesn't mean Wagner advanced there that day. That 21 May footage showed shelling by the way. For me, it doesn't seem like sources suggest the battle ended a day later, I think they only try to portray the uncertainty.

On a side note, what would Prigozhin gain from lying about the end date by 1 day? When they captured the last high-rise building it was clear that they had won. Besides, iirc, the edge of the Samolet/dacha area southwest of Bakhmut remained no man's land or possibly Ukrainian held for quite some time, which doesn't matter for the end date.

At the end of the day, there might never be a decisive end date (I hope there is). The geolocated footage that appeared on the following days generally corroborated Prigozhin's statement. Furthermore, his announcement was the most specific, he said that the last significant Ukrainian position (those buildings) were taken around noon, 20 May. Concluding, if it turns out that there isn't enough evidence to prove one day or the other, I believe the most notable end date should be used, which in this case would be the original announcement. I'm still fine with us digging more on this though, in the form of a timeline for example. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the fact they decided to add "in practice" precisely indicates it was not 100% of the city. I also don't believe Prigozhin "lied" just that either he was unaware of a small Ukrainian holdout being left if it still was there or being aware but ignoring it because it really is 1% or less of the city.

Still you made some good points. The German article I sent was published at 08:47 and you stated Prigozhin's annoucement came at noon if I understand correctly. Still I defend that 21 May is the first day we have definite, geolocated instance of Bakhmut being 100% under russian control. We can indeed not be sure if the videos were recorded a day earlier though (although I kind of feel like this is a stretch). Also, you gave the example of Marinka, but I can give the example of Soledar, in which Ukraine held a small bit of the town centered around a salt mine more than a week after russia declared victory. Ideally we would try to make something out of some other sources from the moment, perhaps then we can judge if we can argue russia's claim of controlling the whole of Bakhmut by 23:59 20 May is credible or not. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This might seem like obstruction, but I would want it to be viewed as stretching the arguments to enhance the discussion. The point that I only briefly hinted in my previous reply is that even with the sources you provided, we can't have certainty that Wagner captured 100% of the city proper even by 22 May. I'm talking about the Samolet/dacha area. In previous discussions (here, I think, and elsewhere), I repeatedly used this argument that that edge of Bakhmut city remained a grayzone, Russian held, or remotely even partially Ukrainian held for a long time (damn, by now I should have already checked the sources to decrease this, perhaps, excessive uncertainty), but that it didn't matter for the battle as a whole and for the status to be considered over. So here I use it again. Do we really want to find and use the date that Bakhmut was indeed 100% captured? Maybe that happened much later, perhaps even in late 2023, I don't remember. I would still be interested to really know this detail. Perhaps it could be added to the aftermath (if the date is way beyond May 2023). This would need more digging and perhaps a bit of WP:OR at first.

Having clarified this concern/doubt, I return to my suggestion, shouldn't we use the most notable date? Or perhaps one that is most commonly explicitly used in sources (if such encyclopedic sources already exist)? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that if the date in which Bakhmut was 100% captured was not long after 20 May, that should be the end date at the infobox. If it is too long after it (how long is "too long" is subjective though late 2023 should be uncontroversially regarded as too long indeed), then 20 May should remain in my view. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Ok. I think I shed some light on this. The first report that the ISW removed the Russian claim in the southwestern outskirts from their map is from 28 June. Strangely though, they don't talk about the event in the text it seems. They only label it in the image. From the description, it seems like they are refering to reference [44], which is a Rybar post from 27 June. Even in that post, Rybar doesn't explicitly talk about the situation in the southwestern outskirts in text, there's only the map. The map suggests that Ukraine held a semi-urban dacha area for a while and only recently (around 27 June) advanced further into the southwestern outskirts. But there is a big caveat... Looking at Rybar's map in that post, it makes it seem like the city limits englobe the semi-urban area (the area furthest southwest that still has streets) that Ukraine apparently held for longer. However, in both the ISW maps and Rybar's previous Bakhmut post map, the city perimeter does not englobe that area. By the way, in that previous Rybar post from 20 June, the city does appear to be completely Russian held and note that the red shaded region shows continuity when compared with his later post (so at least the shaded region is consistent, not the city perimeter).

So we're at a dilemma. First of all, where is really the city's perimeter in that region? Does it englobe the entirety of the semi-urban area, or does it cut through the middle of it? If we use ISW's as base, it would seem more reliable that the perimeter cuts through the middle. After all, I'm pretty sure the ISW map uses an official map as base. Rybar, on the other hand, has the liberty to draw whatever outline he wants, so it's not as reliable.

Putting all the information together, it seems most likely that Ukraine was indeed holding that semi-urban area outside the city limit since 20 May. Ukraine likely was considering that area as part of Bakhmut. We must also keep in mind that front lines are not real. What exists are front bands of either warzone or grayzone. Therefore, even Prigozhin and Maliar might not have exactly known up to which street their troops were holding. Then there's the matter of the event around 27 June. Was that advance actually real? It was barely talked about. Was it on 26 June, or maybe earlier, 21 June? We can't know for certain. Maybe it wasn't even real. We can't rule out that Ukraine also already had that area. But given it only barely runs into the city perimeter, it might fall into that grayzone case again.

So, all in all, I guess we could attempt to go into the nitty-gritty details and implications of this in the article, but I'm concerned if that would be relevant or even WP:OR. Because it would potentially feel like an analysis of probabilities and uncertainties of poorly sourced events. Maybe we could hint that Maliar was likely talking about the semi-urban area just outside the imaginary city limits? But even so, does any source explicitly contemplate that...? What do you think of this too, Cinderella157?

And before I forget, we could also do what I hinted before: ignore the situation in the southwestern region as irrelevant to the battle as a whole and only consider the end of the battle when Wagner took control of those last highrise buildings. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Indeed, much of this would not be able to be used in the article as it is WP:OR. They are also many technicalities and small details which maybe shouldn't be given much weight. Perhaps a short note could be enough, if we are able to reliably source it. I think we should stick to this smaller version of Bakhmut's boundaries, this is likely the official delimitation and as you said Rybar is open to using any delimitation it deems useful for its reporting. I've also seen this enlarged version of Bakhmut only from Rybar. Is this T0504 highway entrance that has been mentioned in some sources the same as the dacha outside of Bakhmut in its smaller definition? Super Ψ Dro 10:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this T0504 highway entrance that has been mentioned in some sources the same as the dacha outside of Bakhmut in its smaller definition? Pretty much. In the ISW report from 21 May you linked and quoted it says this: "Ukrainian military officials reported that Ukrainian forces control an “insignificant” part of southwestern Bakhmut City around the T0504 highway — a tacit acknowledgement that Russian forces have secured the rest of western and northwestern Bakhmut, if not all of it.[1]" Upon inspection of their reference the situation becomes clearer. The first tweet by Maliar, among other things, says this [translated]: "Our defenders maintain control over industrial and infrastructure facilities and the private sector of Bakhmut in the "Litak" area." The second Maliar (re)tweet says this [translated]: "Commander of the Ground Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi: Despite the fact that we currently control a small part of Bakhmut, the importance of its defense does not lose its relevance. This gives us the opportunity to enter the city in case of a change in the situation. And it will definitely happen." The third tweet by BBC Russian clarifies the locations [translated]: "The representative of the Eastern Group of Armed Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Sergei Cherevaty, in a commentary to Suspilna, said that the Ukrainian military manages to hold positions in the southwestern part of the city, there are heavy battles there. [...] “Our defenders retain control over industrial and infrastructure facilities and the private sector of Bakhmut in the Samolet [Litak] area ,” Malyar added." so Litak = Samolet area. The ISW probably considered the "industrial and infrastructure facilities" as north of the highway and outside city limits, while the "private sector" as south. Thus they decided to write "around the T0504 highway" in their report. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis Alexiscoutinho. I imagine this is a recent part of Bakhmut that expanded into formerly agricultural land but that Bakhmut's administrative borders were not changed to include. As it is legally not a part of the city but it is technically an extension of it (de jure vs. de facto), I think we could keep 20 May as the end date but briefly mention on a note that this adjacent private sector fell a day later. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the note, but the Samolet area fell to Russia months afterwards. I continued along the timeline and the first time the ISW map expands the Russian control in that region is in the Dec 5 report. Presumably they based the map update on Rybar's post on Dec 4 (ref [57]). In that report, the dacha area within official boundaries is claimed. Then in the Dec 13 report, it is said that geolocated footage from Dec 12 confirms the claim. According to the ISW, the city boundaries still weren't 100% captured because there was still a tiny blue region south of the Samolet area, technically belonging to Bakhmut. However, I don't know if that tiny blue region is still Samolet, the subject of this latest discussion. Then on Dec 19, Russian sources claimed advances in part of the extended dacha area. Then on Dec 22, geolocated footage partially confirmed the advance. On Dec 26, almost the entirety of that extended dacha area was claimed. More partial confirmation on Jan 10... On Jan 26, the frontline was claimed to have moved closer towards Ivanivske and as such the entirety of the extended southwestern dacha was claimed. More geolocation on Jan 29 and Feb 14. As of today, the ISW still paints most of the extended dacha area orange. However, it's most likely that Russia also captured the extended dacha area in December or January at the latest. The DeepState map already considers that whole region Russian-held for example.

