![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Greetings! @ Alexiscoutinho, please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war [2] . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:06, 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)
[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)
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)
I urge youor anybody else. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 20:12, 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)
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)
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.
Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 19:08, 6 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)
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]
While seemingly appropriately sourced, and not speaking directly in Wikipedia's voice, is "bloodiest" really an appropriate term, especially in a lead? It has no concrete definition and seems WP:FLOWERY. ( Hohum @) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
why the result is deleted? It's a Russian victory Gattor1 ( talk) 16:50, 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)
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)
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)This victory
— User:Tung X. Nguyen 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
rarely
most reliableproof? WP:OR unless otherwise demonstrated with non-cherry picked sources, i.e. random sampling. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 18:21, 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)to call Bakhmut a Russian "Pyrrhic victory" is laughable
— User:42Grunt 15:02, 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)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.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)
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)despite attrition, Russia came out on top
— User:Alexiscoutinho 19:40, 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)
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)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)
Military academic studies disagreeis 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)
No, all the sources must be considered, and if all are considered, there is no "russian victory" consensus but the contrary.What are meaningful are the sources with direct judgement: victory, win, defeat, pyhrric victory, etc.
— User:Alexiscoutinho 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not implied. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
Resultless empty part is confusing for the readers. Either add ongoing or the result. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This has devolved in something totally pointless. If you want to propose doing something about the article, let's start all over again. Drmies ( talk) 02:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
From what I see it is just one (or a couple) of users here trying to postpone the logical conclusion of the article indefinitely. Is there a higher power (like a Wikipedia god?) to be summoned here to solve this problem? This travesty is getting really obnoxious. Ilya-42 ( talk) 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
STFU, and let an uninvolved party close it. If you keep on litigating the issue, it will not close. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
|
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.
![]() | NOTE: Per WP:GS/RUSUKR Remedy A., this discussion is open only to extended-confirmed editors. Comments made by other editors will be removed or struck. |
Let's see who supports what, rather than claiming it is one user against many. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
Extended content
|
---|
|
|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)
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)
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)
most reliable sourcescan you actually demonstrate that?
ISW, oppose thisthe 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)
That is OK. WP:BIASED reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective .
ISW, oppose thisthe ISW is notoriously pro-Ukrainian
— 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".Not a standard term
— User:Alexiscoutinho 22:57, 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)@
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)
|result=
commented out until the Aftermath was done. This would encapsulate the result/consensus of this RfC and not let this opportunity go to waste. It would also follow INFOBOXPURPOSE. I see Cinderella's concern like this: the article can only assert something in the infobox if it knows what it is talking about. Until we finish the Aftermath, we haven't fed it enough info to let it know the answer (like a LLM). The aim of the article is to follow sources. It is a reasonable assumption that, us editors, overall, follow the sources when justifying our understanding of the result. We've mostly been following this war since the beginning. If we follow the consensus of sources and the article follows our consensus, then it's implied that the article's conclusion will follow the sources' consensus (or lack of). It's like I said in
#Option F as prior, it's not as if we're suddenly going to change our minds when we approach finishing the Aftermath. It's a technicality though, I think it's more important for us to resolve this matter rather than trying to make it a
WP:GA.
Alexis Coutinho (
talk)
17:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Is there a strategic vs tactic analysis? Maybe the overall benefits for Russia (or drawbacks) can be summarized in this parameter. Of course, shorter is usually better though. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Zanahary, was curious as to whether you have read Template:infobox military conflict in regard to the result parameter? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome [such as a Pyrrhic victory], a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.The documentation is given voice by MOS:MIL. NPOV also applies. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
References
It was Russia's biggest advance since it took the city of Bakhmut last May
Related discussion: #The outcome to the battle should be acknowledged. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 01:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf, I don't see anything dedicated to Bakhmut on your source provided here [8] , thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Dniprovska urban community? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, but I think we should create a "Battle of Ivanivske" page for the ongoing battle in Ivanivske.
The village/small town of Ivanivske is one of the main gateways for the RFC to enter the city of Chasiv Yar, similar to the Battle of Soledar which was the gateway for the RAF to enter the city of Bakhmut.
