Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 1

Untitled
This article has issues both with impartiality and syntax. The article is very one sided repeatedly referring to the Russians as “the enemy” and some of the sentences are also incoherent and make little sense with the English being quite garbled2A00:23C8:928:5301:65CE:391F:38F6:5AF2 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is better now Xurum Shatou (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Name Change?
Looking over the current article, I think there might need to be a name change. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no fighting going on in the city/town of bakhmut at all (only air strikes), and the main fighting is happening on the Lysychansk-Bakhmut highway closer to the town of Bilohorivka. 108.7.233.72 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Such an article focused on the road would be too irrelevant I think. Better to wait and see if fighting starts in Bakhmut. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge Battle of Soledar
I think the battle of Soledar and the Battle of Bakhmut are part of the same direction, the same push, and the same army. We should merge them. 77.137.73.118 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Alexei Nagin for Russia Commanders
Just recently, there's been information that a known commander of the Wagner Group, Alexei Nagin, was killed in the clashes close to Bakhmut. Should he be added in the commanders section fighting on the side of Russia? DeepCriticalThinking (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Use of unnamed sources
If no better source is found, than some unnamed official according to cnn is found, I strongly suggest that the part about 450 drones from Iran is completely dropped. 92.220.101.213 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
Since the start of the war ukranian cassiulties in war as On the 1st of december european commosioner Urszula Vond ser Leywn stated that 100000 ukranian „officers” Soldiers have died so far. Us army general Mark Milly stated that around 200 000 cassulitues are in both sides Janpiorkowski07 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I just want to improve the Wikipedia beacuse i SPEED a lot od time on it i want to bring objectivity on wiki Janpiorkowski07 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Add "Georgian Legion" to units involved
They are fighting in Bakhmut

https://1tv.ge/lang/en/news/georgian-volunteer-fighter-died-in-ukraine/ https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/media-five-georgian-soldiers-fighting-for-ukraine-killed-in-donetsk-oblast RandomPotato123 (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * They were members of the 57th Motorized Brigade (Ukraine) as per this article (https://news.yahoo.com/five-georgian-military-volunteers-killed-093620261.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAXNQhdDyHRwqx0RFAimi6ZaCpTwcn7UnBWttH6JmSjwkY2VcjUmXlZ6VnnLuYmxbZ4GDHYFr3mIWgpenM56v26TxEeSVw_b6tga_Im1OytQFI0DAA1E_BipjgemDTOgM-t4M4ipgu18cLxgZfWQGNfof4KPA1ndW3XddlHu-a6-). Not the GNL. LordLoko (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected Edit-Request
Hey it says the main battle started after Ukraine withdrew from Popasna, but the main battle started months later in August while Popasna fell in May, so can someone please delete this part of the sentence or change it to some form of “The main battle for the city started after Russia pushed in from the Popasna area.” 96.242.227.52 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I did something similar.LordLoko (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Wagner Group (variant).svg

Removed list of units per infobox purpose
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE anything more than basic information is immaterial in the infobox and detracts from the infobox's purpose, which is to summarize the article in as few words as possible. We do not write the article in the infobox; it is the other way around. Perhaps given a consensus here we could relink it.

I did not remove the entire order of battle; I only removed the specific smaller units and battalions as "Ukrainian air assault forces" will suffice instead of listing all of its subordinate units.

Thus, there is no need to list the specific brigades, legions, and battalions involved in the battle. There are numerous other reasons besides the Infobox Purpose:


 * 1) Units that have been named by media sources as participating in the battle may not be contributing their full combat strength capability to the battle. For example, when a source states that "elements" of the XYZ Mechanized Brigade are currently operating in Bakhmut, this could mean as much as multiple battalions of 2,500 men, but as little as a small reconnaissance platoon of 15.
 * 2) There were no Russian or PMC Wagner units listed.
 * 3) The infobox stretched all the way down to the "Winter escalation" section of the article.

PilotSheng (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I took the time to add a good chunk of those but it's whatever. Since the Russian side was much less detailed/lacked RS-backed sources, I actually agree with the decision to keep them similar at the the end of the day. Balance. RopeTricks (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @RopeTricks Yeah I noticed that, that's why I made an effort to explain it here in the talk page so you and other editors who worked on it would understand. No worries PilotSheng (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The title of a picture illustrating the article should be verified
I was surprised by the title of the picture of a Tunguska fighting vehicle: "A 9K22 Tunguska of Ukraine's 30th Mechanized Brigade Anti-Air Battalion in the vacinity of Bakhmut, December 2022" First, there is a typing error "Vacinity". Then, look at the leaves of the trees hiding the vehicle. Clearly, in spite of the climatic change, this picture was not shot in December, somewhere in Easter Europa. Hamilcar Barca (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. The source is from the 30th Mechanized Brigade's facebook page, it seems the pictures were posted on December 3. So I think it's better to remove it's from December and just leave ""A 9K22 Tunguska of Ukraine's 30th Mechanized Brigade Anti-Air Battalion in the vacinity of Bakhmut" LordLoko (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

16 Jan - Soledar etc
Hello - I'm editing on other pages to do with Ukraine. Now that Soledar is confirmed as occupied, I wonder whether the last entry here on Jan 7 needs to clarify 'Soledar-Bakhmut' and why it was being mentioned by Wagner command. It's 10km north. (Sil now also taken according to telegram sources.) Perhaps a link to Battle of Soledar should be embedded in the text? Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Casualties does not equal killed in battle.
As in so many other articles about the Ukrainian-Russian war, sources referring to "casualties" are cited as if they were referring to the number killed in battle, causing massive inaccuracies. "Casualties" refers not only to those killed, but those wounded seriously enough in battle as to have to be removed from the battle forces. In modern combat, casualties are several times higher (typically four times) than actual deaths. In some instances, even sources confuse the meaning of "casualty," so care should even be taken to verify sources, especially when they are civilian bureaucrats. 205.175.220.10 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan 20th BND report
Earlier today Germany's inteligence agency (BND) showed concerns about the high Ukrainian casualty ratio at this battle.

·English source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/20/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-expecting-strong-decisions-as-kyivs-allies-meet-in-germany?page=with:block-63ca931e8f08475f7d94bf4b#block-63ca931e8f08475f7d94bf4b

·Original in German (live feed-13:46): https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/russland-ukraine-news-am-freitag-britische-geheimdienste-bis-zu-50-000-wagner-soeldner-in-der-ukraine-a-be2408e1-6e72-4325-bc06-29d76e0c4d5e Zaka (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2023
Citation needed for this line "One Ukrainian artillerymen alleged that "80 percent" of the remaining civilian population, surviving in basements and supplied by mobile grocery trucks that periodically enter the city, was pro-Russian" under the "Winter escalation and continued encirclement efforts (November 2022–present)" section. Huntbiss5 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Lightoil (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs a source. Change "One Ukrainian artillerymen alleged that "80 percent" of the remaining civilian population, surviving in basements and supplied by mobile grocery trucks that periodically enter the city, was pro-Russian" to "".
 * If there is no source to support this claim it should be removed. Huntbiss5 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/10/russia-ukraine-war-bakhmut-meat-grinder-deadlock is the source for that sentence, which is already cited in the article. The source mentions both the grocery trucks and the claim of 80%. RopeTricks (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge request
I request a merge between the article "Battle of Paraskoviivka" to this article Battle of Bakhmut. NYMan6 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The battle of Bakhmut encompasses much of the battle for Paraskoviivka. Jebiguess (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, considering we could make a part of the article about these battles especially about Ivanivske right now. NYMan6 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Imminent Defeat of Ukraine
Ukraine is about defeated here, they are about 70% encircled and are being advised to withdraw by Washington and EU, please update accordingly.

https://unherd.com/thepost/ukraine-is-on-the-verge-of-losing-bakhmut/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1730:F170:34A2:FB2D:2BDF:9882 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice opinion piece PilotSheng (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
See recent edits over the military casualties section. It seems like editors are trying to remove claims of Ukrainian casualties while not also achieving parity for claims of Russian casualties. Seems like POV to me -- trying to minimize reports of Ukrainian casualties while maximizing the claims of Russian casualties is something that I have observed on Wikipedia before -- pinging editors: @EkoGraf @My very best wishes @Volunteer Marek @Applodion PilotSheng (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I explained the reason in edit summary . The numbers should define the number of people killed, wounded or the both. If we do not know what a number defines (we do not according to the cited sources), then such "info" does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With regard to other content you restored, who is Maria Senovilla (Atalayar)? Do you have any other sources giving similarl numbers? My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For now I have reinstated the version from earlier on 1 February ; the reason why all of those claims are to give a picture of the battle. There is a reason why we don't throw every claim into the infobox; rather, we put it in the "military casualties" section for readers to decide themselves. We have had discussions like this before PilotSheng (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've explained my edits in the edit summaries. Doing things like including the casualties suffered by one specific Ukrainian company sized force while failing to include total casualties for Wagner fails WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. The rest should be self-explanatory.  Volunteer Marek   22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And judging by the edit summary, this edit appears to be a violation of WP:POINT (as well as WP:EDITWAR)   Volunteer Marek   22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Also this edit summary is completely wrong. The source explicitly says "between late November and early December near Bakhmut". So if anything the number are an understatement considering that the Russians have been trying to take Bakhmut since July.  Volunteer Marek   22:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Arestovych a trustworthy source?
On his daily podcast with Mark Feygin, Oleksii Arestovych stated that Russia had suffered over 60,000 casualties in Bakhmut and Soledar over the past few months. Linked here I know there was a prior figure from Arestovych (something like 10,000) and that was removed from the infobox. PilotSheng (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@PilotSheng It’s honestly pretty up in the air at this point, considering the Russians do not release their casualty figures. Still, although I wouldn’t put him in the infobox, I do think you should at least put in a note, just to keep a record. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would a participant in the conflict be a reliable source, which was the original question? 182.239.145.107 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When you see "Extended protection" on Wikipedia you know you're in for some next-level propaganda. 100.4.191.230 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request
In the casualties section of the infobox, the figure of 17,000 killed is a Ukrainian claim of RUSSIAN losses, not of their own. It’s been in the wrong section for a little while now, and it does need to be moved. It’s also not formatted 100% correctly, but that’s a relatively minor issue. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup.  Volunteer Marek   03:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2023
analysis section, personnel and tactics,

Change "Russian tactics to Soviet-style human wave attacks," to "Russian tactics to human wave attacks,"

Reason: Common misconception that Soviet used Human wave tactics. The source that this citation comes from comes pertains a quote from Ukrainian personnel, which posses a motivation, and implicit bias to use this misnomer. AmaduesALPHADELTA (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I think you should take a look at this discussion about human wave attacks. We should wait until consensus is found there before making associated changes to this article. small jars 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Bakhmut
I advise a name change as the city is nearly to already encircled. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:3878:7959:4029:3A40 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s been nearly besieged for eight full months. Let’s just wait until it’s not just nearly. —Michael Z. 04:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Some General Updates
As we can see from pro-Russian as well as pro- Ukrainian sources, some towns have fallen since fall of Klishchivka ex- Blahodatne as well as heavy fighting in Paraskovivka, Krasna Hora, Yahidne, Ivanivske. Kapitan Siddharth (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Updates required
There's been a lot of updates with the satellite villages around northern bakhmut and possible operation encirclement happening this article is outdated. Coobadge1 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

January 2023–present
"continue fighting against" -> continue defending --J. Sketter (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2023
The claim that Bakhmut would fall within days on March 8 is in the wrong section. It should be in the analysis section rather than the battle section. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2023
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-wagner-group-may-take-tactical-pause-in-bakhmut-offensive

100 Ukrainian casualties per day in early March 2023. August572 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added to the casualties and losses table. It is more precise than the current note - "unknown, heavy".
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/09/ukraine-bakhmut-heavy-casualties-russia-war August572 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023
Add on the start of the article: "As of March 2023, the Battle of Bakhmut is the deadliest battle of the entire Russo-Ukranian War." Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Provide citation with that, please. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/ukrainian-and-russian-casualties-mount-as-battle-for-central-bakhmut-rages
 * Also, it's the kost intense battle, and because of that it's the deadliest one. Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian situation
I'm thinking of taking material from the "Civilian casualties" section, plus various passages from the sections on the battle itself relating to destruction of infrastructure, and info from this article, and making a new section focused on the humanitarian impact and destruction of the city, since it's such a big focus in the media coverage of this battle. Thoughts on whether this would work? I don't want to accidentally move material that's needed for context in earlier sections. HappyWith (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Note on belligerents
The Republics of Luhansk & Donetsk are not internationally recognized & therefore do not exists. The belligerent are Russia and Ukraine onlt Doran.moreau (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * They exist as unrecognized Russian republics after the annexation in late September 2022 with their own military which has technically been a paramilitary of the Russian army since October. The battle started during when the then internationally "de facto" quasi-proxy states were unrecognized countries in the Donbas known as the LPR and DPR you can check out both articles to know more. So technically there has been involvement from both paramilitas and Russia itself. NYMan6 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The republics were under overall control of Russia from at least mid May 2014. Legally there was an international conflict (war) from that time, and no non-international conflict (civil war). The militias were Russian-controlled, and should not be listed in the infobox as if they were sovereign parties to the conflict. —Michael Z. 06:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Legally the Ukraine claims to be recovering separatist-held territories and did not declare war officially against the Russian Federation at the time. 24.80.149.172 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Bakhmut-Soledar front
Would it be a good idea to make an article called the Bakhmut-Soledar front or 2023 Bakhmut offensive or something along the lines of that? They are closely related battles and the only offensive Russia has been able to launch in 2023. It has also gained lots of media attention. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we definitely need one at least for 2023 Bakhmut Offensive. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:6DAB:67D3:4288:1B89 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose those are all part of the Russian aim at encircling Bakhmut. They can easily be included here. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