Therefore I propose this note:

20 May 2023{{efn|Yevgeny Prigozhin declared victory on 20 May. Geolocated footage posted on 21–22 May confirmed Russian presence near the T0504 entrance to southwestern Bakhmut. However, Ukraine controlled the recently built{{verify}} Litak/Samolet area, in the southwestern outskirts, for another 7–8 months.}}

The references would go in the article body. The last sentence would be explained in the Aftermath and we should also look for a local Ukrainian source that gives more information about the Litak/Samolet area. Would be nice to know its boundaries for example. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I will quote the following passage from this version of the article:

On 21 May, the Ukrainian defence ministry claimed its forces were holding on to a sector of the city and were in the process of partly encircling its outskirts,[173] although officials described their holdout along the T0504 highway as "insignificant". Based on this, the ISW concluded that Ukrainian forces had indeed withdrawn from the city, except some fortified areas near the highway on the city's western approach.[5] Prigozhin again insisted the entirety of Bakhmut had been captured "right up to the last centimetre" and added that Wagner made no advances on 21 May as they were preparing to withdraw later in the week.[174] Geolocated footage published on 21 May showed that Wagner forces had advanced towards the Ukrainian holdout at the T0504 highway entrance. Clashes were reportedly taking place as of 22 May in localities neighboring Bakhmut.[8] On 23 May, the Ukrainian General Staff did not declare fighting in Bakhmut for the first time since December 2022. Ukrainian officials insisted that Ukraine held a position near the former MiG-17 monument in western Bakhmut in spite of footage showing Wagner forces near the monument. Fighting in the localities outside of Bakhmut's city limits continued.[9]

It is human nature to try to compartmentalise an event as having occurred between particular specific dates but the fact is that nobody walked out into no mans land and blew a whistle to declare the battle of Bakhmut over and the city captured. For that matter, they didn't blow game on either. In many battles, there is no clear distinction (at the time) as to when the battle finishes and the mopping up starts (or in this case, the further fighting is something different). It is certainly not up to us to try to determine who was where when in relation to some nominal or nominated magic line. That would be OR. We rely on what sources have to say. As we have already seen, contemporaneous sources have tended to be non-committal compared with six months down the track. My recollection of the sources reviewed for the RfC is that they have variously referred to the capture as occurring on 20 May (with Prigozhin's proclamation) or sometime shortly after but generally by the end of May. I am not certain if there is a consensus in sources for a particular date at this time (a closer review is needed). This uncertainty as to a specific end date can be capture by prose in the body of the article. Absent a consensus in good quality sources (not WP:NEWSORG) as to a specific end date, it is my view that it would be inappropriate to represent a specific end date in the infobox. We should confine ourselves to reporting the month (eg May) since this represents the precision present in sources at this time (in my estimation and subject to confirmation). Much the same applies to the start date and to the precision of the duration. Hope this is useful. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

When do RS (not OR) say it ended, as in "the battle of Bak has ended"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen such sources, though I never really looked for them. Also see Cinderella's reply above. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Bloodiest battle?

While seemingly appropriately sourced, and not speaking directly in Wikipedia's voice, is "bloodiest" really an appropriate term, especially in a lead? It has no concrete definition and seems WP:FLOWERY. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate, as it is sourced well with most if not all sources using the term of "bloodiest" or similar terms. Also comparable are Stalingrad which is stated in the lead as "the bloodiest battle of the Second World War" or Okinawa's lead which states that the "battle was the bloodiest in the Pacific". Reaper1945 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Result

why the result is deleted? It's a Russian victory Gattor1 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it, it was a Russian Victory SCPdude629 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

AS I read the RFC D is the preferred option (NOT a, WHICH IS THE OPTION YOU CHOSE), but it has not closed yeT. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Its being delayed with malicious intent. Just like it needed 4-5 months to get an end date, after it clearly ended in May.

The RFC results are a surprise to no one, including the people who initiated it. But its a way to not have the result in the infobox for another month+.

Its how wikipedia works these days. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Now what you can do is ask for a formal close, and then we will see what consensus supports. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

New responses are still being added, so that would seem premature at the moment. (Hohum ^@) 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

But they would still have to ask for a close, and not just make the edit. Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically, a closure request isn't needed nor advisable when the consensus is obvious. However, as Hohum said, the RfC is still active with people participating. Better wait till it expires and the Legobot does its thing. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you expect a sudden influx of opinions who want it called a Ukrainian victory? Because right now, 14/16 want it called what it is - a Russian victory. Might as well call it honestly, this travesty lasted long enough. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, and it's not a clear WP:AVALANCHE for a specific option, I don't think it's going to take much longer though. (Hohum ^@) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the RfC have shown very clear results already. This debacle have gone on long enough, literally just stop your losses and admit Russia won. Nebakin (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The outcome to the battle should be acknowledged

Note: The OP of this section was made by a non-ECP user. A good-faith edit moved this section to be part of the discussion of #RFC Russian Victory. While it is directly related to that discussion, it also contains comments by non-ECP editors who may not participate in the RfC per WP:GSRUSUKR. Consequently, I have removed this from being a sub-section of the RfC but retained its proximity to the RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The occupation of Bakhmut by Russia has been widely reported by most Western media outlets, corroborated by the Ukrainian withdrawal announcement. This victory significantly impacted the subsequent failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The reluctance to acknowledge this outcome, based solely on the high casualties of the attacking side is unsubstantiated, given the absence of strategic objectives achieved by the Ukrainian defenders. The proposition to await scholarly analysis and historians' opinions for assessing the war's outcome has significant limitations, due to the lack of a specified timeframe and concerns about the selection criteria for such evaluations. Maintaining radical neutrality and objectivity in refraining from recognizing an apparent defeat of the Ukrainian forces is essential, as failure to do so may be perceived as a biased act by monitors, potentially contributing to the promotion of propaganda by one side of the conflict. Tung X. Nguyen (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This victory
— User:Tung X. Nguyen 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources rarely say this and most reliable characterize the outcome as "attritional for both sides", see Aftermath section. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

stop ignoring the territorial changes, its cringe!