In addition, some news media reported that the RFC is trying to capture the village/small town[ 1][ 2][ 3], and the ISW reported that there is intense fighting (in my opinion) in Ivanivske[ 4][ 5][ 6]. Bukansatya ( talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven, regarding your undo [16] , the source says with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The column title already says that but I'm not against it.why not say (if we have to have this range) 15-20% of Russian casualties?
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
They aren't changing since the battle has ended. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Also (at best) this is a snap shot (both sets of figures) that will change daily.
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I understand these are sourced, but I feel the need to question and ask for other Wikipedians' input regarding the inclusion of comparisons to the battles of Verdun and Stalingrad. Having spent much time reading and studying these battles, particularly Stalingrad, I fail to see a correlation between the two. Those battles were on such a more massive scale, had many more strategic implications, and bear few resemblances to these battles in general. Does the inclusion of such comparisons really improve the article?
The sources seem to be articles by large news corporations making largely sensationalist comparisons, with scant tangible historical evidence in said articles to support them. Typically just vague statements like: "the Battle of Bakhmut echoes Verdun/Stalingrad" citing "urban combat", "house-to-house fighting", and other vignettes which could be drawn from practically any other large conventional war of the last century. I do not think such associations contribute much to informing readers about the actual content of the Battle of Bakhmut itself.
Durchbruchmüller (
talk)
03:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox is a place for simple summaries of key facts from the article. It should be supported by the article and the article should remain complete with the infobox removed. Unfortunately, we often see editors more intent on populating the infobox rather than editing the article such that the two are inconsistent. We should not be writing the article in the infobox. The casualties section for Ukraine is populated with conflicting information from multiple sources, which, in cases, are given as ranges or lower limits. The quantum of casualties from the battle cannot be described as a fact. It cannot be simply summarise. There is nuance to the reports that we do have, for which the infobox is unsuited. Consequently, the casualty information should be removed from the infobox and, where information has not been incorperated into the casualties section of the article, it should be added there. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Bakhmut has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Territorial Changes to "Russian capture of Bakhmut" Hollowww ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Greetings! @ Alexiscoutinho, please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war [2] . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:06, 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)
[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)
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)
I urge youor anybody else. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 20:12, 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)
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)
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.
Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 19:08, 6 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)
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]
While seemingly appropriately sourced, and not speaking directly in Wikipedia's voice, is "bloodiest" really an appropriate term, especially in a lead? It has no concrete definition and seems WP:FLOWERY. ( Hohum @) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
why the result is deleted? It's a Russian victory Gattor1 ( talk) 16:50, 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)
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)
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)This victory
— User:Tung X. Nguyen 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
rarely
most reliableproof? WP:OR unless otherwise demonstrated with non-cherry picked sources, i.e. random sampling. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 18:21, 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)to call Bakhmut a Russian "Pyrrhic victory" is laughable
— User:42Grunt 15:02, 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)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.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)
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)despite attrition, Russia came out on top
— User:Alexiscoutinho 19:40, 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)
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)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)
Military academic studies disagreeis 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)
No, all the sources must be considered, and if all are considered, there is no "russian victory" consensus but the contrary.What are meaningful are the sources with direct judgement: victory, win, defeat, pyhrric victory, etc.
— User:Alexiscoutinho 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not implied. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
Resultless empty part is confusing for the readers. Either add ongoing or the result. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This has devolved in something totally pointless. If you want to propose doing something about the article, let's start all over again. Drmies ( talk) 02:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
From what I see it is just one (or a couple) of users here trying to postpone the logical conclusion of the article indefinitely. Is there a higher power (like a Wikipedia god?) to be summoned here to solve this problem? This travesty is getting really obnoxious. Ilya-42 ( talk) 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
STFU, and let an uninvolved party close it. If you keep on litigating the issue, it will not close. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
|
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.
![]() | NOTE: Per WP:GS/RUSUKR Remedy A., this discussion is open only to extended-confirmed editors. Comments made by other editors will be removed or struck. |
Let's see who supports what, rather than claiming it is one user against many. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
Extended content
|
---|
|
|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)
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)
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)
most reliable sourcescan you actually demonstrate that?