5 times less that russian casualities
Is this NATO trying to keep ukrainian morale high? Or is it just spreading one sided fake news? 217.132.227.177 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows what the casualty rates are; we are dealing with two of the most secretive peoples on the planet. As for "Western estimates", these are guesses not based on anything concrete. 182.239.145.186 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily either, if you understand anything about Russian war tactics/philosophy. However, it still looks rather unfortunate having numbers by the same party on both sides. What's the difference between "Western estimates" and "NATO estimates" anyway? One and the same obviously, or what would "five times less" refer to? In fact I generally wonder what is NATO's place in those infoboxes? Clearly it's not a warring faction, as they won't grow tired to assert, yet neither some impartial arbiter. At the same time the article has at least this much:
 * At the beginning of April, a DPR official claimed between 15,000 and 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed during the battle.
 * At least these guys are on site, right? So why not include that for good measure? The question is not whether it's realistic, let alone trustworty, the question is what else we've got. If the Ukrainians don't provide anything, fine, let the DPR speak, we're citing them either way. If NATO wanted to count dead bodies they might better step in, do something that counts, and end the war. -178.11.152.113 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023
As you know Yevgeny Prigozhin is the head of the Wagner that takes most of the fighting in current Bakhmut. So he should be in the commander section of the russian side which he is. But recently Prigozhin revealed that Surovikin which took the full leadership of the russian forcers in Ukraine for awhile, has had a big responsibility on how they conduct their operations in Bakhmut. So he should be added in the commander section also i'd say. GeneralKerberos (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Units involved
Is there a specific reason that the infobox does not mention units, unlike the Battle of Soledar page? There is official confirmation of various units participating, for example Zelenskyi today said: "I am grateful to each and every one who is now in combat! Thank you to everyone who defends their positions and fights for Ukraine and brothers-in-arms! Thank you to everyone who never lets down those who are next to them on the frontline! Today, I would like to commend the warriors of the 92nd separate mechanized brigade for their successful actions in the area of Bakhmut. Thank you, guys!"

Other units involved have been named by official sources at times as well. Daniel222potato (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut/Archive_1 LordLoko (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
In the paragraph "Casualties" I suggest, after the full stop of the sentence "...although casualties are presumed to be heavy", to insert the followings: "According to a former US Marine who is voluntary in the International Legion, the average life expectancy of a Ukraine soldier would be around 4 hours, mostly due to intense Russian shelling" (reference) (reference) https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/life-expectancy-on-frontline-in-ukraine-4-hours-soldier Hamilcar Barca (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, its clear that ukraine has suffered heavy casualties compared to Russia's relatively light ones, mostly due to 10 to 1 arty balace, where the russians have the superior firepower Mattia332 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not clear and is in fact highly unlikely given the still very slow progress/encirclement operation in Bahkmut, indicating the Russians sustaining heavier casualties. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument at all, Russians are much better equipped and trained, they have much strong fire power, the slow progress is intended not a condition. 105.235.131.111 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They clearly aren't "better trained" given the high death tolls sustained, combined with the low quality attrition replacements for both Wagner and Russian Armed Forces, mobiks in particular. We've seen similar at Vuhledar, whereby in Telegram videos chastising their commanders, Russian troops have helped give us a picture of the decimation of prestigious units, such as the 155th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade, in bloody assaults, only to be replaced by low-quality personnel which then grinds progress to a halt. At least in Bakhmut parts of the front are bolstered by the VDV.
 * And "the slow progress is intended"? Come on now, you know that's laughable. A slow, cautious advance of trying to minimise losses has precedent but this is an encirclement with massive losses sustained. It would've been far better for the Russians to surround and destroy/capture this last western "fortress" pocket sooner rather than later. 18:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 82.24.169.40 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the 4000 civilians killed is inaccurate. All other articles related to "4000 civilians" from the same time say that 4000 remain in the city, can't find anything else about 4000 deaths, seems pretty unlikely considering the cities size. Not sure how the Guardian would manage to mess that up. SuperDuperBoy (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, considering the pre-war population of 70,000 and the town's near-total destruction, more so even than Mariupol which has suffered at least 20,000 civilians killed. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

POV-ed section
"On 14 April 2023, the Russian Ministry of Defense once again claimed that it surrounded Bakhmut,  a claim they've made nearly weekly since the beginning of March . The Ukrainian general staff denied claims of encirclement but acknowledged a "difficult" situation in the city."

I do not see the cited source (Telegraph) says anything about the "nearly weekly" stuff. That part is also very un-professional and very non-neutral, unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. I suggest it should be deleted. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That may be a wee exaggeration.
 * 2023-04-13: Russia claims Bakhmut surrounded, Kyiv says holding on.
 * 2023-03-03: Ukraine updates: Russia's forces surround Bakhmut: “Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner mercenary group, said that his forces had all but surrounded the small town in Ukraine.”
 * 2023-02-01: Ukraine updates: Russian forces claim to encircle Bakhmut
 * —Michael Z. 22:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you are a generally disingenuous person, but in factuality what you said is a "wee exaggeration." The quote from OP refers to the Russian MOD. Of the sources you provided, one is from Prigozhin (not Russian MOD), one is from an aide to a separatist leader (not Russian MOD), and only the other, April source vaguely refers to the Russian army (I assume this is from the MOD itself). So you've only provided a single useful source from, what, mid-April? Maybe you have other sources, but you aren't showing them.
 * And before you claim they are all the same and connected, something something Russian propaganda, that would be akin to saying that any statement made by Azov or some other Ukrainian brigade can be directly attributed to Zelensky or the Ukrainian MOD, which is nonsensical. Please utilize your critical thinking skills before posting like this again. 2601:85:C100:46C0:1137:1453:7EBE:DD24 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

militaryland.net
Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we (at least partially) combine the US/Ukrainian casualty estimates?
Having looked at some of the sources, the dates for the Pentagon’s numbers 100,000 within the last five months, line up with some Ukrainian figures, 80,000 between 1 August and 7 January. And considering that the a Ukrainians haven’t made another “grand total” since then, should we just combine the two in order to shorten the length of the page? Let me know what you guys think. Edited to add that the information about specific dates and engagements should absolutely remain, and that this is just about the total number of casualties.Tomissonneil (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts. It is not the place to collate information from multiple sources. Such detail is not a summary and belongs in the body of the article and there is already a section of the article for this. Furthermore, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE makes it clear that the TOC works in conjunction with the infobox in such a case. Until there are good quality independent sources that would permit casualties to be simply summarised (ie a single estimate or perhaps a range) the casualty figures don't belong in the infobox. This was the consensus at Russian invasion of Ukraine after considering the WP:P&G. It should be applied here too. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Specific Units
in the "units involved" section of the infobox should we have the specific units, or are there so many of them that it would make the infobox too cluttered? Scu ba (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

US casualty count
Should we add in the box that the US casualty count (20k KIA, 100k overall) is for the five months December -April only? Chaptagai (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Casualties and losses
I think this mockery should be removed. Unfortunately, the current media no longer has credibility from all sides. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, do you have any other alternatives? It's surely possible, albeit unlikely that the casualties are actually that high, but it's an estimate for a reason, and since the alternative is: (according to Russian State Media) 5 Stubbed Toes and a few Headaches, it's probably the best we're going to get. XavierDelta (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The number is exaggeratedly large. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives because both belligerents do not announce their losses and prefer to announce the opponent's losses with high numbers as part of the psychological warfare. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True, the most accurate numbers you'd find are probably the ones on Oryx, which are only documented vehicle losses, but it's pretty heavily sourced. I think a rule of thumb is generally to scale down government statistics by a 2:1 margin (Especially in these times). There probably will never be an answer to the actual numbers involved so the best we can stick with is estimation XavierDelta (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What is being said, is that there is nuance to casualty figures. The infobox is not suited to capturing such nuance - this is best left to the body of the article, where such figures can be incorporated with text. This was significant in the discussion to remove casualty figures from the infobox at Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think it would be appropriate to do so here too.  See also my comment above . Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
Remove US estimate of 20k deaths and 100k casualties as the White House has already clarified this is was for all Russian casualties since December 2022, major news networks have already corrected their previous articles and so has the ISW AnonApril2020 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callme mirela &#127809; 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The figure was clarified by NSC deputy spokesperson Sean Savett.
 * Washington Post had previously reported the same before correcting their article: Ukraine live briefing: Russia has suffered 100,000 casualties since December, U.S. says":
 * "The figures were first shared by Kirby on a call with reporters Monday; NSC deputy spokesman Sean Savett said later that the casualty count referred to Russia’s losses across Ukraine since December."
 * Russia Lost 100,000 Soldiers in Four Months amid Battle of Bakhmut: U.S.
 * Ukraine War: U.S. Estimates 100K Russian Casualties in 5 Months 186.132.3.115 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged use of "white phosphorus"
Ukrainian resource "Ukrainska Pravda" is used as a single source for the use of allegedly white phosphorus in Bakhmut. You called UP a reliable source, but is there any evidence of the reliability of this source? The UP article itself relies only on the official Telegram of the SSO of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In the telegram itself, there is a video of dubious provability, which shows the use of incendiary ammunition, even without a signature that it is white phosphorus. User:Mzajac, I think that in order to prove such a brutal war crime as the use of white phosphorus in this case, more reliable secondary sources need to be provided, relying on more reliable primary sources, preferably from countries not involved in the conflict. I recommend doing something like ВП:УКР-СМИ in the Russian Wikipedia. PLATEL (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most sources phrase it like "Ukraine accuses Russia of using white phosphorus munitions", not outright stating that that version of events is true. We shouldn’t jump ahead of the story when most RS are still saying it’s ambiguous. -HappyWith (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is VP:UKR-SMI?
 * Sure, a broad variety of sources is always good. No, I don’t go along with your implication that sources are probably bad because they are from Ukraine. If you want to challenge the source’s reliability, please do it with something concrete or start a thread at WP:RSN. —Michael Z. 13:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are bad not because they are from Ukraine, but because they present one-sided information in the country during the war, which is logical and correct to maintain the mood of the population, but not for reliability. Same thing with Russian sources. The Russian Wikipedia forbids (with some reservations) the use of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian sources in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, since "Media located on the territory of warring countries cannot be considered independent according to ru:Википедия:К посредничеству/Украина/Запросы/Архив/24 and ru:Арбитраж:УКР 2022." PLATEL (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the source is bad because it is clearly attributing the claim to the Ukrainian army, not stating it as a fact. The title is "Russia uses phosphorus bombs en masse – SOF", attributing the quote to the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces, not stating it as a fact. The body of the article is written in a slightly confusing, terse way, so that's not immediately obvious if you're skimming it, but it does not outright support the claim, so I'm going to adjust the wording of the article. HappyWith (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits are good, but how does any of that a make the source bad? Clear attribution is good. What on earth could be better unless the source happened to have its own chemical warfare chemists on the battlefield that day to analyze the munitions.
 * Platel’s assessment is not useful. Who are we supposed to use on events in Ukraine, sources located in Venezuela or China? It ignores the striking difference in Russian and Ukrainian media: per RSF’s Press Freedom Index Ukraine has risen to 79th place while Russia fell to 155th. In fact independent media is practically gone in Russia, while the statement that Ukrainian media “cannot be considered independent” because it is located in Ukraine is simply false, and an example of anti-Ukrainian bias due to its blind arbitrariness. A major Russian propaganda point is “it’s all the same and you can’t trust any of it,” and this attitude falls into its trap. —Michael Z. 16:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My friend, please don't attribute words to me that I didn't say. I just ask you to use in EVIDENCE OF WAR CRIMES those media that have proven themselves to be reliable and unbiased.
 * P.S. and yes, it's fun to consider the Russian Wikipedia a tool of Russian propaganda. PLATEL (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.2 I consider the RSF an instrument of info war. For example, after blocking the "pro-Russian" press in Moldova, the country rose to 28th place in the press freedom rating. To be honest, it's just my personal opinion. PLATEL (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that visual characteristics appear to better match thermite incendiary cluster munitions, which Russia has been known to be usingRebell44 (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The exact chemical composition of an incendiary weapon seems academic to me. We have an article Use of incendiary weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian war, although it doesn’t discuss the legal aspects of their use. —Michael Z. 13:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders
@Cinderella157 The whole Commanders and Leaders section of the infobox is barren compared to other battles. the commanders of units should be included in the list instead of just overall commanders. Makarov was a colonel, in charge of the whole 4th Motorized Infantry Brigade. I haven't looked into a list of other similarly ranked leaders, but felt that he should be included in the infobox due to his status as a colonel. Scu ba (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the template documentation, the field is for key or significant commanders and leaders. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key or significant points from the article - the article needs to show how or why particular commanders/leaders were key or significant. This is more than a passing mention that they were there or a talking head mention that X stated. The only thing notable about Markarov in the context of the article is that he is a dead colonel, and I would cite WP:NOTNEWS in respect to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for clearing this up for me. Scu ba (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin's comments on withdrawal
I think we should add the Info that Prigozhin announced that Wagner will withdraw. 2003:DD:4F35:3411:60C9:D42:FEDE:C1A7 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * He’s already about-faced and said the MoD has promised support (he’s previously said they reneged on other such promises). A bit on the public feuding would be in order, but more belongs in Wagner PMC. —Michael Z. 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any sources about the withdrawal that aren't from Prigozhin. His track record leaves alot to be desire, especially with his fake withdrawal from the front "by May 10" just a week ago. We should probably hold off until a reliable independent source confirms it. Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the Ukrainian pravda claims there has been a retreat by russian forces by 2 kilometers on the Bkhmut front ( https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/10/7401577/ ). Of course, we will probably need that info from a neutral source to include. 1234567891011a (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW said they couldn't verify the offensive actually happened but noted that people where saying it did in their March 10th assessment however, they did confirm successful counteroffensive actions around Khromove. Scu ba (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What’s significant isn’t any withdrawal, it’s that Prigozhin is publicly threatening the Russian invasion effort to influence the Russian MoD and Putin in multiple announcements. —Michael Z. 20:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prigozhin is perhaps the last person we should be turning to for any reliable information, whether battlefield or not. Everything he says is smoke and mirrors. No, he's not withdrawing, there is no feud between him and the Russian MoD, and there is no ammo shortage. It's all theatrics to enhance his image and/or to present a false sense of urgency. As it stands, the latter half of this article is filled with nothing but "Prigozhin says" or "[insert Ukrainian official] claims" and it just comes as two sides arguing with each other instead of detailing the course of the battle. ProjectHorizons (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the second half of your statement. I've been noticing that for a while, and I'll try to help remove the endless paragraphs of "Prigozhin/Ukrainian officials/Putin's nephew's babysitter said X, but other officials said..." where I can. HappyWith (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's my 2 cents---The whole section of "Russian withdrawal and Ukrainian counterattacks" has to be revamped: First of all, we've to remove or consolidate all the non-sense Prigozhin rants to only a few sentences, because, yes, there's an ongoing feud between Prigozhin and Shoigu and Gerasimov and even some interpreted also Kremlin(Prigozhin alluded to the "happy grandpa"), but we can't dedicate 2/3 of the whole section to Prigozhin's bluffs and rants without real proof.
 * Secondly, the title has to be changed to "Ukrainian counterattacks(May 9 2023-)", because the ongoing counterattack started ironically on May 9, which is the Victory Day in Russia, so that we can focus more on how the Ukrainian counterattacks, currently on flanks of Wagner forces, caused Russians to hastily withdraw from some areas, north(from Sakko i Vantsetti---the one Prigozhin complained that Russia retreated 570 metres from), west(around Berkhivka Reservoir), and southwest(near Klishchiivka).
 * Thirdly, if we need to include all those Prigozhin's rants, either that has to be itself another entry, or it has to be incorporated under Prigozhin's Wikipedia entry as another new section rather than under Battle of Bakhmut, because after all, this is just one drama and sideshow in the whole battle, and cannot take prominent stage. Bf0325 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