Make as many RfCs ad you want, delay all you want, doesn't change the facts!

Russia won the battle and not only that, but reversed all the gains around Bakhmut Ukraine had during the failed counteroffensive 62.4.44.220 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the rfc shows that literally not a single editor agrees with your stance.

opening that rfc in the first place could, and should, be considered disruptive. It was just a way for you to delay the inevitable edit for a month.

Its not even your first time. You should be prevented from starting rfcs in the future, you are clearly biased, and if the results of the rfc itself dont tell you that, than I really don't know what will. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

rarely most reliable proof? WP:OR unless otherwise demonstrated with non-cherry picked sources, i.e. random sampling. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I am not sure using "Look at RfC" is an argument one wants to make especially when that section is so overwhelmingly in favour of Russian victory, it borderlines absurd. Avdiivka was already listed as a Russian victory faster than this charade. If the consensus is such that it is a Russian victory to an overwhelmingly absurd degree, than the wiki page should reflect that sentiment given that Ukraine was unable to do anything substantial to Bakhmut even at the height of the Counteroffensive, which also failed. 42Grunt (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Becasue this is not about what I think, it is about asking people to not post the same question we are already discussing. It helps no one to have this split into 15 different threads. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

NO ONE shares your opinion. you are just delaying the article from reflecting the factual state.

There was zero need for that rfc, and you know it very well. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop with unsubstantiated claims and discussing editors behaviors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

its self evident, substantiated by their own disruptive behavior which forms a clear and biased pattern 97.103.129.121 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well then. Then lets not beat around the bush shall we and stop dilly-dallying on this issue. As I already said, if the consensus has been this overwhelming and consistent for months now, then it should be appropriate to put in the results inside the infobox. The reason why this "same question" has been posted time and time again, is because editors - named or anon - are getting fed up with what they perceive as obstructing what is effectively common knowledge by now. A Ukrainian defeat and a Russian victory. How long shall one drag this issue before the results are finally put in the infobox? Ten years? Because when readers come on board to read this page, and they see that the battle has long concluded but with no results. They are going to get very suspicious of biases and non-partiality. 42Grunt (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus should be among reliable sources and the consensus is it was attritional battle for both, some even saying a "pyrrhic victory" for Russia, after that it's difficult to call it a "win". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A pyrrhic victory would have to include the attacking side losing enough forces that it becomes unable to successfully conduct more offensive actions. That is clearly not the case, as the Russians regained all the ground north of bakhmut lost during the counteroffensive, and are now threatening Ivanivske and Chasiv Yar (which has been evacuated recently)

There is no support for Pytthic victory in the rfc either, so unsure why even bring that up. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given how said sources eventually admitted that the UAF's debacle on Bakhmut cost them the Counteroffensive, to call Bakhmut a Russian "Pyrrhic victory" is laughable. I already said it before, but the UAF traded its most experienced units to fight against low-value Russian penal battalions. Bakhmut was one of the key lynchpin on why the Counteroffensive failed. And failed it did. The only time "reliable" sources said it was a Russian "Pyyrhic" victory was those published immediately after Bakhmut was lost, as a piecemeal coping mechanism. But eventually, those same sources came to admit that Bakhmut screwed the UAF far more than the Russians which were only using low-value prison fodder. So yes. Not only was it a Russian win. It was a Russian win that accomplished its goals of bleeding Ukraine white as admitted by Prighozhin himself. I have already stated it before hand. There is no beating around the bushes around this outside of actual copium, since even Western sources are admitting this. 42Grunt (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  to call Bakhmut a Russian "Pyrrhic victory" is laughable
  — User:42Grunt 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's not an argument to dismiss ISW which is considered reliable military studies source. See "Aftermath" article section for more military studies sources objecting "Russia win". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody knows the ISW is crazy biased in judgement of value. That ISW assessment was utter garbage written by, guess who, an Ukrainian, and right after the loss of the city. I only kept it there because it's properly attributed and a critical reader would understand the concerns of an assessment by an Ukrainian right after a big symbolic defeat. It hardly has any credibility and was extremely premature and, as such, superficial. It assumed Russia would have had severe issues after the battle when it was in fact Ukraine that had a tougher time after the battle during the counteroffensive. As 42Grunt suggested, most if not all of the pyhrric assessments came right after the battle, and when it was clear that the counteroffensive was doomed, some even reverted their assessments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody knows the ISW is crazy biased in judgement of value. That ISW assessment was utter garbage written by, guess who, an Ukrainian, and right after the loss of the city.
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is not an argument to treat it as unreliable. Even more, ISW is in line with other academic RSs at "Aftermath" section stating the battle was attritional for both. Other then that, nothing substantiated there to discuss. The only thing the sources have consensus on is that Bakhmut remains were taken over by Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is not an argument to treat it as unreliable. This is a deflective comment. I have said nothing about unreliability. They're 2 different things. I was talking about bias in judgement of value (victory vs defeat...). Jesus. ISW is in line with other academic RSs at "Aftermath" section stating the battle was attritional for both. Another potential deflection. Where did I say that the battle wasn't attritional for both? In fact, which Aftermath source, if any, said the battle wasn't attritional for both? The main point being argued here is that, despite attrition, Russia came out on top. I've added a citation in the article btw to also show this POV. Other then that, nothing substantiated there to discuss. Address the initial 2 concerns I raised before potentially trying to brag. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need to address "ISW is biased" claims as not relevant, as it is enough for us to acknowledge it's reliable.

  despite attrition, Russia came out on top
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 19:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out before, sources agree Bakhmut was taken by Russia. That we can add. Sources are in no agreement it was a win for Russia however, see above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  it is enough for us to acknowledge it's reliable. Sure, it is generally reliable for statements of fact, such as relaying what others said, geolocating videos, territorial changes, etc. Estimates and opinions/analyses are not statements of fact, therefore you can't overly endorse them just because the source is reliable for other things. Sources are in no agreement it was a win for Russia however, see above. It's obvious that there will never be a complete agreement. The Ukrainians will hardly ever call it a defeat. And I've already given a very solid evidence in that review of sources from the previous RfC that a majority of sources consider the battle an overall Russian victory. A general consensus is enough for the infobox. We don't need complete consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  review of sources from the previous RfC that a majority of sources consider the battle an overall Russian victory
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  The correct saying would be - one Wikipedia author's collection of sources review says that a majority of sources from that collection considers the battle an overall Russian victory.

  Military academic studies disagree, see above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wrong. It is not MY collection. It's a methodological collection/sampling. In fact, Cinderella157 collected those sources, I extracted the tags. Anyone could do it (reproduce it) and the results would very likely be the same. Contest it with another sampling. Not by cherry-picking over and over again. i.e. Military academic studies disagree is a distortion. The cited National Interest and Wavell Room sources demonstrate it. You can't just claim that generic statement, the most you could say is "some or many (if you quantitatively demonstrate it) military academic studies disagree". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody can review the recent sources and see there is no "Russia win" consensus in regards to Bakhmut and there is "Bakhmut was taken by Russia" however.

  Russia claims full control of Avdiivka, says Ukrainian troops still in town | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera biggest gain since capturing the city of Bakhmut in May 2023 - no Russia win.

  Maps: Where Ukraine Is Fighting to Hold Back Russian Onslaught - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Russia destroyed and then seized the city of Bakhmut in May, its last significant territorial gain on the battlefield before advancing on Avdiivka this week. By the time the Russians took Bakhmut, their forces were exhausted, and the Wagner mercenary group that led the fight was in open rebellion against the Russian ministry of defense. - no Russia win.