ISW, oppose thisthe 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)
That is OK. WP:BIASED reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective .
ISW, oppose thisthe ISW is notoriously pro-Ukrainian
— 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".Not a standard term
— User:Alexiscoutinho 22:57, 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)@
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)
|result=
commented out until the Aftermath was done. This would encapsulate the result/consensus of this RfC and not let this opportunity go to waste. It would also follow INFOBOXPURPOSE. I see Cinderella's concern like this: the article can only assert something in the infobox if it knows what it is talking about. Until we finish the Aftermath, we haven't fed it enough info to let it know the answer (like a LLM). The aim of the article is to follow sources. It is a reasonable assumption that, us editors, overall, follow the sources when justifying our understanding of the result. We've mostly been following this war since the beginning. If we follow the consensus of sources and the article follows our consensus, then it's implied that the article's conclusion will follow the sources' consensus (or lack of). It's like I said in
#Option F as prior, it's not as if we're suddenly going to change our minds when we approach finishing the Aftermath. It's a technicality though, I think it's more important for us to resolve this matter rather than trying to make it a
WP:GA.
Alexis Coutinho (
talk)
17:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Is there a strategic vs tactic analysis? Maybe the overall benefits for Russia (or drawbacks) can be summarized in this parameter. Of course, shorter is usually better though. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Zanahary, was curious as to whether you have read Template:infobox military conflict in regard to the result parameter? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome [such as a Pyrrhic victory], a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.The documentation is given voice by MOS:MIL. NPOV also applies. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
References
It was Russia's biggest advance since it took the city of Bakhmut last May
Related discussion: #The outcome to the battle should be acknowledged. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 01:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf, I don't see anything dedicated to Bakhmut on your source provided here [8] , thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Dniprovska urban community? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, but I think we should create a "Battle of Ivanivske" page for the ongoing battle in Ivanivske.
The village/small town of Ivanivske is one of the main gateways for the RFC to enter the city of Chasiv Yar, similar to the Battle of Soledar which was the gateway for the RAF to enter the city of Bakhmut.
In addition, some news media reported that the RFC is trying to capture the village/small town[ 1][ 2][ 3], and the ISW reported that there is intense fighting (in my opinion) in Ivanivske[ 4][ 5][ 6]. Bukansatya ( talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven, regarding your undo [16] , the source says with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The column title already says that but I'm not against it.why not say (if we have to have this range) 15-20% of Russian casualties?
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
They aren't changing since the battle has ended. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Also (at best) this is a snap shot (both sets of figures) that will change daily.
— User:Slatersteven 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I understand these are sourced, but I feel the need to question and ask for other Wikipedians' input regarding the inclusion of comparisons to the battles of Verdun and Stalingrad. Having spent much time reading and studying these battles, particularly Stalingrad, I fail to see a correlation between the two. Those battles were on such a more massive scale, had many more strategic implications, and bear few resemblances to these battles in general. Does the inclusion of such comparisons really improve the article?
The sources seem to be articles by large news corporations making largely sensationalist comparisons, with scant tangible historical evidence in said articles to support them. Typically just vague statements like: "the Battle of Bakhmut echoes Verdun/Stalingrad" citing "urban combat", "house-to-house fighting", and other vignettes which could be drawn from practically any other large conventional war of the last century. I do not think such associations contribute much to informing readers about the actual content of the Battle of Bakhmut itself.
Durchbruchmüller (
talk)
03:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox is a place for simple summaries of key facts from the article. It should be supported by the article and the article should remain complete with the infobox removed. Unfortunately, we often see editors more intent on populating the infobox rather than editing the article such that the two are inconsistent. We should not be writing the article in the infobox. The casualties section for Ukraine is populated with conflicting information from multiple sources, which, in cases, are given as ranges or lower limits. The quantum of casualties from the battle cannot be described as a fact. It cannot be simply summarise. There is nuance to the reports that we do have, for which the infobox is unsuited. Consequently, the casualty information should be removed from the infobox and, where information has not been incorperated into the casualties section of the article, it should be added there. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Bakhmut has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Territorial Changes to "Russian capture of Bakhmut" Hollowww ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
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)