Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

WP:ECR

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

---

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

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

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

The result is not stated

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

It should be called Russian victory

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Pyrrhic victory

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

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

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

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

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

Not in fact true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So lets have some more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainian losses "per Wagner"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx reliability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Russian Victory

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 D - There should be a result. I see this as the best option. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 12:11, 17 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)

Discusion

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)

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)

References

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

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)

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)

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why aren't results showing?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

Ukrraine'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)

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)