  Ukraine troops withdraw from frontline city of Avdiivka in victory for Moscow (france24.com) the most significant territorial gain for Russian forces since they seized the eastern city of Bakhmut last May ... Many compare it to the battle for Bakhmut, in which tens of thousands of soldiers were killed. - no Russia win. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Come on man. Just because a source doesn't write "Russian victory/win" it doesn't mean it doesn't consider it a Russian success. It could very well be implying a victory, but prefers to be more neutral/cold to not promote Russia. This is what is called an inconclusive sample. Most samples in the review of sources of the previous RfC were inconclusive regarding if the battle was over. What are meaningful are the sources with direct judgement: victory, win, defeat, pyhrric victory, etc. For example, there are many news articles that talk about the capture of Avdiivka that just say "Russia captured it", it's generally implied that Russia was victorious in that battle, otherwise they would obviously make a counterpoint/caveat. That's common sense. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  What are meaningful are the sources with direct judgement: victory, win, defeat, pyhrric victory, etc.
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, all the sources must be considered, and if all are considered, there is no "russian victory" consensus but the contrary.

  For example, there are many news articles that talk about the capture of Avdiivka that just say "Russia captured it", it's generally implied that Russia was victorious in that battle
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's not implied. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have a nice day then. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• ISW and "reliable" have become incredibly suspect ever since they made this absolutely braindead Captain Obvious statement or when they made this triumphalist statement on Russian defences which aged like milk on the Counteroffensive. And while it is fine to use ISW as a source, it is a major faultline to depend on one political think tank to be the gospel of truth, given that ISW is located in the US, which has every interests to downplay Russian success and overplay Ukrainian success. Think tanks aren't infallible, and ISW is one of them. 42Grunt (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is why we keep in in one place, the same arguments being made, that are adding nothing to what has already been said. If you have not yet voted in the RFC (And are allowed to) please do, but can we close this sub-thread as just relitigating the same arguments? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Either add ongoing or the result.

Resultless empty part is confusing for the readers. Either add ongoing or the result.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added "Not confirmed" as current solution. It is better than the empty result section. I suggest to add the result when it is possible. It doesn't matter how the victory was accomplished. There are only 3 logical possibilities: 1. Russian victory, 2. Ukrainian victory, 3. The battle is still ongoing. Zelenskyy says ‘Bakhmut is only in our hearts’.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue russian victory since people don't claim that the USSR lost WW2 because they lost aprox 20 Million men. 5.14.134.223 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Not confirmed" cann't stay because its contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on the style of writing in the infoboxes. Also, there is an ongoing RFC up above in regards to the result. Until the RFC is closed nothing can be added to the result section. You can voice your vote/opinion in the RFC above. EkoGraf (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Also I feel this needs pointing "Russian victory see aftermath" Is the likely choice, refusing to let it close is not the way to get that added, the RFC needs to end, so unless anyone has any other options they wish to pick, let is close. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. EkoGraf (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let the RfC end. 42Grunt (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been five days since the last option choice, and it's been open over three weeks, so I agree, closure is appropriate. I'd advise via Wikipedia:Closure requests, since this is so contentious. (Hohum ^@) 22:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How long is it going to continue?

This has devolved in something totally pointless. If you want to propose doing something about the article, let's start all over again. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From what I see it is just one (or a couple) of users here trying to postpone the logical conclusion of the article indefinitely. Is there a higher power (like a Wikipedia god?) to be summoned here to solve this problem? This travesty is getting really obnoxious. Ilya-42 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) You can ask for the RFC to be closed. Then the closer will say what the consensus is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Maybe you should do that? It's been 9 months since the result was clear and it is mostly because of you that endless drivel still continues. Ilya-42 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC) What do you mean? Sources agree only that Bakhmut was taken by Russia, and it was attritional for both, but rarely who (and almost no researcher in a field) say it was a "win" for Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1. Russia's objective for the battle was to capture the city. Ukraine's objective was to hold the city. 2. The city was captured by Russia. I am curious what kind of "research" is needed to connect these two facts and decide who wins? Ilya-42 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) ManyAreasExpert What are you talking? What is the definition of victory to you in a war? I request you to read other war related articles in wikipedia. I believe you just can't admit that Russia is the winner! Can you prove your beloved Ukraine is not the loser here? You are not going to change that fact. You are just degrading the Wikipedia. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC) No WP:SOAPBOX please. We are not admitting anything. We are using sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) An article from AP on adviika suggests a Russian victory in bakhmut: On Feb. 17, Russian forces took control of the embattled city of Avdiivka, where Kyiv’s troops were under constant fire with Russians approaching from three directions. Ukrainian commanders had complained for weeks of personnel and ammunition shortages. It was the biggest battlefield victory for Russia since the fight for Bakhmut, and it confirmed that Moscow’s offensive was gaining steam. Link 5.14.147.60 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC) ... and George Barros, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, told Business Insider that any Russian victory would be costly and hollow. "Bakhmut was like that too. It was a tactical victory — I'd argue operational failure — contributing to the continued Russian strategic failure," Barros said. Russian Losses Capturing One Town May Exceed 10-Year Soviet-Afghan War: ISW (businessinsider.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC) George Barros is an American national, who prior to his engagements with ISW worked for the U.S. House of Representatives. All articles he ever published bash Russia, Russian church, "Kremlins coronavirus disinformation" and so on [6]. This person is clearly biased/pushing an agenda. Why should this person be taken any more seriously than any random tabloid journalist? The original ISW article [7] he refers to also has a misformatted reference for that claim, that leads to a missing page. ISW has in general been very biased in this conflict, I am personally unsure why its still considered reliable. And considering how wildly reports of casualties vary based on source, I question how any conclusion based on the number of casualties can ever have anything even resembling a consensus? What you would need to prove, to call this a non-victory for Russia, is that the casualties it suffered somehow debilitated Russia in its ability to wage further war in the offensive sense, or something similar. Which, considering how much time passed since this battle concluded, is already proven false. Besides, in the Battle of Verdun for example, the French suffered 400k casualties, compared to the 350k German, yet its a French victory. Victory is about achieving the objective of the battle. The defender cannot declare its objective as "inflicting as many casualties on the attacker as possible", and claim victory on that basis. That would be a universal get-out-of-jail card for every future battle, and a very dangerous precedent. 62.4.58.147 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) and why random tabloid journalist should be trusted more than an ISW analyst? What you would need to prove, to call this a non-victory for Russia, is that the casualties it suffered somehow debilitated Russia in its ability to wage further war in the offensive sense, or something similar. — User:62.4.58.147 13:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) No, we need to refer to the source provided above, which says a tactical victory — I'd argue operational failure — contributing to the continued Russian strategic failure. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) As I pointed out in my previous comment, your "source" points to a ISW article claim, that itself references a non existing page for said claim. And again, you are quoting someone who dedicated at least his last couple of years to an anti Russian smear campaign, rightfully or not, that I will not get into. 62.4.58.147 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) No, Barros in Businessinsider article isn't pointing to an ISW article. Your other claims are unsubstantiated. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Could you post his reference for the claim please? 62.4.58.147 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Russian Losses Capturing One Town May Exceed 10-Year Soviet-Afghan War: ISW (businessinsider.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) That entire article is sourced solely on ISW articles and Ukrainian MOD statements. The claim of "tactical victory - operational failure" is not backed by anything, and is a personal opinion of a journalist who has "Led grassroots effort for Ukraine Javelins in 2014." in his Twitter bio. Crazy if thats enough to do a wikipedia edit on. 62.4.58.147 (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Ib the same article it is said: "Avdiivka so far, they've not even yet achieved tactical victory, and it's unclear that they necessarily will. But even if they do at this price point, I would characterize it as an operational failure." yet the Wikipedia article for the battle of adviika recognises it as a Russian victory. further more, in the battle of kursk the soviets lost aprox 800k men (way more than the nazis) yet it is still considered as a soviet victory. If victories were decided by casualty numbers the axis would've won WW2. 5.14.135.95 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC) And may I add that it's not just an article claiming Russian victory in Bakhmut. "The withdrawal of Ukrainian soldiers from the heavily fortified town handed Russia its biggest victory since the battle of Bakhmut last year." link 5.14.135.95 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) This right here. Couldn't agree more. Endless debate about who lost how much, and how much that means to the side that lost it. None of which can be verified reliably, because we don't know the numbers of either losses or remaining army potential of either side. Bottom line is, there was a fight for the town of Bakhmut, one side ended up taking it, expanding its territory, and the other side ended up losing it. 37.0.71.202 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC) THere is an RFC, and I never close RFC's i am party to. But anyone one can ask for a close. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven I already asked to close.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Not here Wikipedia:Closure requests you did not. And now someone else has piped up, it is unlikely to get closed soon. 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Added the closure request if anyone is interested. 42Grunt (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Received an update and I was given the A-OK to close it. Everyone's thoughts? 42Grunt (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Link to this update, as I see nothing on your talk page, or at the close request giving you permission to do anything. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Link here: Result. As it states. It is given the Ok to close it. 42Grunt (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC) I see no permission given to you to close, in fact I see an objection to an error you make. If you have not even bothered to read the RFC correctly how can you close it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) I may have mispoke. I am stating that I will be waiting for the others opinion on this for those with authority to close it, since the response indicated it can be closed. 42Grunt (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Look at who responded, it was me, and I was expressing the opinion that although it was incorrectly launched (to be very generous) this might not wholly invalidate the request. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Yes. I know it is you. That is why I am waiting for other's opinions on this if they want to have further input. 42Grunt (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) As this is a contentious issue within a designated WP:CT, it is probably inappropriate for an involved editor to make this close. What ever closing comments you might make may well leave the close open to challenge, which will further delay the resolution. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) IME no good ever comes from involved closes. As tempting as it can be. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) @Ilya-42 Meh, the Israel-Hamas war one continued for two months lmao, this will be the same way probably. GreatLeader1945 TALK 10:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) STFU, and let an uninvolved party close it. If you keep on litigating the issue, it will not close. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Classy. 62.4.58.147 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Classy be damed, don't then, not my issue. My last word on this, if you want this edit made, obey policy, and drop the stick. If you do not want it added, keep it an open debate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) @Slatersteven I'm pretty sure "STFU" is a suicide by user, but I guess that when one's pro-Ukraine everything is permitted for them to do lmao. GreatLeader1945 TALK 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC) I am unsure it counts as a PA, your post might. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) WP:PA and WP:CIVIL are BOTH policies to abide by. (Hohum @) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) User:GreatLeader1945, save your guesses and accusations for Facebook please. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) @Drmies What are you talking about? Or maybe according to you telling users to "STFU" is not a violation of Wikipedia rules? lol GreatLeader1945 TALK 20:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) User:GreatLeader1945, you can also save your "lol" for Facebook. Try to be a bit more careful: that comment of yours about "pro-Ukraine everything" is not acceptable. You may not have noticed, but I actually blocked that IP address for their comments, and I also blocked 31.218.86.208, who had harassed you, so you're welcome. Normally I wouldn't post that here on this talk page, but since you chose to comment here, I'll respond here, and I'll add that you should stop with foolishness such as this and this. No, there is no "permablock" for IP editors. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) stop making personal attacks and follow wikipedia policy 97.103.129.121 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC 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.

