Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 3

Battle of Bakhmut should be considered over
The skirmishes a few km from it does not justify the battle of Bakhmut. Case in point. There is skirmish in the Avdiivka area a few km from Donetsk. We don't say the battle of Donetsk is going on. Likewise, the battle of Bakhmut should only be about the city, not places a few km from it. Otherwise, how far from the city to justify a battle is too subjective, not objective. Just my suggestion. 147.124.74.226 (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See above . Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s over
Russia has captured all area around the city and city itself Napalm Guy (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See above . Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Error in the infobox
In the infobox it says around the city ongoing. It should be near the city, not around the city. Around the city implies Ukrainians surround the city, which is not true.

172.98.151.41 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Around" conveys the idea of flanking attacks and attempts to surround the city. Furthermore, "around" doesn't really refer to the Ukrainian attempt to surround the city but mostly the Wagner flanking attacks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bakhmut missing thumbnail
Can someone add a thumbnail for this battle for when you hover over it? It would make it seem more professional (even if it's not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. I could have sworn there was an infobox image before, not sure what happened to it. HappyWith (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Start date of battle in the city
Could you please elaborate/explain how you reached at the 8 October date as the start date of fighting inside the city? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My reading of the article text suggests that should be 13 December. (Hohum @ ) 22:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit, but it still says October. (Hohum @ ) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should use the first uncontested claim as start date, first geolocated evidente date or keep an open date like it is now (sometime in October). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This article needs an image showing Wagner fighters
This article has more than one image showing Ukrainian soldiers yet none showing Russian or Wagner forces. For obvious impartiality and completeness reasons, a few should be added. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This battle should be considered over
I know I'm not a big time editor, but I think we should declare this battle over. The city was captured by Russian forces in May and most sources consider the battle to be over. I think we maybe should make short specific articles about "the battle of Andrivka/Kischivka" (about Ukrainian counter-attacks on the flanks) but the battle for the city is over and no fighting in the city has happened for many months. Maxsmart50 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. The whole point of the battle was to capture Bakhmut and that objective was secured, therefore Russia drastically reduced activity there because it considered their mission there done. I saw another comment by an IP which was removed saying that this could allow the battle to continue for years, which indeed is not adequate. Furthermore, I think we are the only ones claiming that the "main"/parent battle is still ongoing and this could be interpreted as WP:OR. I suggest moving the other much smaller battles around the city elsewhere. That info is much more relevant in the Ukrainian counteroffensive page because that's were the second battles of Andriivka and Klishchivka belong (they're part of it, not of the original (Wagner) battle of Bakhmut). So yeah, attempting to extend this battle like this is not adequate as the subsequent battles are nowhere near as relevant as the ones prior and during culmination, especially since the Ukrainians seem to be being pushed back now around Klishchiivka. Future history books definitely won't agree with our interpretation of the scope of this battle. It's over, if there's still fighting around the city, it's part of another battle/campaign/counteroffensive... What do you think ? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This has already been talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut/Archive_2?useskin=vector#Sources_confirming_Russian_victory.
