Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upload

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia Low‑importance

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

Ukraine Low‑importance

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

Daily pageviews of this article

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

WP:ECR[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

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

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

Aftermath[edit]

Greetings @Alexiscoutinho, please don't remove sourced content which gives characteristics for the "victory" from the Aftermath section, as you did in [1]. It has been concluded in the RFC Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 5#RFC Russian Victory that the infobox should contain "Russian victory - see §Aftermath" text, and the Aftermath section contained characteristics for the "victory" during that RFC. So there is a consensus for the Aftermath section to contain characteristics for the "victory". Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay saw your comment regarding "Analysis" now. So we need to settle all these "Aftermath" and "Analysis" somehow, so it would be a less of a mess. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about linking to the "Attrition and results" section directly, but decided not to because it looked kinda ugly in the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it for a day or few, please other editors welcome suggest some good solution. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would observe that the Aftermath section and those sections that follow are collectively what we would describe as the Aftermath section of a more conventionally structured article. This largely arises because the sections were created prior to a conclusion of the battle and have persisted through inertia. It was also populated rather indiscriminately with [news] articles as they appeared rather than applying a more top-down encyclopedic summary style. Following the RfC, an aftermath section was created to hastily comply with the letter of the result but not the spirit and intent. The guidance tells us a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Consequently, the nuance of the result we would intend to direct the reader to with see Aftermath in the infobox is actually under the analysis. A note in the infobox Result: See Result section would be redundant and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We should avoid anything like that.

I felt that the RfC was premature because it put the horse before the cart. We should have waited until the aftermath and conclusion of the battle had been effectively summarised in the body of the article and to a good extent, this has been borne out. I think it is time to make a more critical review of what we would conventionally call the aftermath, without preconceived constraints of the existing structure or content. Applying encyclopedic summary style rather than the more journalistic style presently used would make the text much tighter and more cohesive. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I guess the first and easiest step then would be to merge those sections and add a maintenance banner requesting a top-down synthesis of the post-battle topics, right? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to tag the section. We can just start to implement changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though since this page is not my focus right now, I'll prefer to chose the path of least effort. :'( Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have now collected academic articles at the "Attrition and result" section [2] , let's do the make a more critical review of what we would conventionally call the aftermath, without preconceived constraints of the existing structure or content. Applying encyclopedic summary style rather than the more journalistic style presently used would make the text much tighter and more cohesive. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An important question that I know Cinderella will stress about is: how were the academic sources collected? What methodology was used? Is the array of sources representative? And so on. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually volunteers do that using this and that methodology and then we do our best with what we have. What's more important is your long-term WP:FALSEBALANCE edits where you represent the majority view as minor [3] adding "some". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually volunteers do that using this and that methodology and then we do our best with what we have. ??

What's more important is your long-term WP:FALSEBALANCE edits Says the person who arguably POV pushed here. I view that you often abuse that guideline with the intent to discredit or suppress unwanted POVs.

adding "some". I added "some" exactly because I'm not convinced with your sampling of sources and statements of majority views given your past tendencies.

Let's be wary to not escalate these accusations much further though. Let's focus on the article, not on each other. As such, we should focus on whatever came before you FALSEBALANCE phrase. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No justification given for "some" so... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had made that pretty clear. Quoting from my edit summary, without a quantifier "it would imply that all academic researchers share the same view, which is unrealistic." Imagine if I found two German analysts that said X about the battle. If I write "German analysts say X about the battle" a reader would interpret that there is a consensus among German analysts about X. That is obviously not necessarily true, unless I prove that there is actually a consensus among German sources about X. How do we measure consensus? With a representative array of German sources: a sample.

Since I put a lot of effort back in the day of the first RfC by Cinderella to build a representative array of sources and found that, iirc, "Russian victory" was the majority view, I find it hard to take for granted a new suggestion of majority. The second RfC (that actually decided what to write in the result) also suggested that "Russian victory" is a majority view among editors aswell.

Since quantifying consensus is a very laborious task, it is much more convenient to simply write the citations in a non-assertive way. I.e. either use quantifiers that don't give much info about majority/minority like "some", "multiple", etc; or use direct intext citation (the name of each author and what his view is); or use numeric quantifiers (two/three German analysts); or, finally, write in a way that doesn't quantify at all, gives roughly equal weight to both views (the connector between the views could the the word "others", "other analysts"...).

I hope this clarifies my concern. As I implied in the edit summary, I'm not dead set on the word "some", there are alternatives. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given you oppose just "researchers", and "some researchers" is incorrect as it implies the minority view, should we set with "many"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "multiple". I think we can agree on this.