---

Should the info box eventually say?:

1. Russian victory
2. Pyrrhic Russian victory
3. Left blank until the war is over.
4. Russian victory - see §Aftermath
5. See §Aftermath
6. Write the §Aftermath and then decide on how the result should be stated in the infobox.

Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Added options D and E (previously suggested by Cinderella157) and improved formatting 😉. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Added option F per my comment more fully in the previous discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Added "eventually" to the RfC question to incorporate option F as a prior. Is this sufficient? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option D. See my justification below. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D or Option A. The infobox must reflect the territorial results of the battle for the sake of clarity for readers. RopeTricks (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D or E. There is nuance, uncertainty. Perhaps one day we'll have more clarity. (Hohum ^@) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D per RopeTricks. There is a clear territorial result, but we should have a note to reflect the fact there is a dispute. HappyWith (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option C As said (below) there is no way at this time to determine the impact or strategic importance of either Russia's taking of the city, or both side's losses. As (thus) the result is in some dispute we should leave it, until historians form a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D The goals of the RAF during Bakhmut (Baiting Ukraine and wasting their very best in a meat grinder) was really obvious and they succeeded in their goals. The goals of the UAF (Defending Bakhmut at all cost), however, did not succeed. So it should be self-explanatory. 42Grunt (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D or A. Russia won the battle by capturing Bakhmut, and "pyrrhic" will require strong sourcing, which could be possible only in the future as new sources appear. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• E, which will be consistent with results of the recent RfC on this page (""There isn't a consensus to call the battle a Russian victory. Both sides achieved their stated strategic objectives."). My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D or Option A. Goal of Russia's offensive was to take the city, which they did. Even if we would take into account Ukraine's attempted counterattack during the summer as part of the battle, it too was halted after Klischivka. Russia now moving past Bakhmut towards Chasiv Yar. EkoGraf (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Russia won the battle and captured not only Bakhmut itself but also areas around it and as of now is pushing towards Ivanivske, located 6 km West of Bakhmut. It's time to accept the reality and not making any excuses. Or do Russia need to take whole Eastern Ukraine just for someone from Wikipedia to let this victory to Russians? It's kinda ridiculous because if it was Ukrainians who would win the battle you would not even hesitate to mark it as their victory. BlackFlanker (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Ukrainian official state position ≠ truth. The city for which the battle was fought was captured, which is reflected in the article itself. Ukraine has not officially recognized the loss of the city, but there is no evidence from reliable sources that Ukraine still controls even a millimeter of land in the city (As of January/February 2024). Battles for surrounding areas such as the Battle of Klishchiivka should have their own articles, just like the Battle of Soledar, since they have the same strong significance despite the small population of these surroundings. I consider the discussion of the fait accompli of the capture of the city to be incorrect. PLATEL (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - we should avoid editorializing and state the facts as they are. If the Ukranians recapture the settlement, that would be a subsequent engagement.--Varavour (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or D - The battle is being described by the wiki voice in past tense, so it is very odd that a result is not listed. News outlets are also reporting Bakhmut as captured by Russia. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D - As in the Battle of Avdiivka (2022-2024) infobox (regarding the "Russian victory" part). GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 09:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or option D – it should be clear by this point that there are overwhelming reliable sources that Russia won. I don’t think a caveat is strictly necessary but if other editors want one I don’t really mind. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option F - Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should reflect key points from the body of the article. Until the recent scope change by RfC, the article was written as an ongoing engagement. In consequence of the scope change, the body of the article now needs to discuss how the result has been assessed in sources and particularly, good quality sources and scholarly opinion, which we are now seeing emerge. The use of WP:NEWSORG sources is very qualified. Without reviewing the sources (ie writing these into the article as content), we cannot predict precisely where the consensus of sources lies (as reflected by the aftermath section and how this will lead us to the most appropriate way of representing the result in the infobox. There is WP:NODEADLINE despite the persistent pestering, largely from non-ECP users. Having looked at some of the sources, it is reasonably clear that there is nuance to the result that cannot be capture in a simple term such as Russian victory. "Pyrrich" is a term deprecated by MOS:MIL. While it might be appropriate to leave the result blank for the moment, leaving it blank for an indefinite period (until the end of the war) would not be appropriate (IMO) since there are good quality sources emerging that address the longer-term effects of the battle. Given that there is nuance to the result, Russian victory - see §Aftermath or See §Aftermath will probably be the result ultimately used but for the presnt, we cannot say which until we have a reasonably formed aftermath section. Hence, the appropriate course in accordance with the prevailing WP:P&G, is to wait until then (ie option F), rather than speculating on what we should do without that important information. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D - It hardly seems to me that this should be such a point of contention when there are thousands of other articles to draw precedent from. What Ukraine or Russia has stated isn't the point, but rather what the available reliable sources say. War is not about how many kills you accumulate but rather it is, ahem, a continuation of politics, and victory is defined by achieving political goals. While this has happened for Russia, the costs of that cannot be ignored and are an integral part to understand the conflict, hence the need for an aftermath section. FelipeFritschF (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A or D. Even the original Pyrrhic victory simply states Greek victory in the infobox. While we won't know the impact of it well after the war ends, the sources are clear that this was a victory example. Alaexis_¿question? 09:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter how the victory was accomplished. There are only 3 logical possibilities: 1. Russian victory, 2. Ukrainian victory, 3. The battle is still ongoing. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 12:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Options E or F -- we lose too much nuance otherwise, and option D flatly ignores the catastrophic losses the Russians took. We don't need to rush to declare victory for Russia. We're not Pravda. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  You should add your same comment in the Battle of Verdun and other very similar battle related articles.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, or, more weakly, D. Costs matter, but the infobox should have fast facts (and obviously, leaving it blank or omitting any mention of Russian victory is not neutral). Zanahary (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Options C or E. I agree with Swatjester's point about nuance.Tdmurlock (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or D - There should be a result. War is not a football game. Who conquers or defend the area and letter controls it is the winner regardless of how many death. Ukraine also suffers heavy loses in the battle. Wikipedia has a tonne of other pages where the winner was declared the winner despite suffering significant losses.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's see who supports what, rather than claiming it is one user against many. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• First and foremost, my vote is backed by my previous analysis of sources randomly sampled by Cinderella157 in the previous RfC. The analysis found out that 6 sources categorically considered the battle a Russian victory, despite the obvious heavy losses. On the other hand, only 2 considered it a failure for the Russians and 1 indicated it was only a temporary victory (likely considering the hoped outcome of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, which did not end up recapturing Bakhmut). If we exclude the source that had a conditional outcome based on the future and not past (not victory because in the future it would be reverted), we get a ratio of 6:2 sources labeling the battle a Russian victory, which is 75%. If we include the source with the conditional result, the percentage drops to 67%, still well above simple majority.