 * The battle didn't start when the Russians entered Bakhmut nor should it be considered over since Ukrainian forces are still on the outskirts of the town and Russia has been unable to push them out. The same could be said about Avdiivka, as that battle has been going on for much longer with not much happening around there until recently, not to mention the Battle of Kyiv, which never even reached the city. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The battle of kyiv is considered over and Russia hasn't taken over Avdivka, but is actively trying to. Pretty much everyone would say the battle of Avdivka is ongoing. Bakhmut is different, there is no fightig going on in the city and Russia isn't trying to take it over because they already did. the flanking counterattacks happening in Andrivka and Kischivka should be either their own articles or part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive  article. Maxsmart50 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You failed to comprehend the point I was trying to make here. The Battle of Bakhmut is still ongoing because it doesn't end or start inside of the city, but that it is the target, like with Kyiv, and that just because nothing appears to be happening doesn't mean that the battle is over, such as with Avdiivka, which started last year in February, but had no major developments until last month. Ukraine is trying to encircle the city in order to force Russia to abandon it, like what the Germans did at the Battle of Kiev in 1941, and didn't attack the city directly until at the very end, after the encirclement had been completed, so the battle is still ongoing due to Ukraine trying to retake Bakhmut, even though there is no fighting going on in the city due to Ukraine wanting to avoid urban combat whenever possible. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You failed to comprehend our point. The Battle of Bakhmut is still ongoing because it doesn't end or start inside of the city it didn't start within the city but it did end within the city. Every battle has an objective which is usually to capture the target. The battle can fail without capturing or even reaching the target and the attackers are pushed back (like the battle of Kiev); drag on for very long (like the battle of Avdiivka where the Russians have been attacking for ages but they haven't been pushed back nor impeded to continue attacks); or succeed when the target is captured and the situation is mostly stabilized (no immediate risk of losing the target). The latter is the case of Bakhmut. Ukraine did try to retake Bakhmut (more like they just tried to distract the Russians from the southern front) in the counteroffensive, but the flanking attacks failed without even being significant or a serious threat. If they did actually threaten the encirclement of the city from the south and north or even reentered the city, this battle should be separated, such as second battle of Bakhmut or similar, because it simply is more encyclopedic/informative. This second battle would see Ukraine on the offensive and the objective of both sides would be flipped. The strategy would also be different because the battlefield is not mirrored, i.e. there isn't something like a Soledar on the opposite side of the frontline and the arrangement of hills makes the battles ultimately quite different. Once again showing the importance of distinguishing both battles.
 * The 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article had an important discussion about its scope in the past (we're even starting to talk about when it should be considered over). This article desperately needs a new discussion of its scope. I understand how editors could have preferred to "wait and see" in the previous discussions on this topic, but now the situation is very clear. The original commander of Wagner is even dead. Come on, it's common sense right now to put the things in their place and move on with other articles. I'm pretty confident that a consensus could easily be reached. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't separate since Ukraine started it's encirclement early on, before the counteroffensive even began, and before Russia fully took control of the town, so it is the same battle, they are just too close in time to be considered so. And it can still be seen as ongoing, since Ukraine is still on the outskirts to the west of Bakhmut, and it is very clear that fighting is still ongoing around the town. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The fate of the WHOLE battle shouldn't be hostage to some minor fights that took place around the city (or even in some house ruins on the edge of the city) before the counteoffensive. At most that info could be kept or summarized as future context for the counteroffensive, an addendum. It is nowhere near important enough to take away the credit of the capture of the city. Sorry, but in my opinion your point is pedantic. Please look at this topic from a wider angle/point of view (preferably historic pov). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then Vuhledar should be considered over, as nothing has happened there in a long time, and Russia has no control over the town. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That could be argued yes (yes as in consider it over, though I don't see this as necessary). But there is a big difference in the size of the battles. Vuhledar is much smaller and the amount of information much less too. It's much more like the battle of Avdiivka, but on a much smaller scale. Unless Russia has given up on capturing it (which afaik isn't the case), it's probably wiser to separate the phases of the battle in sections, like with the battle of Avdiivka. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is wait for RS to confirm that a battle is over, or if the frontlines move far enough away that it can be considered over. Which is not the case for either of these battles. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All RS point to the battle being over. Wikipedia seems to be the only place considering it ongoing. I could argue the same thing requesting you to show RS suggesting that THE (original) battle of Bakhmut is ongoing. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter what happens, the split is the better solution. If Russia makes a big push away from the city, the split will make sense as the battle would be for something else. If the situation remains, the split is going to continue slowly getting more important as the difference in time and scale of battles would continue to grow. If Ukraine steps up and actually threatens to surround and capture the city, then the split is also good because that would be considered a new/different Battle of Bakhmut with different belligerents, contexts, goals, strategy, etc. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Battle has ended and Ukrainians are being pushed back on the flanks, Ukraine is absolutely nowhere close to "encircling" the city and it seems like you are influenced by Ukrainian propaganda. Elias Ziad (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The situation at Battle of Avdiivka is also perhaps an abnormality. For instance, we have Battle of Pisky…
 * Again, the article division and titling started a long time ago. The Avdiivka article was originally about the attempts of DNR troops starting in February ‘22 to make frontal progress, which mostly failed (although they did secure the ruined airport and set conditions for the later advances on the flanks).