Btw, I was searching for the revision that added the wording "strategic Ukrainian defeat" that you inquired in a recent section and found this. Seems like we went full circle. xD Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date range of battle[edit]

@Alexiscoutinho @Cinderella157 @ManyAreasExpert Giving July 3, 2022 as the starting date, justifying it with the capture of Lysychansk, is not appropriate. This is not an adequate justification. The attack on the city took place on August 1, 2022, and since the starting date cannot be justified otherwise, this date would have to be chosen as the start date of the battle. The end date as May 20, 2022 selected as the main one, the best end date for the battle is also wrong. Ukraine controlled until the end of November 2023, on November 29, 2023, probably the southwestern part of the city itself and its southwestern outskirts, and still very close to the city, and even in the city itself, less intense fighting took place and even heavy ground attack ones sometimes. Only then was Ukraine completely pushed out of the city and its outskirts and the fight for the city was actually completely over and ended with Russian victory and control of 100% of the administrative borders of the city and its outskirts, so I propose August 1, 2022-November 29, 2023 as the main date range of the battle with the note that there are also other date ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THus we go back to "what is this article about", But (ye) if this os about the fight for the city, the start date be when RS said it started (that is the fight for the city, not the surrounding area). Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 1 August start date is not supported by sources either. It was added on 3 August (in this edit) based on the sentence below, which already existed in the body:

On August 1, Russian forces launched massive ground attacks on settlements south and southeast of Bakhmut. Russian Telegram channel Voennyi Osvedomitel published footage of destroyed vehicles in a field, claiming that Russian forces are within two kilometers of Bakhmut. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced that the battle and assault on the city of Bakhmut had begun.

(emphasis added)

The sentence above was added by the user @Baba Mica in this edit, citing this source, ISW-CTP. Sounds great, but one serious problem. The supposed Russian MoD announcement simply doesn't exist. It's not mentioned in the ISW-CTP report. It doesn't seem to appear in any of that report's footnote sources. No announcement of the sort was made on any outlets of the Russian MoD that day, the previous day, or the next day. It's possible I am missing something, but after some extensive research, this seems to be a complete fabrication. I hope someone can prove me wrong. Note: After failing to verify through the sources back in February, I removed the claim in this edit. Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove this fragment from the Ministry of National Defense and refer to this telegram that, in fact, the battle started then based on this information. Bortak42 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the combat described in the Telegram post would mark the beginning of the battle of Bakhmut. You can find similar descriptions of combat near Bakhmut in the ISW reports of 31 July, 30 July, 29 July, indeed every consecutive day dating back to at least 13 July. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the end date, we already had a lengthy discussion about it here. Changing the end date to November would completely wreck the scope of the article and reset months of RfC discussions. Most importantly, that proposed end date is not supported by any source as far as I know. At most it could be added as a technicality, a footnote or comment in the infobox or Aftermath. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The end date is reasonably established by sources - at least to within a few days. As to assigning a start date, we rely on a consensus in sources that would explicitly tell us when the start was. The problem is that we don't have sources telling us when it started. If we determine a start date based on certain events (such as the fall of Lysychansk), that is WP:OR. This recent edit by Boynamedsue is pertinent, where they say in their edit summary: battle dates are necessarily imprecise in this theatre, but we don't really need to go too deeply into it. That particular sentence is still problematic, even after I reworded it further and has been tagged (here). This source covers operations during July 22. While fighting in the "region" of Bakhmut is mentioned from early in the month, there is nothing definitive. On 18 July, we have ... Moscow will not prioritize an attack to seize Slovyansk in this stage of the operation but will instead focus on seizing Siversk and Bakhmut. However, this does not actually signal a "start". The rest of the article refers to activity in the region of Bakhmut and an apparent intention to capture it but does not resolve the question. The Daily Kos would state: Russia has been attacking Bakhmut since some time around July or August of 2022 (depending upon how close to the city the fighting is to count as fighting... While it is not a particularly reliable source, the quote does define the problem. In short, if there is no consensus in sources as to when the battle started (not even to a particular month) then we should not be representing in the infobox in a Wiki voice that there is a start date. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-academic sources in Result[edit]

Since we've collected lots of academic sources for the section, we can rely on these. Let's start getting rid of non-academic ones.

For example, Reuters article Wagner's global operations: War, oil and gold | Reuters only has 2 sentences on Bakhmut. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the content itself isn't impacted, then it should be ok. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Ukrainian defeat[edit]

I don't see a source saying this, anybody? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is supposed to be the summary of the last paragraph of the Attrition and result section which does have such sources Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I was looking and haven't found one. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wording was added after my original citation. It's like a double reverse, thus unnecessary. But I think the main point is the word "strategic". It would imply that Ukraine lost more than just the battle of Bakhmut. I can imagine that the editor who included that was considering the effect of the battle in the 2023 counteroffensive, which would make sense, but would be better with a more direct citation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted that citation now. It still needs more work though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]