Of course, if we were to Google search "Battle of Bakhmut pyrrhic Russian victory" we would get plenty of results, as we would if we searched "Battle of Bakhmut Russian victory -pyrrhic". But this would be completely inadequate as it would obviously be cherry picking. That is why it's important to fairly portray/sample a representative array of sources when dealing with value judgement, especially when the subject is a recent event and where most sources are "involved" and have the limitation of WP:NEWSORG. Regarding the "see §Aftermath" part of the chosen option, there is clearly nuance behind the overall result of the battle as Cinderella157 rightfully pointed out in #How should we split the content of this page?: There is clearly nuance to the result which prevents us from simply labelling this as a Russian victory. Therefore option D is the best compromise in this regard and better than option E because the battle is generally considered a Russian victory by RS, even if a qualified victory.

Besides, the powerful "array of random sources" argument, I'll offer some other commom sense arguments below:

Extended content

Both sides suffered heavy losses, so it is superfluous to deny the Russian victory solely based on unilateral losses. It is disingenuous to claim that Ukraine's objective was only to "bleed the Russians". This is a typical "looser's argument" and case of "shifting goalposts". We all know that Bakhmut had a big symbolic importance for both sides and Zelenskyy even "vowed" to recapture it in the counteroffensive. It really doesn't add up that Ukraine planned to lose the city only to inflict casualties. Ukraine's top general even said in the notorious November 2023 interview that simply inflicting heavy losses on the Russians would not be enough for victory. If you call it a pyrrhic victory it implies it was like a defeat in the long run. This is clearly not the case. The heavy losses at Bakhmut obviously weren't enough to weaken Russia in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Even with the later flanking counterattacks around Bakhmut, the Russians still managed to mostly hold the line in the south. Russia also has shown recently that it clearly has "enough gas" to mount offensive operations across the entire eastern front line, and that is even without a new big wave of mobilization. Ukraine, on the other hand, has said plenty of times that it's committed to a "hard defense" until more aid is given. Furthermore, there have been analyses in the past that questioned whether the Bakhmut strategy of Ukraine was smart. Several US officials previously suggested Ukraine to cut its losses there. Instead they attempted to hold Bakhmut until the end and spent a lot of ammunition and manpower while the standard Russian soldiers were fortifying the south. Why did the US have to give cluster munitions to Ukraine at the start of the counteroffensive? Because Ukraine was low on ammo after the battle of Bakhmut. So all in all, it is very sound to consider that Ukraine was possibly "baited" with the battle. And all this is without considering that those "heavy Russian losses" were mostly composed of Wagner ex-convicts without a lot of training. As far as I know, all battle articles in this war adopted a simple definition of what was a victory or defeat. It was based on territorial changes and the capture or withdrawal from a place. Losses hardly ever played a role and, if they were significant, they were qualified in the appropriate sections. Given that more nuanced proper analyses of battle results require a lot of time to be properly made (ie. analyses of the impact of losses, PR, funding, economy, war crimes, etc, of specific battles on the course of the underlying war), they should be left out for when the war ends and historians have all the data to really understand the impact of such parameters. However, as S Marshall pointed out in the previous RfC closure, sometimes interim decisions have to be made, and I believe that a simpler and less controversial definition of victory/defeat is more adequate to be used for now.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