 * No RS that I know of has stated that the current fighting at the northeast border of the city is the same battle as the original clashes while Putin was still proclaiming his spiel about the recognition of the DNR. They just say that “fighting around the city has been going on for over a year” or whatever. And as any armchair RUSUKR habitué knows, “around” and its synonyms are very flexible terms.
 * As for the stuff around Tsarskaya Okhota (I use the Russian name here because IIRC the original restaurant was called that) and the recent breach at the industrial park along the original “ATO” line of contact, that’s part of a larger operational-level effort and is usually treated as such.
 * Once again, I think that the whole “battle” paradigm is difficult to work with in a positional context.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that the Battle of Pisky is subjugate to the Battle of Avdiivka. Perhaps a partial success/failure to encircle the major city early on in the war. Since it has enough info and the battle was pretty quick compared to everything else surrounding, the article is minimally adequate. Regarding your final comments about Avdiivka, are you suggesting that the recent battles around the city should be separated to reflect how it's considered a main Russian effort now, instead of a subordinate effort? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I started reading the previous RfC way back in July (archive 2). The closer commented:
 * Worth keeping in mind.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed, The battle for the city itself is over and that's what this page created for, to talk about the battle within the city not also outside of it. Any fighting going on outside the city should be considered part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Should we limit the scope of this article/battle to when the city was captured, and thus move subsequent battles elsewhere (other articles) or at most summarize the more recent battles of Klishchiivka and Andriivka as a bridge to their respective main articles? Or keep the way it is now (main/parent battle ongoing)? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As I've stated previously here (although I'm not a frequent visitor to this particular TP), I think it comes down to the precise scope of "the Battle of Bakhmut".
 * My personal view is that RS generally speak of the battle as having ended in May and that the current version is rather open-ended.
 * It goes deeper than that, really. The Western way of talking about warfare is in terms of pitched battles in a clear time frame (often a single day) and positional combat doesn't really work that way. I think @Cinderella157 would essentially concur about this.
 * In any event, the claim that the ongoing combat is the same battle as previous seems to me to be OR unless shown otherwise.
 * In fact, the assertion that the battle that ended in May began back in August '22, while it has a limited basis in sources, is not clear-cut.
 * If it helps, think of it all as a single campaign from Rubizhne and Popasna through Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk through to Vuhlehirsk TPP and 1st Bilohorivka to the "probing" of Bakhmut and Soledar to the breaching/crossing of the river to 1st Klishchiivka to the fall of Soledar to the main act in doubly enveloped Bakhmut itself, followed by 2nd Klishchiivka and some seesawing immediately northwest of the city. Still following me? Now you see why it's so complicated.
 * And by the way, this article was originally created speculatively by a user well known for OR/synth delineations of battles. I don't believe they're currently active in this topic area (I think it was mostly voluntary idk) or I'd ping them for their version. In any case, if you have the correct gadget enabled on desktop version you can see who it was. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great feedback as always. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen some analyses considering one of the objectives of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive was to liberate Bakhmut. Budanov also said Ukraine's objective was to pin down Russian forces so that they don't reinforce the south . I would mark this battle as over once the counteroffensive is marked as such. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But the counteroffensive's actions near Bakhmut have already ended, Ukraine is mostly on the defensive now near Klishchiivka and Andriivka. The conteroffensive is hanging by a thread only because of Robotyne and Krynky. I don't think we should influence the date/scope of this battle with something that's happening on the other side of the country. You even said and it's common sense that the actions in Klishchiivka and Andriivka were mainly to pin Russian troops, not really to try to retake Bakhmut in 2023 (it could only be argued that those actions aimed to build the ground for a future second Battle of Bakhmut).