" Majority of the town captured" - by whom?
In the info-box, it says "Majority of the town captured" - That may be obvious for those following the conflict closely, but it's not very encyclopedic to not have it say "Majority of the town captured by X" 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:959B:7627:75EE:E903 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By Wagner, the same people who captured the rest of it. 49.194.253.78 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Name of Article
Wouldn’t the title be more accurate as “The Siege of Bakhmut”? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s not a siege if the city’s not surrounded and cut off. The Russians tried to turn the northern flank and failed, and haven’t even got that far on the south. —Michael Z. 20:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I made this comment a couple months ago, I see Russian claims that they have encircled Bakhmut. I’d appreciate if we began a second round of discussion about the title of said article. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has never and will never be a siege. The Ukrainians have kept their supply lines open throughout the battle, albeit under artillery fire. If or when the Ukrainians choose to retreat, they will have avenues to withdraw, either through roads or farmlands. Will it be difficult? Yes, many will die, but still does not qualify as a siege. Mariupol is a better example. 2601:85:C100:46C0:1137:1453:7EBE:DD24 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The road into it is called the “highway of death” for a reason. Just because it’s not physically taken doesn’t mean it’s usable. 49.194.253.78 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed editors “may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.”

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion as unviable. —Michael Z. 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine, close it then. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On second through coming back after reading through one of your previous discussions, I have decided to stand my ground. We should change it to siege seeing as several top leading news outlets, New York Times for example, have begun reporting it as such. Also I strongly doubt a “battle” lasting to the point of people starving to death counts as a battle. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a requested move, it’s an informal discussion. The policy page you linked says “Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.” I don’t see the issue here. HappyWith (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Casualties 15,000-20,000 Per DPR sources
the linked articles do not mention that DPR has said they have lost 15,000 - 20,000 the article instead claim that UKRAINE NOT RUSSIAN have lost 15k-20k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9900:C000:1C75:D76F:5836:2A92 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 errors
Hello - I have been working on correcting errors in articles. Since this one is under protection, can you look at reference 220 and any other red ones and fix them please. I always put dates in as 21 May 2023. Just makes it easier to keep one format across the board. Thanks and mucho appreciated. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023
Please run refill on this as there are a ton of bare urls. Thanks. This should work for you. If that link doesn’t work This one will 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia won the battle
Please update, thanks Yuahrong (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's only a claim by Prigozhin and Ukraine still denies it. Better to wait for a trustworthy source. Maybe update it with Prigozhin claims but not that they definitively won. 223.18.170.221 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Usually Prigozhin is reliable when it comes to state territorial gains and losses, several russian, neutral and pro ukranian sources confirmed this, it is over
 * Here's just some sources: https://twitter.com/WarMonitors https://twitter.com/WarFrontline/status/1659912766646263808 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ov4qLlw5ww https://t.me/Suriyak_maps/689
 * https://t.me/remylind21/2353
 * https://t.me/intelslava/47883
 * There's no need to wait for a big western journal to just repeat this, and it's senseless that Prigozhin would announce that for it to not be true Mattia332 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've copied word for word comments in other headings from your alt account Yuarong, which appears to have an axe to grind.
 * A politician who staked their future on the success of an offensive surely has no reason not to announce anything to their benefit. /S
 * While Progozin's claims appear to be externally verifiable in this case, it is a really bad idea to take the word of a leader directly involved at face value as a wiki source.
 * "no need to wait for" other sources -- this is exactly why we have to wait and be cautious for controversial issues. 185.225.31.21 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When using sock puppets, at least change your words around 185.225.31.21 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prigozhin is on the ground in Artemovsk, he is literally the most trustworthy source. Yuahrong Aiemryte 14:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hope this time they wont wait like two weeks to update this map when the ukranian ministry of defence will make some announcements along the lines of "The army has evacuated Bakhmut to more favourable position and the city didn't mattered anyway" Mattia332 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me, they will. Wiki is nothing but an OEV front. Yuahrong Aiemryte 15:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its stupid, if it is Ukraine, the mods would have write Ukraine victory without a doubt. I am questioning the neutrality here. Obviously Ukraine are not going to capture Bahkmut anytime soon. If Ukraine won't announce, might as well perpetually still in Ukraine hand, or partially in Ukraine hand. The amount of wiki bias is astounding. 183.171.111.251 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still reports of fighting around Bakhmut, so we cannot confirm the battle is over. The battle didn't start when Russia had captured territory, it started when they attacked. The battle will be declared over when there isn't any fighting in and around Bakhmut.Givibidou (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Bakhmut has fallen
Today on may 20 2023 battle of Bakhmut has come to an end after 9 months of combat.The wagner forces have accomplished their job of capturing Bakhmut.Source: https://t.me/Suriyak_maps/691 82.77.109.139 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, several other sources confirms, specially neutral and even pro-ukranian ones Mattia332 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * at the very least we ought to say that Wagner claims to own thecity Genabab (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lizthegrey (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you go
 * https://twitter.com/WarMonitors https://twitter.com/WarFrontline/status/1659912766646263808 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ov4qLlw5ww https://t.me/Suriyak_maps/689 https://t.me/remylind21/2353 https://t.me/intelslava/47883
 * Amongst these war reporting channels, there's Prigozhin who's literally on the field Mattia332 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those are WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. AP and Reuters  are reporting Russian and Ukrainian counterclaims. It's inappropriate for Wikipedia to judge a victor without proper sourcing. (Hohum @ ) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AP [3 ] and Reuters [4 ] sadly are known to have a ukranian bias, like most western media, while the city has fallen today it's easy to assume that they will recognize this in days or even weeks and they will only echo what the ukranian MoD will say, which of course has to minimize the news of russian sucesses Mattia332 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP and WP:RSP are considered reliable. WP:RSN and WP:RSN are not. Please take the time to understand reliable sourcing requirements for Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS also applies ("Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.") We wait for secondary, reliable sourcing. (Hohum @ ) 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They may have been reliable at one time, but for the most part they’re just propaganda rags now. 49.194.253.78 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make your case for that at WP:RSN. (Hohum @ ) 18:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin and RuMOD are reliable secondhand sources that confirmed it. Yuahrong Aiemryte 02:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY until you understand them. (Hohum @ ) 13:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still reports of fighting around Bakhmut, so we cannot confirm the battle is over. The battle didn't start when Russia had captured territory, it started when they attacked. The battle will be declared over when there isn't any fighting in and around Bakhmut. Givibidou (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023
There's no confirmation from Russia and Ukraine that Bakhmut have fallen under Russian control. Change status in the page Battle of Bakhmut. DaChigger (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear @DaChigger, there is indeed confirmation from several main war-reporting medias round the internet, I have quoted them in my previous posts in this discussion today, most of these sources are neutral or pro-ukranian Mattia332 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All media at this point only quoted what Prigozhin said. No one has verified his claim, thus you cannot claim that Russia won. You have to wait until more information is available. DaChigger (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All media at this point only quoted what UaMOD said. No one has verified those claims that AFU is still fighting in Bakhmut, thus you cannot claim Russia has not won. Yuahrong Aiemryte 15:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * troll DaChigger (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Says the one with a name that's racist towards Chinese and Blacks. Yuahrong Aiemryte 01:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir, this and this and most RS' that document Prigozhin's most recent claims all say that the Ukrainians denied that claim and say they still hold onto a sector of the city. Prigozhin recorded a video somewhere in the city claiming that the Russians had won, with no other evidence. You cannot yet say that Bakhmut has fallen to the Russians until there comes actual evidence that they have Presidentofyes12 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prigozhin is a more reliable source that the Ukraine MOD in this setting. Prigozhin correctly identified when Soledar was captured and the Ukraine MOD claimed they were still in Soledar until two weeks after it fell. 38.42.232.118 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia's defence Ministry has just announced the fall of the city https://t.me/mod_russia_en/7497 Mattia332 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prigozhin is in the city, not BBC or CNN, making him the most reliable first hand source. Also there is zero verifiable evidence that AFU is still anywhere in the city, please provide evidence with geolocation and metadata that proves it is from after the announcement. Artemovsk has clearly been liberated with all the geolocatable videos taken by wagner troops on the western outskirts. Yuahrong Aiemryte 02:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done appears to be already reflecting the no confirmation part of the message above? (please ping if I'm wrong here  Just ' i ' yaya  18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on May 21 2023(Casualties)
“One-fifth of the number of Russian casualties (~20,000 killed or wounded)” For clarity, please slightly change this info in the ‘Casualties and losses’ box to “One-fifth of the number of total Russian casualties in the war(~20,000 killed or wounded)” Although not sure if it should be war or invasion, and if needed my suggested edit wording can be shortened to whatever you see fit. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source provided says that "Russia has lost an estimated five men for every Ukrainian soldier its forces have killed in the battle for Bakhmut." ARandomName123 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Useful source
The ISW has published a retrospective and general assessment of the whole battle. I don't have the time to go through it right now, but I think it would be very useful to editors looking to summarize parts of the battle and make things more cohesive. Link: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin%E2%80%99s-pyrrhic-victory-bakhmut-retrospective-battle-bakhmut HappyWith (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the Infobox should be updated to include the newly given information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia won now
Change immediately 2A02:C7C:507D:0:E48D:25F6:267A:5FDC (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest not, and also, this wikipedia ip address just edited a page to add Adolf Hitler on some page, the least to worry is worrying about real life events being vandalized
 * And to add its just a rogue paramilitary group claiming victory and then proceeds discrediting the actual Russian military efforts in allegedly and singlehandedly capturing the city by his group alone, you don't add that as a criteria for victory alone unless otherwise noted 36.78.68.15 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wagner does not seem have gone rogue, it is operating in extremely close coordination with the Russian government? 119.42.59.25 (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request for the May 2023 section
Please add the following updates to the May 2023 section, May 20th:

According to Austrian military expert and commander Markus Reisner, 98 to 99 percent of Bakhmut are in Russian hands, with only a few battles left on the western edge of the city over four high-rise complexes. András Rácz, an expert on Russia's foreign and military policy at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) reported to the RND, that in practice, the city is now completely taken over by the Russians. Zerbrxsler (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland seems WP:RELIABLE, are there any other reliable sources agreeing with this yet? An article with a title saying that Bakhmut is about to fall, with content saying that it already effectively has seems at odds with itself. (Hohum <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 23:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Other reliable sources that report the same are n-tv and T-Online . I can not find another source on András Rácz's comment, however please consider the "in practice", it is semantics and not necessarily contradicting. An article can can include several opinions of experts. Zerbrxsler (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support including Reisner's statement, oppose including Rácz's. It makes no sense to include a statement saying "technically the city has fallen" and then have in a few days info included in the article actually describing the real total fall of the city. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support including Rácz's, oppose including Reisner's. The city have been liberated for all intent and purposes. A few AFU troops at the plantation, fields and driving school a kilometer away from the western most parts of Artemovsk does not affect the capture of the city in any way or manner. Yuahrong Aiemryte 02:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW seems to agree that "Prigozhin’s claimed victory over the remaining areas in Bakhmut is purely symbolic even if true. The last few urban blocks of eastern Bakhmut that Prigozhin claimed that Wagner Group forces captured are not tactically or operationally significant". If the update today says that those blocks are confirmed to have changed hands, then it seems safe to report. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Putin and RuMOD confirmed the win
Artemovsk is taken, please change now. The plantation and driving school outside of Artemovsk is irrelevant to the capture of the city.Yuahrong Aiemryte 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The city's name is Bakhmut. It has not been confirmed by multiple reliable sources to have fallen. Please stop promoting Russian propaganda in your comments, you even claimed Kramatorsk has fallen. We try to be as unbiased as possible here, and just because the facts don't align exactly with your viewpoint does not mean we are NATO propagandists. DragonLegit04 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The city's name is also Artemovsk. Prigozhin, RuMOD and Putin are reliable sources regarding this since they have first hand information from the ground.
 * Please stop accussing me of things i have never done as well, I have never said Kramatorsk have fallen, ever, so please quote and link that comment here directly if you find evidence contrary to this claim.
 * I try to be as unbiased as possible here, and just because the facts don't align exactly with your viewpoint does not mean i am a Russian propagandist and fact is Artemovsk is liberated. Yuahrong Aiemryte 05:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word liberated shows you have a Pro-Russia bias. Using your logic, the Ukrainian MOD also has info on the ground, and therefore they should be equally trusted, and they haven't said the city has fallen yet. DragonLegit04 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word fallen shows you have a Pro-Ukrainian bias. Also, please address the fact that you've accused me of doing something of which I did not. And according to my logic, UaMOD does not have info on the ground because they were defeated and pushed out of Artemovsk already, so they can't be trusted on what's going IN Artemovsk.
 * And Zelensky admitted it already. Yuahrong Aiemryte 07:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even zelensky confirmed it here:
 * https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/ukraine-krieg-selenskyj-bestaetigt-verlust-von-bachmut-an-russen-18908030.html
 * And FAZ is ultra pro western propaganda - we know you guys won’t believe it but it is what it is now. Cope with it 92.218.146.145 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See my replies below Yuahrong Aiemryte 07:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You did claimed Kramatorsk have fallen. You are Russian Propagandist DaChigger (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023
"The battle of Bakhmut is an ongoing series of military engagements in and near the city of Bakhmut between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russian Armed Forces during the larger battle for Donbas." "Status	Ongoing" I wanted to change the part where it says the battle is ongoing since the battle was won by Russia, here is my source: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/russia-declares-victory-in-bloody-battle-for-bakhmut-but-ukraine-says-fight-continues-20230521-p5da04.html RS-Vaziri (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Admission from Zelensky:
 * Reporter- "Mr. President, is Bakhmut still in Ukraine's hands? The Russians say they've taken Bakhmut."
 * Zelensky- "I think no. But you have to understand that there's nothing, they've destroyed everything. There are no buildings. It's a pity, a tragedy, but for today, Bakhmut is only in our hearts. There is nothing on this place. So just ground and a lot of dead Russians, but they came to us. And the defenders in Bakhmut, they did strong work there and of course great job."
 * Zelensky and Biden meeting, Hiroshima. Firstpost live stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/JOKkjyQgiAg?feature=share&t=509 Yuahrong Aiemryte 07:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

❌ The SMH article you provided as a reference contradicts the premise of your suggestion, including with this sentence: "the president [Zelenskyy] had not intended to convey that the city had been completely taken over by Russian forces. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. We can afford to wait until the outcome is actually clear. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Change status to Russian victory
Zelenskyy: 'Bakhmut is only in our hearts' after Ukraine loses control of destroyed city to Russia | AP News

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that the city of Bakhmut is no longer controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-prigozhin-claims-full-control-bakhmut-2023-05-20/

The same has also been claimed by the chief of the Wagner group, Yevgeny Prigozhin

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/21/putin-congratulates-russia-troops-wagner-for-capturing-bakhmut

And also by the Ministry of Defense, Government of the Russian Federation as well as the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin

And even if elements of the Ukrainian forces remain in the battle zone, they no longer are present in the city proper region.

With so many sources on both sides of the conflict claiming a Russian victory, I think it is fitting to change the status of the battle to "Russian victory" Sng Pal (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to add on in case they choose to ignore my post above:
 * Admission from Zelensky:
 * Reporter- "Mr. President, is Bakhmut still in Ukraine's hands? The Russians say they've taken Bakhmut."
 * Zelensky- "I think no. But you have to understand that there's nothing, they've destroyed everything. There are no buildings. It's a pity, a tragedy, but for today, Bakhmut is only in our hearts. There is nothing on this place. So just ground and a lot of dead Russians, but they came to us. And the defenders in Bakhmut, they did strong work there and of course great job."
 * Zelensky-Biden news conference, Hiroshima.
 * Firstpost live stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/JOKkjyQgiAg?feature=share&t=509 Yuahrong Aiemryte 07:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of calling it a pyrrhic victory? Why not a simply a victory? Sng Pal (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Al Jazeera has confirmed that they believe that Bakhmut has fallen. Zelensky also strongly insinuated that Ukraine lost Bakhmut, although he won't admit to it, understandably for PR reasons. So I think we have enough evidence to corroborate that Bakhmut had indeed fallen and it should be changed to a Russian victory. Whether the victory is pyrrhic or not is too early to tell, but it is a big blow to Ukraine on a morale, logistical and strategic level as Bakhmut acted like a fortified logistical gateway to everything going west of Donbass. I am getting deja vu from Soledar all over again. 42Grunt (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this thing is over by any meaningful evaluation. If more editors agree here, someone should go bold and change it. Killuminator (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, Wall Street Journal has also just published a article about the capture of Bakhmut by Russian forces NYMan6 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Then why not change the status to victory? Why keep it ongoing, when it is obviously over.
 * The city has fallen, Ukraine has lost the battle of bakhmut
 * If they counter-attack, which they will very likely do, then that would be like the second battle of bakhmut Sng Pal (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The battle seems to be over
This is the end I think Russia will win this war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:DD64:529D:C499:C28F (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop spamming this talk page. Any further thread about this is going to get deleted. Sources do not say the battle is over. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from using coercion by threatening to delete threads. Sources like Zelensky have already admitted the battle is over as mentioned. Your profile page and crated articles shows that you have a strong negative bias against Russia, so please remember that we are on wiki to provide NEUTRAL articles, not just articles stating only the side you like. So please do take into account Zelensky's admission that Artemovsk is lost and update the article as it should have been since yesterday. Thank you very much. Yuahrong Aiemryte 07:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Im sorry people here are quite idiotic. The battle appears nowhere near completed. It appears that several users have an implicit bias, particularly that favoring Russia. It isn't that Ukraine has significant hold of the city either, they're holding quite miniscule positions, and is possibly encircling the city, but to call the battle as completed is simply inaccurate at this moment, especially since the fighting did not cease. Innominatvs (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, small parts of the city are still contested, and Ukraine is going for encircling maneuvers in the outskirts — so even if Russia is having the advantage in the city proper, it's not over there, and even then it would be debatable to call the battle "over" if Ukraine is still performing operations around the city to retake it. But we're not even there, again, the battle for the city is not over. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Fall of Bakhmut + Ukrainian casualties
The Battle of Bakhmut has ended in a Russian victory and Ukrainian casualties are now at around 39,000, with 23,000 of that number killed according to Wagner. Sterge08 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wagner, that famously reliable and unbiased source... Seriously? Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More reliable than Ukrainian sources at least (should I remind you about Soledar?)
 * Once they do finally tell the truth tho, don't forget to put the actual real world end date, May 20th, instead of whenever they lose in the Internet. Or find actual footage of in-city fights with respective coordinates to serve as a solid proof (once again, Ukrainian MoD and mass media are by no means a credible source) Moon darker (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You take western legacy media outlets words for granted, yet you will yell 'Wrong!!' even if Wagner will tell you that the sky is blue? Put your bias aside, if we cite western and ukrainian officials, why is it wrong to cite russian and wagner ones?
 * If all mass media is not credible then no source is. Wikipedia operates based on what the majority of mass media reports. When a majority of sources say the city has fallen, then editors will follow through. So far, media is only going off the claims of Wagner and the Russian MoD. For any biases, might I introduce you to WP:RSPSOURCES to familiarize yourself with what mass media is considered reliable for Wikipedia by users. ProjectHorizons (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it matters at all, the President of Ukraine volodymyr zelensky has confirmed the fall of Bakhmut.
 * "Reuters is reporting Volodymyr Zelenskiy appeared to confirm the loss of the city of Bakhmut to Russia on Sunday, saying “I think no” when asked if it remained in Kyiv’s control. “I think no,” he said ahead of a meeting with Joe Biden at the G7 summit, according to Reuters. “For today, it is only in our hearts.” - https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/21/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-to-meet-biden-at-g7-kyiv-says-fighting-in-bakhmut-continues
 * "Today, at 12 noon, Bakhmut was completely taken," Prigozhin said. "We completely took the whole city, from house to house." - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-prigozhin-claims-full-control-bakhmut-2023-05-20/ 199.126.83.115 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WSJ confirms the battle is over. https://www.wsj.com/articles/brutal-battle-for-bakhmut-leaves-russia-with-an-uncertain-victory-29b56da7 F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Date and "Ongoing"
Currently, the article gives the timespan of the battle as 1 August 2022 – 20 May 2023. Right below however, it says the status is "Ongoing".

So, which is it? 675930s (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's over 199.126.83.115 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bakhmut is Over
Wagner announced they have captured it. The Russian MOD confirmed it. And even Zelensky said Bakhmut "lives in our hearts", what exactly are people waiting for? Like I get some people/editors are upset about the loss here. But what is the criterion for acknowledging? B/c I very much doubt the Ukrainian Army will put out a statement saying yeah guys, Wagner beat us and took over Bakhmut. Most likely it will remain in radio silence. If they still had it, they would have been desperate to get a video out to embarass Russian claims, but they are in radio silence, so again what is the criterion for changing the status from "Ongoing"? Midgetman433 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. Whilst I agree that the battle is probably over in Russia's favour, Wikipedia's role is to relay existing information—information deemed credible. The Wagner Group and Russian MOD are inevitably going to be biased sources and thus their word don't mean shit on Wikipedia. You are right that the Ukrainian Army has an incentive to downplay it, but Zelensky saying "Bakhmut lives in our hearts" is not the literal transcription "the Russians have captured Bakhmut"; therefore, it will be recorded on Wikipedia as The Ukrainian president said "Bakhmut lives in our hearts" with no further comment for the time being. You can add corroborative sources, but Wikipedia isn't your thesis 675930s (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's role is to relay existing information—information deemed credible."
 * ok so how is this "credibility" determined? b/c people here have no issues taking Ukrainian MoD statements as gospel, and I've seen several updates where they are used as a source for updates as fact. Will it only be updated when the Ukrainian army puts out a statement that they lost Bakhmut? b/c thats not going to come out, for obvious reasons.. neither side will publish anything that can be seen as a negative for their side. Midgetman433 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RS
 * Anyway, this very article on the Battle of Bakhmut cites both Ukrainian and Russian sources for the purposes of documenting what they have stated, without necessarily saying that either side has told the truth. 675930s (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There seems to be a misapprehension that Wikipedia is a news site, it's not, it's an Encyclopaedia. It doesn't publish breaking news as a matter of course, per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikinews is for news. For Wikipedia, there is no rush to get a scoop, or need to include information that doesn't have reliable sourcing. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 20:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wagner and Russian channels are not valuable sources in this matter at all, and Ukraine did not recognized the loss of Bakhmut. They said some parts of the city are still in ukranian control. Wikipedia is not news, it should wait for the further establishment of facts. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They're literally on the field. Russia has no reason to lie about the fall of bakhmut because they would be easily disproven if the taking of the city by them wasn't true, there are several videos of russian soldiers raising their flags in the areas last held by the ukranians too, just get over this, by evening of May 20 the city fell 82.58.77.52 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, every state actor involved has all the reasons to lie about everything. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the Battle is NOT over. While the city's administrative territory has been captured (per Institute for the Study of War), there is still significant fighting in the area around the city. The wikipedia page marked the beginning of the battle well before the Russians got inside the city, there is no reason to mark the battle as over when the Ukrainians are still attempting to contest the city and are operating within visual distance of the city.
 * The Battle for Bakhmut is only truly over when one side assumes full control over the city AND creates a buffer around it to prevent the other side from threatening their control MLPfanficwriter (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "when one side assumes full control over the city AND creates a buffer around it to prevent the other side from threatening their control"
 * Idk when this was ever listed as a criterion, but according to this logic, the Battle of Kherson never ended right? b/c russians are still on the outskirts and continue to shell the city, in the same way Ukraine is on the outskirts and shelling Bakhmut.
 * Seems to be a bit arbitrary and loosely applied whenever it suits people, not really objective. Midgetman433 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle ended on May 20
The city per se fell by the end of 20 May, not May 21, this misconception may come from the fact that western media took a day to report of the news