maybe you should add an edit that this is not for everyone, because I left my comment and Slaterstever removed it. Guess some votes are more important than others. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not posted in this RFC before. Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed your comment because that WP:RUSUKR RfC rule is pretty solid. Sorry, it is what is it. If you have a strong argument that you feel I missed in my vote, feel free to discuss/suggest it elsewhere (in another thread or page). Also note that even Slatersteven's move of your comment from the lead to this subsection may end up being removed again... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the notice. Hopefully the situation is clearer now. I'll only strikethrough the unconstructive part of your last comment, ok? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a side note, this same "pyrrhic" or not debate could also be extended to the battles in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. I think it would fit even better there since there is consensus that overall, the offensive achieved minimal territorial gains for heavy losses. Furthermore, villages like Robotyne and those in the Vremivka Salient were all in front of the Russian main defensive lines, so it's clear that to Russia they were more "disposable" than Verbove, for example. Obviously Russia still did not want to give them up, but if the situation became unsustainable they accepted retreat or calculated loss/defeat (lose battle to win war kind of thing). Therefore, all those battles have the ingredients for being considered "pyrrhic" Ukrainian victories. Should we call them such? Well, for consistency I think we should take conservative conclusions and use simple victory/defeat definitions while the war is ongoing. There was a lot to digest in those battles if we were to contemplate a deeper and more complex analysis of results. Both sides once again suffered heavy losses. While attacking, Ukraine prevented Russian offensive actions in most directions (don't forget that limited Russian offensive in Luhansk) until almost winter. In a way they took a lot of attack opportunities away from Russia. Sure, Russia is still mounting heavy offensives right now, but they're during the winter which is not the best time to attack. However, the battles of the counteroffensive did seem to make a turning point in the war. The possibility of a major Ukrainian victory vanished without major intervention from NATO. Thus those really seem like "pyrrhic" victories, but hey, let's just leave the nuance in the body of articles and only update the simple infobox conclusions when we have a very solid bibliography for such. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold on! I've just reread the |result= parameter documentation and remembered that it should be used to reflect the immediate outcome of the conflict. Most if not all of what I said above relied on the future impact on the war of considering parameters like losses in a battle. Therefore, even contemplating such ramifications and implications in the infobox is inappropriate at first. The biggest immediate impact of battles is the territorial change of perhaps more strategic positions or symbolic place. While losses are immediate aswell, their effect is not that immediate. It's not like one of the sides is suddenly completely depleted of soldiers. There are always reserves of manpower and ammunition. This is a basic responsibility of any armed forces. The impact of losses is usually longer term, ie. less ability to rotate troops in other areas when needed; perhaps a new wave of mobilization wwould be needed to hold the line in future attacks or be able to advance further; perhaps the high losses would discourage a near future large offensive... One could attempt to argue that the latter point occured in the battle of Bakhmut and was immediate. Well, it probably wouldn't be immediate. Think about it, Wagner soldiers had just scored a large victory, why would they immediately try to continue attacking for another city, perhaps Chasiv Yar, and risk their lives again? It would make much more sense for them to first consolidate their new positions and enjoy the success. And only then would they think about further offensives. Therefore, disrupting that potential future offensive is generally not an immediate outcome after a major city battle. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting how it seems like strong and more elaborate arguments are ignored/not countered... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is already a precedent set by other related battle articles (Soledar, Marinka, etc) for what the infobox should resemble after a battle concludes. Suddenly wanting to factor in casualty counts for this specific battle as a way to challenge whether its a clear Russian territorial "victory" or not is superfluous at best and arbitrary at worst, and may even be a result of recentism. The argument that it is "pyrrhic" does not change that the battle is over and the city was captured/occupied. That is a Russian victory, and the infobox must reflect that territorial reality. I just do not see why we're entertaining the "pyrrhic victory" discussion this long when the reality on the ground is clear to even RS's (ISW for example) that the city itself is no longer contested and there is no fighting inside the city. The sooner we stop delaying updating the infobox results the better for global readers. RopeTricks (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't there a long-standing consesus on Wikipedia that "Pyrrhic" and other qualifiers are not to be used in infoboxes, partly to prevent flame wars such as here? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. As such, option B would be the least adequate option right now, especially since there isn't overwhelming consensus for it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a link to this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

To the recommendation or lack of overwhelming consensus? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

To the finding that it is not acceptable to use this term. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict/doc#result with the caveat of Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC about |result= parameter. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither mentions Pyrrhic this Template talk:Infobox military conflict#Use of "Pyrrhic victory" however, does. It says it's OK as long as there is " strong consensus among reliable sources " and not "just one source or no source at all". So I am unsure the situation is quite as clear cut as you are suggesting. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The parameter documentation is pretty clear that it highly recommends usage of standard terms that reflect the immediate outcome of the battle. And the caveat link I showed you is basically what you said: given the pillar of verifiability, it is still possible/adequate to use non standard terms if there is "strong consensus" for it. The thing is, there does not appear to be a strong/overwhelming consensus for option B (and I'm not going to argue why, I've already argued and showed this isn't the case multiple times, even in my vote above). Therefore, I didn't suggest the situation was clear cut, I wanted to say that pushing for option B is the hardest path to take because it requires extensive bibliographic review/analysis. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, that immediate outcome argument would be a strong counter to the basis of future implications in your vote there is no way at this time to determine the impact or strategic importance of either Russia's taking of the city, or both side's losses. Not a hard/Godlike counter, as discussed above (the caveat), but still a strong counter I would argue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should not contain "Russian victory" as there is no agreement among sources to characterize the outcome as that.

In fact, most reliable sources in a field of war studies, and it being ISW, oppose this, characterizing the outcome as "Pyrric victory".

What sources agree on however is labeling the outcome as "Bakhmut captured by Russia" and this can be included in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

most reliable sources can you actually demonstrate that? ISW, oppose this the ISW is notoriously pro-Ukrainian. Anyone who follows it can attest that it generally minimizes Russian gains and is optimistic of Ukrainian potential. General Jack Keane, for example, a/the chairman of ISW is openly in favor of continued massive military aid to Ukraine. While the ISW is reliable for statements of fact (I use it all the time when citing territorial changes), an analysis if the extent of losses made a victory pyrrhic or not is not a statement of fact. It heavily involves value judgement and requires extensive analysis of the implications of those losses. This takes a very long time to be satisfactorily done, something the ISW did not do. Instead it prematurely claimed the victory as pyrrhic when, in reality, Russia proper was hardly affected, just open the news right now. The Ukrainian counteroffensive arguably took a bigger toll on the standard Russian soldiers than the Battle of Bakhmut.

labeling the outcome as "Bakhmut captured by Russia" and this can be included in the infobox. Not a standard term. While it could theoretically be used, it's surely at the bottom of the list of options. All other options would have to be fully ruled out. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

ISW, oppose this the ISW is notoriously pro-Ukrainian
— User:Alexiscoutinho 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That is OK. WP:BIASED reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective .

Not a standard term
— User:Alexiscoutinho 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Take first more or less recent source Fighting ‘through hell.’ To reclaim Bakhmut, a Ukrainian brigade must first survive the forest | AP News and it says "Bakhmut fell to Russia", not "Russia win".
Inside Ukraine’s Fight to Retake Bakhmut: ‘The Ground Was Covered in Bodies’ - WSJ Bakhmut, which Russia seized in May after the longest and bloodiest battle of the war.

What you need however to include "Russian victory" is to show that there is an agreement among sources saying so, and there is no agreement among sources to characterize the outcome as that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That is OK. It's not ok to reach value judgement conclusions based on biased sources. It's not an exact science to call something pyrrhic or not. There is a great deal of subjectivity and weight/relevance analysis. Ideally one should use neutral sources to reach such conclusions. Why do judges have to be neutral? It's a very similar situation. The ISW was judging the value of the victory/degree of success based on casualties among other things. There's no metric for that. There's no formula that says that if you lose X number/percentage of troops then the victory was pyrrhic. That is why I and Cinderella157 went through all the effort to review and analyze a representative array of sources, most of which were also reliable, to investigate where the majority/consensus actually was. In other words, if we can't have a neutral judge (future historians would have this role), then we rely on true majority voting.