 * Furthermore, I think that what said earlier about the scope of battles is really important. The real battle of Bakhmut (Wagner vs Ukraine) involved tens of thousands of troops and also incurred in tens of thousands of casualties. Whatever the scope was previously ("Strategic", "Operational", "Tactical"...), it's definitely different now given the number of troops involved. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll maintain my prior argument that the battle should not be listed as over until Russia controls 100% of the city's administrative limits, and there are no ongoing battles in the immediate suburbs.
 * Seeing as how that strip along the H-32 highway with the MiG monument has yet to be secured by Russian forces and I doubt it ever will as all the buildings there have been leveled and it offers no strategic purpose, I doubt that this situation is going to change in the near future.
 * The immediate suburbs that I feel still warrant a "battle of Bakhmut" is everything from Krasna Hora to Kurdiumivka and to Chasiv Yar/Bohdanivka. The Ukrainians and Russians aren't fighting for the villages of Zalizanialske, Orikhovo-Vasylivka, Andriivka, and Klischiivka for their own value, rather because of the position that these villages have around Bakhmut.
 * Scu ba (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , while I would agree that the battle would not be over if there was still Ukrainian occupation of the geopolitical area of Bakhmut or, of the urban or rural-urban fringe where this is outside the geopolitical area of Bakhmut but described is sources as "greater Bakhmut" or similar (noting also that we should not fall into the trap of WP:SYNTH). Furthermore, the topography shows a punctuated transition from urban to rural rather than a graduated change in population density that would be more characteristic of a rural-urban fringe. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the greater Bakhmut discrepancy, the problem remains from the first time we opened this discussion back in 2022 that Russia does not control 100% of the city proper. As in Russian forces do not control all of the administrative boundaries of Bakhmut, namely, the strip along the T0504 highway that houses the MiG monument. Sure it is ~1% of the city, has been flattened, and is only controlled by Ukrainian artillery fire with no actual Ukrainian troops in the strip, but the fact remains that Russia does not control the whole of the city, and as such, the battle cannot be considered "over". Scu ba (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , what are the most recent sources stating this and, are there more recent sources statring that Russian forces have advanced further along T0504? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW's interactive map and the LiveAU map, both update their maps in real time, the ISW by a group of paid policy professionals, and LiveAU via scraping the internet.
 * Ukrinform noted a failed Russian assult in the exact region specified 4 weeks ago, but other than that all other mentions are from late May 2023  and were never contested by any other source, Russian, Ukrainian, Western or otherwise.
 * Scu ba (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither of the two maps indicate Ukrainian forces hold the strip along the T0504 highway that houses the MiG monument nor, any part of what I understand to be the administrative boundary of Bakhmut or a contiguous urban area. The first source from May indicates continued fighting in the immediate vicinity of the city and the second, a small Ukrainian salient into the west of the city. However, the recent source indicates an attack toward Ivanivske by the Russians with "partial success". It does not support that the salient still exists or that it has recently existed. The pertinent question though, is what good quality sources are saying about whether the battle is over (per my "show me the money" post below). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to create a subsection with a table for us to collect reliable recent sources that could hint how we should interpret this battle. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides what Cinderella157 said, I will remind you of the issues we faced in the battle of Robotyne. Remember you said that my arguments about control in the outskirst were pedantic, well, the same could be said here. Those strips of land have no strategic value and are irrelevant as you implied. However, if the ISW paints them as blue or red isn't meaningful because we know that the frontlines are not clear cut, there is a grayzone in those regions. So it's not like Ukraine has a presence in Bakhmut. For example, if you look at Piatykhatky, ISW painted a tiny portion of it red in its current map. Are we treating that battle as ongoing or the village as contested? Of course not. Anyways, it's time to analyze recent sources as RadioactiveBoulevardier and Cinderella suggested. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that the situation is complicated I think the battle of Bakhmut is over. I would maybe support a Second battle of Bakhmut article if fighting resumes in the city, similar to how we did First battle of Lyman and Second battle of Lyman. Maxsmart50 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has really changed as far as I can see from the last time we discussed this, so my opinion has not changed, If we can have an article about battles that occur 10 miles from a city, then we can say that fighting in the area of a city is part of a tbe battle for the city. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing has really changed as far as I can see from the last time we discussed this, so my opinion has not changed So if nothing changes for years will you still hold your opinion?! The longer we drag this, the more detached the current situation will be from the core subject of this battle and the more the scope will diverge. If we can have an article about battles that occur 10 miles from a city yes, we can have as many articles about battles on satellite villages as long as enough content exists and the scope and time frame are well defined. then we can say that fighting in the area of a city is part of a tbe battle for the city no. As explained before, just because a battle occurs near a city doesn't mean its immediate goal is to capture the city. The second battles of Klishchiivka and Andriivka are widely believed now to have had the goal to pin Russian troops. Which is common sense, it's obvious that a much bigger effort would be needed to actually attempt to retake the city, therefore those two battles have little to do with seriously retaking Bakhmut, let alone be considered "the same" battle that Wagner forces fought! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if notching changes, it has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that as just being stubborn, not rational. Besides, RS treat the battle as over, so there isn't much else to argue about. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles reflect what reliable sources say, not on editor opinion, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. We'd need significant coverage in reliable sources to say the battle has ended - ideally that would not be journalists, claims by combatant countries etc. - but would be military historians, respected military analysts, etc. Currently I don't think these kinds of sources do reflect an end to the battle. (Hohum @ ) 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of article scope, which is discussed elsethread - but the gist of it is that "Battle of " articles are concerned with more than combat within the confines of the city. (Hohum @ ) 18:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link please? I wonder if this is actually a general recommendation/consensus in Wikipedia. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to what? (Hohum @ ) 23:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion saying that "Battle of " articles are concerned with more than combat within the confines of the city. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't assert consensus or recommendation, I said the topic of scope was discussed eslethread. On this page, use your browser to search the word "scope" and check the surrounding conversation. Use of the talkpage archive search function at the top of this page will give you further discussion, some within RFCs. WP:SCOPE may also be of help. (Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 00:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was more interested in such discussions in other contexts. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can say the same thing to you. It would be your editor opinion that the Battle of Bakhmut is still ongoing and therefore this interpretation could be considered WP:OR as RadioactiveBoulevardier hinted. By the way, when was the last time a reliable source talked about the "Battle of Bakhmut" using these exact terms? I doubt any reliable source is covering the current events in that region using the label "Battle of Bakhmut". We'd need significant coverage in reliable sources to say the battle has ended How many times has this explicitly happened in this war? Would you wait years until a historian finally states the obvious? Being hyper-passive (instead of wp:bold) in this specific battle (I'm not referring to you specifically, but everyone who shares this opinion) kinda feels like an excuse to push a personal sentiment (to minimize the Russian victory which is actually what's relevant to the article). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Waiting for military historians isn’t really feasible. Journalists do seem to widely speak of “the battle” as having ended in May, despite continued battles “around” (as I’ve mentioned before, a very generic term in this war) the city. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just an excuse. All other battles in the war where Ukraine won used news as sources and no one complained about it. Only does this battle where Russia managed to pull a victory does new sources get fiercely disupted. It's hilarious, these guys honestly think that by stubbornly keep it as ongoing, reality will somehow shape to their wishes or that Ukranians who read this article suddenly gain morale. 141.219.210.152 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, this recent article by a very reliable source clearly implies that THE "Battle of Bakhmut" is over with Russian victory, despite fights still occuring in neighboring villages:
 * Indeed, Russia reportedly suffered similarly catastrophic losses at various stages of the long and grueling Battle of Bakhmut, but eventually succeeded in taking the eastern Ukrainian city in spring 2023. Of course, given the Russian casualties and current Ukrainian efforts to encircle the city, that victory may prove pyrrhic. Nevertheless, recent engagements around Avdiivka would appear to confirm that Russia still believes it can overwhelm Ukraine’s defenses.