I add also that on the "casualties" part of the infobox is heavily biased towards the Ukraine by using pro-ukranian sources, it has been widely prooven that Russia took, with it's superior firepower, this battle in order to grind down ukranian manpower, the huge losses of ukranian manpower was largely attested by even western media, while the flag that Russia had "over 100k casualties" is ridicolous 82.58.77.52 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You see, there is a tradition of the Ukrainian media and among people supporting it. Whenever the Ukraine fails miserably, especially losing a city, they just continue fiercely defending it, but in Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Telegram - for about 3-7 days (Mariupol, Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, even Soledar, we have Artyomovsk now) - until they eventually admit it, but say that the place had less than zero strategic value at all, was subsidized, ecologically and economically ineffective under the Ukraine, that Russia will not take a single sity after this one, and other copium. Been there, seen that for several times, was not disappointed here. We even have a phrase: "Russians, you are just so cool in real life, but try to beat us in the Internet!" --M1911 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, of course the "battle" did not end. A very active warfare is currently ongoing at the territory of the city . My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Description of Russian victory if confirmed
I would like to suggest that, if the Russian takeover of Bakhmut is confirmed, it be labeled as a "Russian Pyrrhic victory". This acknowledges the Russian takeover of the city and the reality of its victory, but given the extreme cost in men and materiel and the length of time it took to do so compared to Bakhmut's size, it seems to fit the category of a Pyrrhic victory. Much like the Battle of Vukovar in 1991. I say this not to minimize the Russian success or be biased towards Ukraine, but simply acknowledging the facts. 151.111.138.40 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deciding whether one's victory was pyrrhic only two days after its ending as a bit far too preliminary. --M1911 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Battle is still ongoing, still not confirmed that Russia has control of the full settlement. Even then there is still fighting in the suburbs that are part of the battle. Scu ba (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is very much obvious. Ukrainian forces are shooting at targets directly within the city (what remains of it) right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would need a reliable, competent source for Wikipedia to call this a Pyrrhic victory. Not journalists/news reporting - it would need multiple reliable military experts / military historians - such a categorisation isn't likely to emerge for weeks, months, or even years, as more reliable information emerges to base it on. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 11:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

More evidence of Russian victory
Videos of AFU troops only on the fields outside of the city from a considerable distance - https://t.me/intelslava/47903 -If real, it proves they were defeated and retreated. -If fake, it means Russians have pushed the AFU far away enough to set up a fake video like this. The 1st video is around 48.58656, 37.94399 based on the hill, forest line and skyline (the breaks in between the high rise apts) The 2nd video is around 48.57577, 37.95516, based on the walls, buildings and views of the high rise apts.

Video of RIA Novosti correspondent in Samolet district, the last area the Ukrainians held before defeat - https://t.me/remylind21/2394 Positon is the high rise apts at 48.57577, 37.96976 facing the MIG monument high rise apts and the school south of it.

Truth will always prevail. Yuahrong Aiemryte 00:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Yuahrong (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * ❌ – this article documents fighting taking place both in and around the city of Bakhmut. Even if the city itself has fallen, that does not mean fighting near or around the city is no longer taking place. That also wouldn't mean fighting can't resume inside the city itself. Wait for more reliable sources to present evidence supporting this conclusion, and please stop spamming this talk page with comments. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It's called the Battle of Bakhmut, not Battle around Bakhmut, Bakhmut is taken, it is done.
 * 2) I repeat, the entire legal jurisdiction known as bakhmut city is taken, so it is done.
 * 3) There's no fighting in any of the videos, the AFU was definitely not fighting, the RIA video there's only discernable bombardment, which is normal to perform upon retreating enemies, hence it's not "fighting".
 * 4) This is as reliable a source as you can get; people who are actually on the ground videoing what happened.
 * 5) My last comment was 16 hours ago, thus not spam.
 * 6) This is a reply to you showing how wrong you are, thus also not spam.
 * Truth will always prevail. Yuahrong Aiemryte 01:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to this source, Ukrainian forces are trying to retake the city after being pushed to its edge. They obviously don't want Russia to take Bakhmut, so they will probably continue to fight, whether near the edge or possibly with mortar strikes within the city. That's why we're not saying the battle has ended; just because Russia may have taken the entire city does not mean Ukrainian forces aren't firing into the city with rifle fire, mortar fire, or artillery fire. Capturing a city entirely does not mean fighting has ended. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, not only the battle is currently ongoing, but this is one of the most intense active warfare areas at the entire front line. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable source WSJ calls it a victory. Nebakin (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Uncertain victory" doesn't mean "victory", and neither of these indicate that fighting has ended. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does mean victory, it is literally written down in black and white, this is what the "uncertain" part alluded to:
 * "Who has won and who has lost isn’t measured, however, in current control over the uninhabitable ruins that are left from Bakhmut, a once prosperous city of 70,000 people. The answer will depend on the outcome of Ukraine’s planned offensive—which hinges, in part, on whether Ukrainian or Russian military capacity has been degraded more severely by the war’s bloodiest, and longest, battle."
 * It was on its strategical impact going forwards, and not in any way, shape or form a denial of the tactical victory achieved in the locality.
 * The fighting has ended:
 * "The nine-month battle for the small Ukrainian city of Bakhmut effectively came to an end on Sunday, as Russian forces finally captured the last significant Ukrainian strongholds on its western edge."
 * If you are going to revert to your previous arguments, I highly suggest you to change the status on the pages of the Battles of Gorlovka, Kherson and Energoda among others back to "ongoing" as they fit the criteria provided by you ("forces firing into the city with rifle fire, mortar fire, or artillery fire/Capturing a city entirely does not mean fighting has ended"). In fact you should open up a page for the Battle of Donetsk because that's what the AFU is doing to it everyday as well.
 * If you are going to revert to your previous arguments, I highly suggest you to change the status on the pages of the Battles of Gorlovka, Kherson and Energoda among others back to "ongoing" as they fit the criteria provided by you ("forces firing into the city with rifle fire, mortar fire, or artillery fire/Capturing a city entirely does not mean fighting has ended"). In fact you should open up a page for the Battle of Donetsk because that's what the AFU is doing to it everyday as well.


 * Best Regards, Nebakin (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the city has been occupied entirely by Russian forces, that is not an indication that fighting has ended. It is very likely that Ukrainian forces are still firing into the city, like I said above. And there's a major difference between several missiles being fired at Kherson from a distance of hundreds of miles and Ukrainian forces positioned on the outskirts of a city, using up large amounts of ammunition. There's no point arguing with this; it isn't a matter of opinion. We will change the current status once reliable sources present evidence that indicates fighting has ended and that one side is completely victorious. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "We will change the current status once reliable sources present evidence that indicates fighting has ended and that one side is completely victorious"
 * WSJ is a reliable source that did all that:
 * "The nine-month battle for the small Ukrainian city of Bakhmut effectively came to an end on Sunday, as Russian forces finally captured the last significant Ukrainian strongholds on its western edge."
 * Also, please update the pages for Gorlovka and Energoda, thy fit your criteria entirely.
 * Update: Telegraph UK 2 hours ago:
 * "Putin's hollow victory: The capture of Bakhmut in numbers" "Russia’s refusal to give up their assault has led many to argue they have achieved nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. The capture of Bakhmut may be hailed as a victory in Moscow, but the battle also served a purpose in Kyiv. Russia finally has a win. But at what cost?"Nebakin (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The definition of the Battle of Bakhmut is the first sentence of the article: "The battle of Bakhmut is a series of military engagements in and near the city of Bakhmut between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russian Armed Forces during the larger battle for Donbas." So the battle is not over until military engagements are in and near the city of Bakhmut. Mnplastic (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh my god can't you all just focus on a single thread and talk there. Why do you keep opening new threads ? Super   Ψ   Dro  11:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For real. All these threads are about the same topic with the same arguments. HappyWith (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So that every piece of evidence will be at the forefront instead of being buried by pointless comments practicing mental gymnastics. Nebakin (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There are two problems here. First, multiple RS and Ukrainian officials claim that the city was not captured completely. Secondly, who said that the "Battle of Bakhmut" was about capturing the city limits of Bakhmut? This is just a geographic location. Battle of the Bulge was not about capturing the Bulge. Ukrainian forces are attempting to surround the city. As a matter of fact, the warfare in and around the city is very active - according to all sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RS are not actually confirming themselves that the city has not been captured completely. They are just quoting the Ukrainian officials' claims. While, as has been stated, there is at least one RS (WSJ) confirming the city has been captured and that the battle is over. EkoGraf (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is at least one source too, the ISW, confirming that Ukraine still holds a small part of Bakhmut. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as what I saw from ISW's reports, they have also cited the Ukrainians as saying that they still control a small part of Bakhmut, while also citing the Russians as saying they captured. In their own capacity they have stated (May 21st report), and I quote - "Wagner Group mercenaries likely secured the western administrative borders of Bakhmut City while Ukrainian forces are continuing to prioritize counterattacks on Bakhmut’s outskirts". EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The battle started August 1, and the Russians didn’t even claim to enter the city until December. So anyone that wants to declare it over the minute Ukrainian forces withdraw across a certain street ought to take a cold shower and wait for sources to say it’s over. —Michael Z. 19:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-Ukrainian sources already do, but whatever. EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the good ones that state “Russian victory” or “battle of Bakhmut is over”? Thanks. —Michael Z. 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WSJ has already been cited, but we can actually add now the Ukrainian Kyiv Independent as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where in that article does it say the battle is over? HappyWith (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Ten months after Russia's assault on the once-flourishing city in Donetsk Oblast began, Bakhmut has now been effectively occupied by Russian troops." Confirming capture of the city, which was the Russian aim when the battle started. But in any case, like I said, whatever. As someone else said, we will retroactivaly change it when it gets officially confirmed by Ukraine after two weeks like in the case of Soledar. EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you share seems to discuss continued fighting and attempts to encircle the city -- I don't think it's in question that the city is effectively if not fully under Russian control, but that doesn't make the battle instantly end (just as, as others have noted, we are able to say it started even before any of the city was successfully under occupation). As you point out though, we are not the news and therefore have the luxury of waiting until there is a clearer consensus in reliable sources to assess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it should be added that pro-Ukrainian sources (WSJ and Kiev independent) reported on the fall of Bakhmut. Andrea e luca (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How nice for you to not distinguish these things. —Michael Z. 00:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything that said plus. This discussion is all a bit WP:ORish. When the consensus of independent reliable sources tells us the battle for Bakhmut is over and it is a Russian victory, then we should change the infobox. WP:NOTNEWS. WP follows, it doesn't lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing with Soledar is that Ukraine kept for a while control over a small sector even after the town center fell. Which is the same that has happened here, though the Ukrainian holdout in this case is absolutely insignificant. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently they do not control his holdout anymore. I support marking 21 May as the day of the end of the battle. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this suggestion. There is no reason not to acknowledge that the battle for Bakhmut has come to an end. This article is specifically for the Battle of Bakhmut, not the Battle around Bakhmut. When the Russians captured Soledar on January 13th, Ukraine refused to acknowledge its loss and continued to claim it held the city. It wasn't until a day had passed following the Russian capture of Blahodatne on the 18th that Ukraine acknowledged Soledar had fallen. All sources regarding Bakhmut from Western outlets to pro-Russian ones all agree that Bakhmut has fallen to Russia. There is no legitimate encyclopedic reason that we shouldn't accepted May 21st as the end of the battle for Bakhmut. Vivaporius (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * not sure where exactly I should put this, but while Bakhmut has fallen into Russian control (and sources seem to agree on this), that does not mean the battle for Bakhmut is over. Per the Institute for the Study of War "The Battle for Bakhmut is still ongoing as Ukrainian forces regained the initiative and are counterattacking Bakhmut’s flanks north and south of the city"
 * https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin%E2%80%99s-pyrrhic-victory-bakhmut-retrospective-battle-bakhmut
 * It seems fair to me that while fighting continues in the area, and specifically fighting continues in the area very near Bakhmut proper, that the battle can be considered ongoing. I'm certainly not an expert in the matter though and would love to hear other thoughts. VoltaireNC (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Soledar fell on 16 January. While Ukraine delayed on announcing its loss, so did russia announce victory too early. The end date of this battle should be 21 May and not 20 May as Wagner claimed. Super   Ψ   Dro  06:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is, by any measure, far and beyond the most ridiculous page I've ever seen on Wikipedia. From the heavily slanted and not-even-remotely believable casualty counts all coming from pro-Ukrainian sources to the battle of Bakhmut apparently not being over almost a week after the city was most definitely and provably taken by Russian/Wagner forces. This attempted Ukrainian encirclement of Russian forces inside Bakhmut shows a map of the complete opposite situation occurring, where Russians are closing in on Chasiv Yar and other nearby towns still under Ukrainian control west of the city. What are you people even doing? If pro-Ukrainian "reliable sources" completely deny reality, Wikipedia must apparently do the same. Sad. Historians will weep... Temeku (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does a battle instantly end when one side takes all the administrative territory, despite military operations still going on? By that logic, a classical siege would not "begin" until the attackers actually punctured defenses and entered the walls of the city. HappyWith (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the Institute for the Study of War, "The Battle for Bakhmut is still ongoing as Ukrainian forces regained the initiative and are counterattacking Bakhmut’s flanks north and south of the city." HappyWith (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post is saying that Russia effectively controls Bakhmut. It seems like it's possible to say that Russia won a tactical victory (but not a strategic victory) in the 1st phase of the Battle of Bakhmut (presumably there'll be a Ukrainian counterattack or they'll encircle the Russians at some point). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You can't say Russia won on Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia! Andrea e luca (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Andrea e luca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Pyrrhic victory?
The same source used (ISW) for the "ongoing" status is now mentioning this as a "Pyrric" Russian victory. . The wording is also being used by many sources through a google search. . Take whatever you want from the latter information per WP:HITS. I think the Infobox though needs to be updated though as a "Pyrric" Russian victory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we please wait until fighting in and around the city has completely ended? Otherwise I support your proposal. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 03:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per infobox documentation, the infobox result parameter should not include anything other than "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Adding "pyrrhic" or "strategic" isn't supposed to happen. HappyWith (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Pyrric" label seems to come from US/western analysts who claim the city has "little strategic value", without really knowing the intentions of the Russian military. These analyses are guesswork at best, hence subjective per WP:RSEDITORIAL. This analysis can be included in the body of the article, but the infobox deals with facts only. Loganmac (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this designation is disputed; for example CNN has stated that "The significance of the city cannot be overstressed. Bakhmut lies at a fork that points toward two other strategic towns in the Donetsk region: Konstantinivka to the southwest, and Kramatorsk and Sloviansk to the northwest. All three are key to Putin's total control of the region." RealKnockout (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Battle is still ongoing. Not only does Ukraine still control the strip near the MiG-17 monument, but there is also fighting in and around the suburbs and other locations of the city. As fun as it would be making articles like "The Battle of Yahidne" and talking about the hyper specific engagements in each suburb, this article will cover all the fighting in Bakhmut and its immediate surroundings. Scu ba (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Bakhmut
Should it be called Siege of Bakhmut? Because like in Mariupol, the Russians destroyed almost the entire city and seized it for months. SpringField23402 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Bakhmut wasn’t besieged. —Michael Z. 23:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * City was never besieged Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding units involved?
Should we try and add a list of specific units involved from either side? or would that make the infobox too cluttered? Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could add an “order of battle” or a “units involved” instead in order to not overcrowd the infobox. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tomissonneil in the first instance. Listing units anywhere is only useful if it can account for the bulk of the forces. But this assumes that we can reasonable identify what the bulk of the forces are. In a summary form, we would only list the highest formations and not subordinate formations or individual units. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