What do you mean? It's not a standard term for the |result= infobox parameter. Read the conversation I had with Slatersteven above. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Youre redefining words to fit your rejection of reality. Every source confirms Ukraine lost the battle of bakhmut. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding option F, I don't see it as mutually exclusive with the others. I think writing the Aftermath section could be done before, during or after a consensus is reached in this RfC without problem. The essense of this RfC could be interpreted as: what should eventually be written in the infobox? This RfC could also be used for planning how to write the Aftermath section. It's not like we're going to discover/reach a completely different conclusion while we write it. The research has already been done, the discussion is ongoing, the writing is just a case of paperwork in my opinion. By the way, the aftermath should obviously mention that at least some sources considered it a pyrrhic victory while many others considered it a standard victory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: which will be consistent with results of the previous RfC on this page. Which results? There was no definitive result regarding if the battle should be considered victory or not in the previous RfC. The closer apparently wrote no consensus regarding this because not much discussion was done on the topic (the focus there was another topic). This is the place to actually discuss this matter. Thus, I wouldn't find it that great to rely on half baked conclusions from a poorly/weakly discussed topic there. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the recent closing, "There isn't a consensus to call the battle a Russian victory. Both sides achieved their stated strategic objectives.My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite disappointing (lack of) argumentation to say the least... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option F was added after comments by several users. Ping @Alexiscoutinho, RopeTricks, Hohum, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Slatersteven, and Super Dromaeosaurus:. You may (or not) wish to reconsider your comments in the light of this additional option. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My position stays the same. I also oppose Option F. Russia captured the city so it won the battle. It did with heavy losses but the infobox parameter doesn't allow victories to be called pyrrhic, which I don't know if it would be appropriate in the first place. I doubt sources are not clear on Russia having won the battle. Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As does mine, history may say this was all kinds of things, lets wait for it to decide. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My position remains the same as it did before Option F was added. The sooner this discussion is resolved the better. RopeTricks (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point, but in a different way. Ever since I made that last tweak to the RfC's lead, I envisioned the resulting action of this RfC being the inclusion of a |result= commented out until the Aftermath was done. This would encapsulate the result/consensus of this RfC and not let this opportunity go to waste. It would also follow INFOBOXPURPOSE. I see Cinderella's concern like this: the article can only assert something in the infobox if it knows what it is talking about. Until we finish the Aftermath, we haven't fed it enough info to let it know the answer (like a LLM). The aim of the article is to follow sources. It is a reasonable assumption that, us editors, overall, follow the sources when justifying our understanding of the result. We've mostly been following this war since the beginning. If we follow the consensus of sources and the article follows our consensus, then it's implied that the article's conclusion will follow the sources' consensus (or lack of). It's like I said in #Option F as prior, it's not as if we're suddenly going to change our minds when we approach finishing the Aftermath. It's a technicality though, I think it's more important for us to resolve this matter rather than trying to make it a WP:GA. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Option F per Super Dro. Sources seem clear. HappyWith (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a strategic vs tactic analysis? Maybe the overall benefits for Russia (or drawbacks) can be summarized in this parameter. Of course, shorter is usually better though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, was curious as to whether you have read Template:infobox military conflict in regard to the result parameter? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I have! Zanahary (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome [such as a Pyrrhic victory], a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. The documentation is given voice by MOS:MIL. NPOV also applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. I don’t think the results of the battle are so indeterminate that there should be no mention of a Russian victory in the infobox. Zanahary (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking to close the RFC using survey results.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the consensus is. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Closers don't just count option choices, they read the whole RFC argumentation in order to reflect consensus. (Hohum ^@) 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I am asking to close the RFC using appropriate Wikipedia rules or methods.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ask here Wikipedia:Closure requests. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Related discussion: #The outcome to the battle should be acknowledged. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:51, 18 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.

Ualosses

@EkoGraf, I don't see anything dedicated to Bakhmut on your source provided here [8] , thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Its there, you just need to use the filter (dates and category options). You go to the site [9], check the field "Category" and choose the one literally titled "Battle of Bakmut". You also need to filter only the entries from 1 August 2022 through 20 May 2023 in the dates fields, and as a result, beside getting the list of all of the names/indidivudal death entries, you also get the overall number (4,540) to show on your right side. We can expand the reference to make it easier for the reader to understand. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This approach is wrong. Within this filter there is at least one UA Losses record which reports the place of death as Semyhir'ja which is within occupied area and far away from Bakhmut itself. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semyhir'ja is a village officially part of the Bakhmut district, and as per previous editor discussions, as part of the Battle of Bakhmut, we also include the Russian advances since August 1st 2022 towards the city through the many villages throughout the area. The village was confirmed partially captured [10] by Russian forces on August 1, 2022, the same day the soldier died, and the first day of the Battle of Bakhmut (as per the established scope of the article). So before that date it was still fully Ukrainian-controlled. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

THat reads like OR, we need RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven What is OR specifically? EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

wp:OR original research, the source does not say it, you infer it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I know what Original Research (OR) is on Wikipedia. I asked what is Original Research (OR) specifically regarding the subject of our discussion? You say the source does not say it and that I infer it. On the contrary, as I said, you apply the stated filters in the source (one of which is literally called the "Battle of Bakhmut") and you get the result. Or, if you were referring to the subject of Semyhir'ja, as I said, the currently established scope of this article starts with August 1, 2022, while multiple editors in previous discussions emphasized the scope of this article includes the battles for the villages outside of Bakhmut as the Russians advanced through them to capture the city (and which is already included in the article). If you disagree with this and we are not going to include the battle for the villages or if we are going to change the start date of the battle, then the scope of the article would need to have a new discussion for a consensus to be reached on the issue. Pinging Mr.User200 who originally added the sentence to the article before me for his input. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I could not find ""Battle of Bakmut" on that site. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven You go to the site [11], check the box/field "Category" and choose the one titled "Battle of Bakmut", while also applying the appropriate dates. Between, currently there are three categories available only (Bakhmut, Mariupol and Chasiv Yar). I'm guessing they will add more in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What dates, as 01.08.2023 to today only list 1500 dead. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven 01.08.2022.-20.05.2023. the date range of the scope of this article. It gives 4,540 entries. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why we need direct links, anyone trying to verify this will have the same trouble. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven That's why I expanded the reference with the note, explaining the filtering system. EkoGraf (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Dniprovska urban community? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a direct link with the correct filters embedded. The filter choice shows the correct results, but annoyingly doesn't show the filters being applied in the boxes. (Hohum ^@) 19:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Saw several reports during the battle of wounded soldiers being sent to a hospital in Dnipro and dying there. So if you saw an entry listing Dniprovska urban community as place of death its most likely that. Thanks a lot @Hohum, was wondering if there was possibly a way to have a direct link like that, but as you say its annoying it doesn't show the applied filters as well. So maybe we use the direct link which you provided, but we still leave the explanatory note in the reference how to apply the filter. EkoGraf (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If this source is used in the article, the search config could be specified in the ref template to make it clear what selection set was made. i.e. the citation template has an "at=" field. (Hohum ^@) 19:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of @Hohum [12]. Thoughts? EkoGraf (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

On a presentation level: I think you just linked to the site rather than the url I provided? That would at least show the correct number and results. (Hohum ^@) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum, it was my attempted edit from before you managed to provide us with a direct link url. I was thinking providing a direct link url (that you provided) along with the note (as seen in my previous edit that I showed) that guides you through the filter process for good measure. But if you think the note is already good enough we can just provide a clean link to the site along with the note and thats it. So clean link or direct link url (plus the note)? EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And at least one in Kyiv, but no way of verify where they were wounded apart from this site. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm unable to read the verification links provided for each entry because of the language, but I don't see a problem saying it's a number provided by open source means. (Hohum ^@) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We can add it to the attribution of the information. EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not certain this site meets WP:RS? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Casualty conflict trackers Mediazona, Book of Memory and Meduza [13][14], which themselves have been used as reliable sources by Wikipedia up until now, have stated the source (UALosses) is both "reliable", "high quality" and comparable to them, and have reported on both UALosses, their figures and their methodology, after a detailed analysis of their data. In addition, its been cited by Le Monde [15], including a quote from one of the creators regarding their purpose. Their information has also been reported on by the Kyiv Independent. EkoGraf (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

MIght be time to take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not going to delete it, I'm not supporting its inclusion. The site is anonymous, the owner is anonymous, the site fails any reliability standards at WP:RS. Its numbers can be reported if they are covered in reliable Meduza and such, but because of its anonymity its numbers quality can degrade at random moment. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)