 * Notice how it talks about the "Battle of Bakhmut" in the past . Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hohum has been a wikipedia user for 19 years, I think he knows more about what he's doing than you guys do overall. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to distance myself from calls to (false) authority. Quality of argument is what's important, my voice is but one. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 11:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 🤦‍♂️ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hohum/Awards?useskin=vector 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

battle of Moscow, Germans did not get within 10 mile's of the city. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's completely different from this battle. Here the objective of the battle was long achieved. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment to ping The problem is that we are trying to write an encyclopedic history in what is essentially real time. Most of what is written is based on WP:NEWSORG sources. These are being labeled as WP:RSs without acknowledging the caveat that goes with WP:NEWSORG. One consequence of this is that we have had a plethora of articles created called Battle of X as soon as some journalist mentions village X and that somebody fired a shot somewhere in the general locality or an artillery round landed somewhere in or near it. An encyclopedic history should be a summary of good quality secondary sources on the subject. They will tell us what to call it, when it started, when it finished and what the consequences were. NEWSORG sources are written by journalists with varying degrees of military understanding. In generally I agree with . Some of the issue in May was that the Russians were claiming control of the city every alternate day while there was clearly fighting in the outskirts of the city. Propaganda and the media are a weapon of war. I think that the definition of a battle, its start and its end as provided by  is perhaps idealised and naive. An MMG can ruin your day from 4000 m and a conventional 155 mm round can put a big dint in your libido from 20 - 25 km. There is no finish line marked on the ground. There is no umpire to say: "Game over. New Game." A lot of what happens in writing these articles sails terribly close to WP:OR, particularly when editors start analysing definitions to justify choices. Yes, the fighting does appear to have become positional as opposed to maneuver. The intensity and activity around Bakhmut does appear to have dissipated. It might be time for us to review what sources have to say on the matter. Even if we are confined to NEWSORG sources, we should be looking for the better quality sources and for sources that make more than a passing mention in the past tense. This is where I say: "Show me the money". Cinderella157 (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this source not enough? Should I look for more RS to investigate how they refer to the term "Battle of Bakhmut"? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A blog post from a program assistant? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's from the Atlantic Council... Which afaik is on par if not more reliable than the ISW... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is on my watchlist. There may be many reasons why I do not respond to a post immediately, including that I may be doing more important things in RL. It might be time for us to review what sources have to say on the matter [emphasis added]. Please note the plural. I also said: ... and for sources that make more than a passing mention ... As you said: ... [it] implies that THE "Battle of Bakhmut" is over ... We should not have to imply or infer what a source is saying. That is analysis. As observed, the source linked is a blog with a rider at the bottom. At best, the Atlantic Council has exercised cursory editorial oversight. The article is not a WP:RS. When I said: "Show me the money", I was meaning something more substantial than chump change. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Gotcha. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the issue in May was that the Russians were claiming control of the city every alternate day while there was clearly fighting in the outskirts of the city After the May 20 announcement, the situation (that Ukrainians were indeed pushed out) became clear very quickly. Even if there were skirmishes in some random houses on the edge of the city some days later, they are irrelevant to the end result of the battle (they do serve fine as an addendum or bridge to subsequent battles though). It's like saying a war isn't over (and consequently end date) until all soldiers put down their arms and stop fighting skirmishes across the whole country, even if the leaders, capital and government infrastructure were already captured. I think that the definition of a battle, its start and its end as provided by Alexiscoutinho is perhaps idealised and naive countered by previous phrase. A lot of what happens in writing these articles sails terribly close to WP:OR yes, and it could in principle be said to both parties in this debate. It might be time for us to review what sources have to say on the matter. Even if we are confined to NEWSORG sources, we should be looking for the better quality sources agree, although there was that caveat in my previous reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly just worried that the Russo-Ukrainian war wont end for like 3-5 more years and there still wont be much change on the frontlines. Say the war goes on for 5 more years and there is sporadic clashes on the flanks of the city, won't it look weird for the article to say the battle has gone on for 6 years? Has a modern battle ever gone on that long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Franky this is why we should not have an article on ongoing battles, only historians (in retrospect) can say when a battle ended. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit unrealistic? The subject seems WP:NOTABLE, and there is plenty of WP:RELIABLE information to provide content. However, there are some obvious limits. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, as there is no need to rush to write articles, we can (in fact) wait years. We are not a newspaper, and we do not have a deadline. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that in regard to article content, but less so for article existence. Is there something GNG, SNG or otherwise "procedure" related that would have prevented this article being made? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would counter that with "is there anything in policy that says we must have it"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally find real-time Wikipedia articles really helpful even if there not perfect. This one is just really bad, as you can see since it is C-class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I have a good suggestion, what if we call the current battles "Bakhmut counteroffensive" (inspired by this article)? It's not like RS deny this, in fact, their tone is much closer to it. This way, we could talk about all the Ukrainian encircling attempts with all the due attention, attribution and in the context/background of the preceding Wagner vs Ukraine battle of Bakhmut. In this article (Battle of Bakhmut) we could directly bridge it to the new article in the first paragraph of the lead by saying that the "Bakhmut counteroffensive" immediately followed the "Battle of Bakhmut" (in fact, the "Bakhmut counteroffensive" start date should be 11 May). This way the reader would clearly understand that the battles around the city never subsided, but the information would be much better organized and follow common sense. This "succeded by" link could even be put in the infobox and a back link to the infobox to the new article too. The new article would reference the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article as parent effort. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , this reads more like WP:ANALYSIS of the fighting (something we shouldn't do) rather than an analysis of how the sources have analysed the fighting (something we can kind of do). It is WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff. It is not our place to write history and define how things are to be viewed by history. These are inherent problems with writing about current events that I touched upon in my initial post here. We should be following the sources rather than leading them and it is a very fine line to tread. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels like double standards to me. There are many articles about this war that have arbitrary structuring that is not pedantically derived from sources. But they all (or at least most), in good faith, try to follow common sense and structure the text body in a way that makes sense, is understandable, is natural and flows well when reading. I sincerely feel like you are imposing way too many restrictions and cuffs on the editors' style of writing and freedom/creativity of structuring, while not contributing with solution suggestions yourself. If all headings and information groupings (sections) of all Wikipedia articles had to strictly follow the flow and organization suggested by a source, there would be no articles, because such thing would be unfeasible and because many structuring schemes would conflict. All articles of this war have a bit of original interpretation and structuring and this is a limitation that we have to deal with for now.
 * But anyways, as you might have noticed from that recent revert of the lead of the article, my current best understanding (best fit model i.e. model of what the battle is which best matches RS understanding and conflicts the least between them) of the battle has changed to be more or less: the Battle of Bakhmut comprises multiple battles in the area linked together by the common goal to capture Bakhmut, therefore the Battle of Bakhmut would include the Ukrainian flanking counterattacks, albeit with a special/notable attribution, i.e. separate subsection in the "Battle" main section. The dates would still be similar, with timeframe of battle in the city and around the city, thus from Aug 2022 to when the Ukrainian flanking attacks stopped.
 * As I explained above, this might not be pedantically explicity written in any source, but to the best of my knowledge, once again, sincerely and in good faith, I believe it is the best fit model of what the "battle of Bakhmut" is. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We should be following the sources And regarding this, doing nothing and keeping the article as is, in my opinion, only worsens the fit of the model and makes the article less and less faithful to reality and the understanding of sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERTHINGS is never a good argument by itself. It is even worse when the premise is that two wrongs do make a right. How about we just deal with the issue at hand first. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERTHINGS is never a good argument by itself. It is even worse when the premise is that two wrongs do make a right. Excuses... Tangents... Besides, it wasn't used "by itself" and is still very pertinet, even though you seemed to ignore most of what I said. How about we just deal with the issue at hand first. Great then. What would actually be very helpful, for example, was if you commented on (agree/disagree) my goal explanation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not pushing this particular barrow. I have been waiting to see what sources are presented in the table. What is worthy of comment (since you insist) is that the cupboard is particularly bare. Please read WP:BLUDGEON. All of this other "noise" isn't particularly productive in my opinion and there is WP:NODEADLINE. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "When OP delivers". very much for your very helpful creation of a RfC! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of recent RS
Let's try to use sources from the past 3 months as they will have a better "overall"/"bird's eye" view on the battle as a whole. Also, highlight the term "Battle of Bakhmut" in the quotes as explained here.