20,000+ Wagner PMCs killed
Uhh, so 20,000+ private military companies were killed?

This should be changed to 20,000+ Wagner personnel killed 675930s (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see this has been changed to 20,000+ Wagner contractors killed, but right below it it still says 40,000+ Wagner PMCs killed 675930s (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Casualties: "Western" estimates section
I checked these sources and found two of them to be dated March 7. It is well established that Russia suffered many casualties in and around Bakhmut since March 7. Shall the Western estimates section be updated or removed? 2603:7081:55F0:8330:361C:18C5:D111:4B75 (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * updated, if we can find new sources. Scu ba (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Voting to change status to Russian victory

 * Strong support as nominator. The battle for Bakhmut is over and Russia has won it, even if the Ukrainian side won't acknowledge that. There are numerous credible sources already cited, confirming it. Battle of Donbas (2022–present) article covers current and future combat operations in the region.

BobNesh (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @BobNesh, what is “the Ukrainian ministry of truth”? The comment is setting up a WP:BATTLEGROUND and could be considered offensive. Not an acceptable way to start a discussion, especially on a page subject to WP:CTOP and WP:GS/RUSUKR. I suggest you delete it. —Michael Z. 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose battle isn't over, nor was it decisive for Russia. Scu ba (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. For article content, Wikipedia uses consensus based on discussion, not voting. The string of @'s seems selective, contrary to WP:CANVAS. The infobox template specifically excludes terms like "Decisive". No supporting rationale or reliable sources have been put forward in the nomination. These are all red flags. One would be bad, but this is ridiculous. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Russian has won, decisive or pyrrhic it doesn't matter and can't be determined now. But the battle is already over by every standard and no one versed in military operations can deny it unless they have ulterior motives. You may call the AFU actions the second battle of bakhmut or artemovsk if you want to, but the current battle is over. There are no more significant AFU actions against the city anymore, in fact they are retreating and being pushed back whether you like it or not. If we are gonna keep claiming this battle is still ongoing, then please change the statuses of the likes of Battle of Energoda, Kherson, Donetsk and Gorlovka, since they all fit the same criteria that being used for Artemovsk Nebakin (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the “Talk:” namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.” according to WP:GS/RUSUKR —Michael Z. 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop posting pointless stuff and striking out valid comments. I got tagged, i replied, i don't care. There's no block or anything preventing me from doing so. So, not my issue. So there's two options here, leave my comment be or i will create a new topic solely to express this comment. Nebakin (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Sources are now starting to show up describing it as a Russian victory. As Nebakin says, wether its a decisive or pyrrhic victory we will know in the future, not possible at this time untill the consequences of the battle are shown. EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The infobox docs specifically disallow words like "decisive" or "strategic". The proposer really should have read relevant guidelines before creating this thread. HappyWith (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about giving a vote on "Russian Victory" then? You can't just oppose it entirely because of one word. Nebakin (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then. How about this formulation: ″Ukraine successfully ended operation of defending Bakhmut by leaving the city, while Russians desperately captured it.″ I know that we should avoid weasel words, but if this is the only way to accept the reality, then we should use this Ukrainian government/Western mainstream media type of formulation. BobNesh (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What are the numerous credible sources that say “Russian victory,” and not Pyrrhic victory, uncertain victory, say Russia claims victory, use scare quotes around Wagner “victory”, or say Russia hits a dead end? —Michael Z. 17:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention desperate victory. OK then, desperate Russian victory. How does that sound? Any better? 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) BobNesh (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @BobNesh Support, without any adjective such as "decisive" or "pyrrhic". This is becoming embarrassing, as the "ongoing" label does not reflect in any way the reality. We are supposed to be neutral as a Encyclopedia. Odiseo79 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Loss of Bakhmut confirmed
Prighozin’s released a video claiming it’s been taken, soldiers have taken photos at the sign by the city’s entry point. The battle is over. 49.194.253.78 (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Video could be taken in some random Russian cities. DaChigger (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Zelensky admitted to the loss (later dishonestly backtracked when he realised what a mistake telling the truth was) but don’t you think that a confirmation direct from the man’s mouth more than warrants this to be listed as a Russian victory? 49.196.83.139 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He said the city got destroyed, he didn't say Ukrainian forces pulled out of the city. DaChigger (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Saw that too. 98.116.168.167 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're wasting your time. The mods of wikipedia are nato fanboys.  They're going to be claiming that the battle for Artemovsk is still ongoing as the Russian flag is hoisted above Kramatorsk. 174.74.105.227 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 Yuahrong Aiemryte 02:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it get tiring to shill for Russia after 450 days? Mobilize yourself and put your money where your desperate mouth is, loser. 143.178.28.125 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * said Russian dog DaChigger (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “The battle is over.”[citation needed] —Michael Z. 02:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer stated that "the Russians just took Bakhmut" at 28:44 of "John Mearsheimer Ukraine Salon" youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.232.247 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Units involved in infobox
In the "Units involved" in infobox section, Luhansk People's Republic (I don't know what the name of the unit) and Chechen units are not written. Please write, thank you. Sincerely, Parham wiki (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there where no chechens involved in the battle and the Russian MoD campaigned hard for that, If you have a source for any LNR militias please copy and paste them here and I'll add them to the infobox. Scu ba (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16-2023
 * ... The Russian MoD claimed on May 16 that elements of the 4th Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd Luhansk People’s Republic Army Corps) repelled 10 Ukrainian counterattacks near Ivanivske (6km west of Bakhmut)
 * https://greydynamics.com/battle-for-bakhmut-a-situational-assessment/
 * ... There are also reports of LNR and DPR forces consolidating in the north and south of the city
 * Of course, Chechnya (from May 10, 2023) Please add:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20230506193454/https://news.yahoo.com/mercenary-boss-chechen-troops-replace-141823353.html
 * Parham wiki (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the Luhansk source, the Chechen source is again referring to the scuffle Prigozhin had with the Russian MoD over transferring his positions to Chechen forces. That was a threat. That transition never happened. Again, no chechens, unless you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, took part in the battle of Bakhmut. Scu ba (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not find a source. According to ISW, this was blackmail (the Chechens were not involved in the Battle of Bakhmut). Thank you for adding Luhansk. have a good night. Parham wiki (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! glad I could help. Scu ba (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Date of the Battle
Ukraine still hold a little portion of the city. We need to change the date from 1 August 2022 – 21 May 2023 to 1 August 2022 – ongoing.

OR (if you disagree)

1 August 2022 – ongoing

Fighting inside the city: 1 August 2022 – 21 May 2023 (9 months, 2 weeks and 6 days)

Fighting around the city continues: 21 May 2023 - ongoing DaChigger (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * agreed, it has been changed Scu ba (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you provide the source where the ISW says Ukraine still holds a small part near the former MiG-17 monument? Super   Ψ   Dro  19:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Their reports. This is the most recent one. Red is what they assess Russia controls. Orange is what Russia claims to control. White is what they asses Ukraine to control. Blue is what they Ukraine claims to have recaptured. 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bakhmut's administrative borders are marked in a black line. None of it is under Ukrainian control, claimed or confirmed. The ISW stated days ago that there's geolocated footage showing the advance of Wagner forces towards this MiG-17 monument. There is also no kind of evidence showing Ukrainian presence in this sector. I think it's kind of petty at this point to keep showing the battle for the city itself as ongoing. This is a very highly viewed article. Let's keep a high profile in this encyclopedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * again, orange is Russian claims that have yet to be verified. Look again, notice the strip in the bottom of the map, Scu ba (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources supporting Ukraine's claim of keeping areas of the city. That's definitively not the case with the MiG-17 monument area. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In broad terms, the battle didn’t start when Russia entered the city, but when Russia said it launched its operation to take the city defended by Ukraine. Likewise, the battle doesn’t end based on a criteria some Wikipedians decide it should, but when the two sides are no longer fighting over the city.
 * Specifically, the battle ends when sources say it has ended. Please show that most sources say the battle is ended, then get consensus to update the article. —Michael Z. 23:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Essentially agreeing with Michael. Until we have a consensus here, continuing to change the infobox and lead to assert an end with an outcome is disruptive. We should also have one centralised point of discussion and not new sections popping up willy nilly just because someone new wants to express their POV and can't be bothered to look through the TP to identifying existing discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the ISW report, I literally just sent. Are you purposefully being dense? Scu ba (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I archive multiple treads about this same issue with the aim of keeping the discussions centralised. Hopefully, experienced editors here can collaborate to steward the talk page and keep these discussions about the result and when in one place. If anyone seriously disagrees or has a better idea, please revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of contention is whether the end of the battle is defined by the Russians occupying (in full) the geopolitical boundary of the city (which may or may not be the urban area if "greater Bakhmut" extends beyond the geopolitical boundary); or, whether it is defined by the fighting "for Bakhmut". The article lead presently defines the scope as the fighting "in and near the city of Bakhmut". Clearly, sources are determining but, they are also limiting because this is a current situation, where we largely rely on topical and news sources and not good quality secondary sources written in hindsight. We need to reach a consensus on "when" there is a result to the battle, while minimising disruption.

I would suggest that we start and RfC. This does not mean that we would need to wait for a close. What it does mean is that we need to reach a consensus in a centralised discussion. Discussion forks and edit request can then be quickly closed to keep the discussion centralised. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why an RFC? Are there contradictory good sources on whether the battle is ended?
 * If the question is “whether the end of the battle is defined by the Russians occupying (in full) the geopolitical boundary of the city,” then that too should be answered by sources and not editors’ opinions.
 * The battle began with months of fighting without Russian forces in city limits. Why would we insist that it ends the minute Ukrainian forces are not in city limits, if sources do not say so? This is what it is, perhaps a symbolic milestone, but it would WP:SYNTH to claim other repercussion unsupported by sources. Holding an RFC is just claiming permission to do so. —Michael Z. 14:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Michael, I have already said that I essentially agree with your position. Declaring an outcome has obviously become contentious and disruptive. There needs to be a consensus on declaring an outcome. Consensus is not a vote but based on strength of argument and sources, not editor's opinions. Why an RfC? I have already answered that too.  It obliges the discussion to be held at one place.  Attempts to fork the discussion can be quickly dealt with. D/S also limit participation in an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there doubt over an end date in sources? Do sources give contradictory end dates? Do sources give an end date at all? —Michael Z. 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Michael, you appear to be arguing against me when I essentially agree with you. The RfC would be about managing the discussion when threads on this just keep popping up. It could be phrased as: "Given the scope of the article as defined by the lead, is the fighting in and around Bakhmut (ie for Bakhmut), at what point is there a consensus in independent reliable sources that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended and when did this end." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is too confusing for me to parse: I literally can’t tell what it means.
 * ISW today talks about ongoing fighting over Bakhmut, in the paragraph beginning with “the tempo of Russian operations around Bakhmut. . .” —Michael Z. 07:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't have to convince me but there are clearly a good number of editors that don't get it. I will try a different way. The RfC would be put as a premise (a defining statement) and the actual question. The premise is: The lead of the article defines the article scope. The scope is fighting in and around Bakhmut (ie the fighting for Bakhmut). For "in and around" one can read "in and near". I understand that you agree with the premise, even if you might state it slightly differently. The premise is a statement of fact. It is not a question. It is immutable. The question is: When is there a consensus in independent reliable sources that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended and on what date did it end? The question is in two parts. The first part can only be answered when independent reliable sources tell us that the fighting for Bakhmut has ended. This does not mean that the sources are already telling us that. That may have been a point of misunderstanding?  The second question, the date it ended, can only be answered when the first question is satisfied and there is a consensus among editors that it has been satisfied. The end date also needs a consensus in sources and then, a consensus among editors as to what the sources are telling us. Hope this is clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is clearer. But is it useful to ask this about sources when few or no sources are being presented as saying the battle is over? Why invoke a dispute-resolution mechanism over a question that’s not actually in dispute? Drive-by editors and anons are invoking SYNTH from a fact, not explicit statements from the sources. —Michael Z. 12:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically, they are disputing your given, that the scope includes fighting around Bakhmut. The RFC question doesn’t to resolve that dispute. Look at below: the OP is on a different wavelength from your proposed RFC question.  —Michael Z. 12:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They can argue it as much as they like, it doesn't change the premise and at least they would be doing it in one spot. Is not  convincing? An RfC also defines the question. Editors would need to answer the question and not just proffer an opinion. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Update of the status
The status, shown in the infobox is incorrect. It's no longer "Ongoing". Despite the preferences of the editors of the english wikipedia, it's a decisive russian victory. The ukrainians lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.203.18 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Eh, I wouldnt call it a decisive russian victory by any means. But if the flanking attack fails or stalls then I agree by all means is a russian victory. Supermariossj64 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * News search for Bakhmut victory: every single result says “claimed victory,” “pyrrhic victory,” “doubtful victory,” or uses scare quotes. Definitely not “decisive,” despite the preference of anon. —Michael Z. 15:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only is the battle not over, but this would be nowhere near a Decisive victory. Scu ba (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Status
Why is the status still "ongoing"? It is a fact that the russians captured the whole city, acknowledged by the ukrainians. Whether there are flanking attacks or not is moot; the city was captured. Odiseo79 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A battle is over where there are no longer combats over a particular target. For example there was a Battle of Kyiv even if Kyiv itself was never disputed. As long as the flanking maneuvers remain in force, then Ukraine and Russia are still fighting over Bakhmut so the battle continues. If the flanking ends or stalls or it becomes clear is not a serious attempt to retake Bakhmut and its just to fix Russian troops, then I agree the battle if over.
 * If you want an example of the other side see Vuhledar, the attack failed horribly for Russia, its clear. Yet because Russia keeps sending minor assaults to the city, then there is still technically a battle over Vuhledar and is ongoing. Supermariossj64 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Same reason it was ongoing before the Russians captured any of it. —Michael Z. 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I quote the source (Reuters) that is being used to support the claim that there are flanking attacks: "Russia said on Saturday it had completely taken Bakhmut, which, if confirmed, would mark an end to the longest and bloodiest battle of the 15-month war". So we're using a different definition than Reuter's to mark the end of the battle. On the other hand, the only source of these "flanking counterattacks" is a dubious statement from the ukrainian MoD. Seems to me that this "ongoing" status is more based on hope than on reality. Odiseo79 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW yesterday: “A prominent Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces are not conducting active operations aimed at regaining positions in Bakhmut City itself despite the possible continuation of localized Ukrainian counterattacks northwest and southwest of the city” (source: “локальных атак к северо-западу и юго-западу от Артемовска” [local attacks to the northwest and southwest of Bakhmut (Artemovsk)]).  —Michael Z. 18:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW today lists ongoing operations at Bakhmut in the paragraph beginning with “The tempo of Russian operations around Bakhmut remains notably low.” —Michael Z. 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. So can we not get a consensus to declare this battle over? Sng Pal (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You agree with what “Russia said” according to Reuters? Stop the presses! —Michael Z. 03:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia still doesn't control the whole city, hence the ongoing label. Read the citations if you want clarity but I'm also pretty sure the battle section of the article will suffice. Scu ba (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scu ba Even WaPo is reporting the loss of Bakhmut: "The effective loss of Bakhmut made little practical difference for this artillery unit, which has used a small former farmhouse to direct its strikes on Russian-occupied territory for months.
 * But the soldiers in the artillery unit admitted that losing Bakhmut was an emotional blow." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/28/bakhmut-wagner-mercenaries-ukraine-withdrawal/
 * But not us. What are we waiting for? Authorization from the Ukrainian MoD or the ISW? Odiseo79 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * key word, effective. not total. Scu ba (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be a jerk, but the literal first sentence of the article you are using here to argue the battle is over is "The battle of Bakhmut isn’t over."--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia still controls 60% of thr Kherson suburbs yet the other it's considered as a Ukrainian victory instead of ongoing, even the Kyiv infenpendent says the battle of bakhmut is over StovlessStove (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction
Just by reading portions of the article it appears Russia has captured the city and won the battle. This is in contrast to the ongoing status as supported by the ISW. Personally, I don't know how "South of the city" can be considered part of Bakhmut so I can understand the confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the contradictory line in your edit (the battle is still described as ongoing as Ukrainians still hold territory south of the city) barring further discussion. I don't believe the question of the battle being ongoing is because "Ukrainians still hold territory south of the city," but rather because fighting for control of the city continues in and around its flanks, and that did not end instantly upon Russia declaring full control (just as the battle started even though at that point the fighting was taking place in the city's outskirts.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it could be a flanking situation, in any case it needs to be more clearly presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ISW assesses that Ukraine continues to hold a strip of territory within the city along its southwestern extremity, and that Wagner and Russian forces had never captured the full city. Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don’t know where all of you were during June, July, August, September, October, and early November last year, when the article “Battle of Bakhmut” existed but there were no Russian forces anywhere considered part of Bakhmut. —Michael Z. 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

maybe have an EL to this WN page in the article
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy denies Russian claim of capture of Bakhmut Tuesday, May 23, 2023 One can still put wt:thons opinions here: wikinews:Comments:Ukrainian President Zelenskyy denies Russian claim of capture of Bakhmut DMBFFF (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Too early to write about Russian victory even if the battle is over.
It is to early to write about the battle leading to a Russian vicotry, as it is to early to evalute the strategic consequences of the battle.

I urge you to remember that most battles that is written about battle in articles on this site is also written a while after the battle occurred. This makes it alot easier to evaluate the strategic context in which the battle occurred and how the outcome of the battle affected a war or a campaign.

According to pro-Ukraininan sources this battle consumed a lot of Russian resources that were assigned to the Russian winter-spring offensive of 2023, ultimately leading to the operational failure of the Russian offensive. Also we do not know what this battle are going to mean for the the Ukraninan counter-offensive that has been promised by Ukranian leadership.

Right now I would lable the outcome of this battle as "inconclusive, Russian forces takes control over Bakhmut, see outcome section for more information" 130.238.163.74 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The docs for Template:Infobox military conflict list the acceptable values for the “result” parameter:
 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 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. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
 * —Michael Z. 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * to me that sees to confirm that my statement could be used, but with some changes. 130.238.163.74 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or we leave it out until history decides. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The battle is over.
There's no reason not to change it.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/podcasts/the-daily/bakhmut-ukraine-russia.html) and (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/world/europe/bakhmut-russia-ukraine-retreat.html?searchResultPosition=2). Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Right now we have one (primary?) source saying that the battle is ongoing. I would start an RfC on the matter as it would clear up any confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ISW says the battle is still going on. Scu ba (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scu ba And we're relying on this one single source, ignoring the WSJ, WaPo and the NYTimes? Why? I get it that our fellow ukrainians editors have strong feelings about the subject --feelings that I share and sympathize with, but we're an ecyclopedia, and this status is not reflecting reality. We can't continue denying the evident. Odiseo79 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Odiseo79, your remark about the presumed nationality of a group of editors you have defined is not acceptable. Please strike. Or in fairness, give us information about your personal background so we can link it to your unsuitability for editing articles. And tell us more about your feelings.
 * If you have a problem with specific editors, then specifically say so at WP:ANI. If you have a problem with Ukrainians or any other identifiable group, then there are probably more suitable websites for you. —Michael Z. 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Of course that I have no problem with any group or nationality of editors. I was trying to underscore the strong feelings this subject can arise, specially when people are being invaded and bombed from a foreign power. I understand that my input is not welcome here, I think that your reply was too personal, and for me, that's it. I won't discuss this article further, much less edit it. Odiseo79 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And please, stop beating around the bush and quote WSJ, WaPo, and NYTimes where they say the battle is over. —Michael Z. 04:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I trust the ISW, a think tank that has proven itself and its factual record in the war, when they say that the battle is still ongoing. Scu ba (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the New York Times has published an article headlined "What Does Russia's Success in Bakhmut Mean for the War in Ukraine?" and the Washington Post "Bakhmut Falls But Is It Really a Russian Victory?" while ISW has already done "retrospective analysis of the Battle of Bakhmut" and has recently reported that offensive operations from both sides near Bakhmut is now low tempo quoting a Ukrainian spokesman as saying "only two or three engagements occurred in the Bakhmut direction in recent days and no combat clashes occurred on May 30", it is difficult to see what would convince the doubters. Wagner set itself the strategically irrelevant objective of taking the administrative boundaries of Bakhmut city, and eventually achieved this on May 20 or 21, at which point they stopped their offensive.  The Ukrainians made some small successful counter-attacks on the northern and southern flanks outside the city. Wagner forces are being replaced by defensive regular Russian troops. There has been a prisoner exchange just outside the city boundary (NW of Bakhmut), geolocated by open-source intelligence. All these can be sourced, for example through ISW, and in many cases are already linked in the article.  --2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:CD76:DA8A:A25E:9CAF (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please go by the text and not the headlines. None gives an end date except as Russian claims. The ISW report literally starts with “The Battle for Bakhmut is still ongoing as Ukrainian forces regained the initiative and are counterattacking Bakhmut’s flanks north and south of the city” and ends with “It is not even clear that the Battle of Bakhmut is yet over.” —Michael Z. 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself this question: how many days of no reported significant offensive operations by either side in Bakhmut would it take for you to conclude that the battle had finished? 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:CD76:DA8A:A25E:9CAF (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An RS saying it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * {EC) A lack of source is not a source. Deciding what a lack of information is, is WP:OR in the extreme. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Age of the ISW report you cited: 7 days. Duration of the battle: 303 days. Appropriate period to wait until just assuming a significant event has occurred without citing reliable secondary sources: forever. —Michael Z. 15:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the most recent ISW report has the Ukrainian controlled strip unchanged.
 * Also here is a CNN report where they backtracked and said Russia said they took Bakhmut as well as saying Ukraine says they still control a strip. Specifically “Yesterday, the Ukrainian Armed Forces retained control of certain industrial facilities and private houses area in the southwestern area, the area where the aircraft [monument] is.” The monument of a MiG-17 is in Druzhba Square in the southwest of Bakhmut. “Today, we still have control of this small part of the city. The fighting continues,”" Scu ba (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Change status to russian Vicory
Why is the status of the battle still ongoing when it ended 11 days ago 178.221.185.235 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blatantly false. Scu ba (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please cite sources. —Michael Z. 02:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it really continues. Parham wiki (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. We wait until we can reflect what reliable sources have published. There is no rush to get a scoop. WP:NOTNEWS WP:Recentism (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_deadline_is_now
 * People are reading the article right now and it may never get the same traffic it did when the city fell weeks ago, Wikipedia should have been up to date. The only sources that say the battle is still ongoing within the city cite the UA MOD which is clearly biased.
 * [Https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/23/bakhmut-s-fall-raises-russian-anxieties-about-the-expected-ukrainian-offensive/351bdf84-f921-11ed-bafc-bf50205661da&#x20;story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/23/bakhmut-s-fall-raises-russian-anxieties-about-the-expected-ukrainian-offensive/351bdf84-f921-11ed-bafc-bf50205661da_story.html] 121.45.253.83 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And the only sources that say the city has fallen cite Prigozhin which is clearly biased. Scu ba (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:The deadline is now, an essay, says
 * "This page in a nutshell: When an article contains unverifiable content or lacks vital content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it."
 * This directly in line with WP:V which it links to, and WP:RELIABLE. The focus is on reliable sourced information as soon as it available, and not including poorly sourced information immediately. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Logo actualizado de grupo wagner.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Актуальный логотип ЧВК Вагнер.svg

Bakhmut Has Fallen, Whats the Dispute About?
Russia and Ukraine have both confirmed that Bakhmut has fallen. The dates should be changed to show the battle for the city has ended on May 20th 2023. Any future battle or offensive into Bakhmut can be recognized as the “Second Battle of Bakhmut”. Please don’t distort historical facts on wikipedia page for political purposes. Accuracy is important. Aug 1 2022 - May 20 2023 needs to be on there along with Russian Victory. 2600:1700:D87A:1A60:4592:695B:B851:9A2A (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There's always going to be a propaganda war and mental gymnastics in place in order for people to get the version of their reality to be the status quo. Right now, this article is an example of that, where some people will claim that the battle is over while others will claim that it's still ongoing as long as there's some sporadic attacks at the city. So technically, the battle can go on for years and decades as long as there's an attack of some sort at the city. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:B436:B0E3:FD1B:5007 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cue their silence over Energoda, Donetsk, Kherson and etc. which are all facing the same situation as Artemovsk now. Nebakin (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are wholly different situations. Enerhodar, Donetsk and Kherson are being shelled, from a distance, by artillery. There isn't active fighting with on the ground personnel in any of the three cities you mentioned. Scu ba (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this is your first edit, welcome to wikipedia. I'm not sure where you're going with this one. Sporadic attacks within the city would qualify as an ongoing battle. There would be fighting in the city, hence a battle in the city. Scu ba (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bro, it's not worth it to waste your time on these people. Russia can capture all of Donetsk and they will still claim battle of Artemovsk is going on so long as no "reliable source" says it's over. Nebakin (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Why in God's name is this battle still listed as ongoing? It has been nearly two weeks now for Ukraine to refute Russia's claims and they have not yet sent a single confirmed audio or visual evidence that they still hold Bakhmut. The battle is goddamn over. When even the page of Bakhmut itself outright states that it has been fully captured, this refusal to update is turning into a joke as it reeks of copium. I am going to echo what a lot of folks have been saying here. We are meant to be objective. We have given Ukraine enough time to refute the claims and they have not given us substantial evidence they still hold the city in any relevant form. The battle is over. 42Grunt (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how this is your first edit, welcome to wikipedia. The answer is that multiple sources, including the ISW, say the battle is still on going and that Ukraine controls a sliver of the city along the T0504 highway. Scu ba (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They actually don't say they control a sliver of the city. What they actually say is that they control a sliver in the city's outskirts (outside the city). EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension sure is hard, here is the ISW report itself in this one they note that Prigozhin himself conceded that Ukrainian forces still control a portion of the city. Scu ba (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Change the status from Ongoing
The battle is basically over, Russia claims victory, Ukraine stays silent. Why can't the status be something like "contested" the battle ended nearly two weeks ago. StovlessStove (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that this is a brand new account, so welcome to Wikipedia. There are several threads on this talkpage that answer this question. As a general point, articles reflect what reliable sources say. This is not a news site; we can comfortably await the comprehensive historical view rather than relying on the day by day claims of protagonists. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
Russian has won the battle of Bakmut 109.120.249.41 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a faq so we can just reply "see faq"?and save a bit of time. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * sounds like a good idea. Scu ba (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , I have been suggesting an RfC at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut as a means of managing this disruption. Don't know if you have followed this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is hard to know what thread to follow. An RFC might be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The battle is over
The battle has ended, no need to keep the status as "ongoing" just because there's clashes in some areas near the city since they aren't part of it, I'm afraid of Wikipedia's neutrality and honesty since this article is obviously has some sort of bias towards Ukraine Gattor1 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See all the talk page threads above, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, and I rather get a convincing answer than a passive-agressive reply, the status should be changed Gattor1 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered multiple times already. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then answer me if you don't mind Gattor1 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See all the threads above, we do not keep on answering the same question. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite rude, but I'll do search for your "answer" above, I hope it's not what I expect Gattor1 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not telling you the answer is there, I am telling you to join in there, as we cannot have any meaningfull discussion in 15 separate threads. Discussion has be focused so that we do not have to monitor umpteen threads at once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the confusion, thanks I'll join there Gattor1 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, as per Prigozhin himself Russia never fully controlled the city and Ukraine still holds a portion of the city's southwest. Scu ba (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources from May 21st onwards confirming it is over
According the latest RFC, the criteria for sources as stated by @Cinderella157: "Sources should be telling us the battle is over or make an unambiguous and conclusively similar statement that requires no analysis or interpretation."

"Brutal Battle for Bakhmut Leaves Russia With an Uncertain Victory" "The nine-month battle for the small Ukrainian city of Bakhmut effectively came to an end on Sunday." - WSJ 21st May

"Russian forces capture Bakhmut, a symbolic but costly victory" "President Vladimir Putin's first major battlefield victory in nearly a year is a symbolic prize that comes as his troops are being forced onto the backfoot around the city and beyond." "Russian forces have claimed full control of Bakhmut, ending an intense months long battle for the eastern city that came to embody Ukrainian resistance." "The news will serve as a symbolic boost for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but his first major battlefield victory in nearly a year may be a fleeting one, with his military forced onto the backfoot around the city and beyond." "It holds no longer, but Kyiv may believe it has served its purpose." "Western officials and military analysts have said that Russia's capturing Bakhmut would be a blow for Ukraine but was unlikely to prove a decisive turning point in the conflict."- NBC News 21st may

"Putin's hollow victory: The capture of Bakhmut in numbers" "The capture of Bakhmut may be hailed as a victory in Moscow, but the battle also served a purpose in Kyiv. Russia finally has a win. But at what cost?" - Telegraph 22nd May

"Fall of Bakhmut would signal ‘a Pyrrhic victory for Wagner’" "This is a Pyrrhic victory for Wagner,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy chief of the General Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces, told Al Jazeera." "But the counterattack was apparently aimed at saving the remaining Ukrainian servicemen, a military analyst said. “The goal has been achieved,” Nikolay Mitrokhin of Germany’s Bremen University told Al Jazeera. “The [city] has been abandoned.”" "Bakhmut’s fall may delay a much bigger counteroffensive in the south, especially in the Zaporizhia region, where Kyiv had been amassing forces in recent weeks, he said."- Al Jazeera 22nd May

"Bakhmut falls, but is it really a Russian victory?" "The 200-plus day siege may be over, but what comes next is not exactly to Moscow’s benefit" "The eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut, captured by Russian forces after more than 220 days of house-to-house fighting, is unique in that it comes with its own supply of bubbly to celebrate the victory." - Singapore Straits Times (OPINION) 23rd May

"When you think about the difficulty Russia has had taking Bakhmut, it doesn't bode well for the future," Jeffrey Edmonds, a Russia expert and former CIA military analyst, told Insider earlier this year." - Business Insider 23rd May

"Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar said on May 23 that Kyiv's forces had made some progress "on the flanks to the north and south of Bakhmut." But she acknowledged that Russian forces had taken the control of the city itself and continued to "clear areas" they held." - Radio Free Europe 23rd May

"Moscow’s ‘pyrrhic victory’ in Bakhmut prompts unrest in the Russian military" "You’d be inclined to agree with the description proffered by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) that this was a “pyrrhic victory”. - The Conversation 25th May

"What to Know About Russia’s Capture of Bakhmut in Ukraine" "Ukraine, whose forces have made small gains on the outskirts, has signaled that it is now focused on making it difficult for Moscow to hold onto the city." "Whatever comes next, Ukraine’s setback in Bakhmut is a significant moment in Russia’s invasion, its first military success since last summer." " but Kyiv has all but conceded that the intense and bloody defense of the city is over." "But on Monday, a deputy Ukrainian defense minister, Hanna Maliar, essentially acknowledged that the city had been lost, saying that the Russians were “mopping up” to clear the remaining Ukrainian soldiers from the ruins." - NYT 25th May

"Moscow’s forces will struggle to capitalize on their first major victory in months after a battle that depleted them" "Russian forces have succeeded in taking control of the small eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut." - WSJ 25th May

"The capture of the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut by the Wagner paramilitary group has given Moscow a rare and very costly victory." - NYT 30th May

"After 10 months of warfare, ground assaults have largely come to a halt and the guns have mostly fallen silent in the city of Bakhmut." "“There are no active battles there – neither in the city, nor on the flanks,” Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar" - Al Jazeera 31st May

"Ukrainian battalion commander Oleg Shiryaev warned his men in nearby trenches that Russian forces were advancing across a field toward a patch of trees outside the city of Bakhmut." "“The goal in Bakhmut is not Bakhmut itself, which has been turned into ruins,” military analyst Roman Svitan said by phone. The goal for the Ukrainians is to hold on to the western heights and maintain a defensive arc outside the city." - AP 4th June

"Moscow hammered Bakhmut, while Ukraine tried to hang onto the eastern city for as long as possible. The Ukrainians finally withdrew from the city last month" - WSJ 5th June

It is clear that "Russian Victory" and "battle of bakhmut is over" is a common conclusion among many of WP's "reliable sources". "Military experts" and "analysts" are also stating that the city was abandoned by the AFU and that they are now on the defensive, with reports of Russian troops advancing in fact. This is further supported by UA's dep. Defense Minister admission that there are no active battles in Bakhmut or its flanks since 31st May, with the latest movements from the AFU only reported from yesterday. All of these means that it is clear the current battle is over, with the declaration that the AFU has abandoned/withdrew from the city. The last time the Russians did this the Ukrainians were awarded an immediate victory, despite the same actions taken by the Russians to secure a defensive line with minor counterattacks just like what the AFU is doing now. Therefore there's no reason to view it differently.

Russian victory, 21st May 2023

P.S. a new topic was created to ensure that this cannot be struck off due to the other topic being a discussion. Nebakin (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the sources debunking every no vote in the RFC above. Nebakin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven then why are you commenting under my topic???
 * I've already made it clear I started a new topic so it cant be struck off and get pretended to not exist. If I do that, it gets struck and I post again I get accused of spamming. I present counter arguments there i get accused of spamming. I ain't dumb, I've been on wiki for years already.
 * So no, I don't really care. Ive done what I needed to, I've provided ample proof to show that this article and the decision making behind it is a farce and a joke.
 * More than enough evidence have been shown to change the status already. Ball's in yall's court.
 * Have a good day. Nebakin (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I welcome reliable sources, but these seem to have cherrypicked phrases where other parts of the articles are far more ambivalent. "Uncertain victory" - concentrating on victory far more than uncertain is particularly egregious emphasis. Additionally, several of those sources are weeks old, and reliable sources have since said there is continued combat, so the claims seem to have premature. I'll remind you again of WP:Recentism. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hohum 1) There's no cherry picking involved. Theres only selective focus on relevant parts to the status change.
 * 2) As per above, selective focus is needed because we are looking to chnage the status to Russian VICTORY. Thus it is fully appropriate to only focus on the victory part and not other parts that are clearly a biased negative spin to discredit any Russian achievement. Likewise, if this was was a pro-Ukraine article that wrote "heroic defeat for Ukraine" I believe we would all too only focus on the word defeat and not any other biased connotations attached to it.
 * 3) The fact that you used the "uncertain victory" example again shows you have never read the article. Anyone who read it will have ZERO doubts that the title didn't meant that victory was uncertain but the consequences of it. I have already it quoted that part TWICE in previous comments so I'm not going to quote it again. If you are incapable of reading the article, I highly suggest googling on how to read those articles behind pay walls. Likewise I would like to remind you that pay walls are not a legitimate reason to dismiss a source.
 * 4) The timing of these articles matter as they show a constant acknowledgement of Russian victory over the battle since the very day they announced it 2 weeks ago. As such recentism cannot be applied to this. In fact, most sources do not explicitly link any of those ongoing skirmishes to the main battle itself, as almost all of the articles I've provided acknowledged Russia has won the battle and that there are still fights going on. Both of which can be true and non-contradictory. For example, the battles of Energoda, Kherson, Gorlovka are all settled despite constant attacks by both sides onto these areas. Nebakin (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is cherry picking. Admitting you are trying to get a certain outcome instead of seeing that sources are contradictory, ambivalent, and superseded is telling; so is whining about imagined editor bias; look in the mirror. Recentism is specifically applicable. This is not a news site. Read WP:TENYEARTEST to get a perspective on the encyclopaedic approach. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hohum Since you wanna go down this path of pointless argument and insults:
 * Why not detailedly show us what is unsatisfactory about EVERY source I've provided so we can actually find one that makes yall happy.
 * You can't just dismiss all my sources without a proper explanation as this will severely impact the validity of the entire article and the neutrality of editors.
 * So go into every article and quote the stuff you think violates the criteria and explain in detail how.
 * And why when most of them fit the criteria perfectly but there's somehow always some other issue.
 * Criteria states "source says X" and nothing else. I've shown that almost of these sources said X, so please, give us something detailed, breakdown every article on why they are not good enough despite claiming X specifically.
 * I'm sure we would all love to learn from you about this. Nebakin (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's up you to gain consensus, not for me to pick apart everything thrown against a wall in the hope some of it will stick. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)