Feel free to add more sources following the formatting and discuss below. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would every reliable source that regularly talked/talks about the battle, but has never said it ended be in the "RS implying the Battle is ongoing" column? If not, why? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would depend on how it's using the term "Battle of Bakhmut". For example, if it said something like "Ukraine is commiting X unit in the Battle of Bakhmut" or "recently sent reserves to Klishchiivka for the battle of Bakhmut", then it would imply that the battle in ongoing as the term is still being used in the present tense. That's why I'm including the quotes. I try to get in the writer's mind and evaluate which understanding of the status of the "battle of Bakhmut" would match best with the wording used. If there's a clear majority on one side, then we can have a good feeling on the general consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing, but there is an important point which we need to keep in mind to be able to reach a conclusion: we must analyze how the term "Battle of Bakhmut" is being used. I will add a rule to the table stating that sources must highlight the term in bold. This is because it is a consensus that there is still fighting and smaller scale battles around the city. But we want to know if these battles can be attributed to the term/label "Battle of Bakhmut". That's why I proposed to group all battles after May 20 under the "Bakhmut counteroffensive" title/label in the previous section. In other words, is it still adequate for us to call/refer to the recent fights as "Battle of Bakhmut"? I hope I've clarified the goal and I believe this is what and  thought was the path forward. 😉 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is called changing the goalposts. You do not get to tell us what you want to criteria to be after we start adding stuff. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to my added notes in the table or my comment wondering why we're even discussing RS? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The added notes. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not "moving the goalposts". I thought of those rules before I even started looking for sources. In fact, the stated rules are exactly what shaped my search: I googled for recent sources using the exact term. So much so that nothing changed with my sources. I already explained why I set those rules and I have the right to enforce them as that was my suggestion and the table is technically part of my comment.
 * But regardless, what I really wanted to discuss now is the fact that the Ukrainian flanking attacks have halted and Russia regained the initiative. The argument of: there's still fights going on around the city isn't valid anymore. But I need the participation of everyone. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see it, of a source says "fighting in the city" that is saying there is fighting in the city, and thus the battle for the city is implied to not be over. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If this article title was "Battle for Bakhmut" and the source was refering to a recent event, then yes, of course. But since the title is "Battle of Bakhmut" we would need to first analyze through RS if the terms are indeed interchangeable in this specific context. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note Sources being added to the table are only useful if the detail being added includes the date of publication.

Battle "past" Bakhmut
By the way, why are we even discussing this? Ukraine is clearly on the defensive and Russia clearly on the offensive on this front (especially after the Khromove attack yesterday). Therefore Ukraine is not fighting for Bakhmut/attacking its flanks, it's trying to defend whatever it has got. The current situation is more like a "battle past Bakhmut" (therefore clearly over) or "battle for Chasiv yar", unless Russia decides to stop there, which doesn't make sense. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * So you’re saying Russia is still fighting to secure a hold on the built-up area of Bakhmut and its surroundings? I don’t know what happened in Khromove, but I am aware that it isn’t even a village outside the city, but at the edge of the contiguous suburbs. —Michael Z. 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything, the fighting in Khromove should have it's own article but it shouldn't be consider part of the Battle of Bakhmut. As @Alexiscoutinho said the Battle of Bakhmut ended on May 21 when Russian and Wagner forces fully capture the city. It doesn't matter if Ukraine had forces in the outskirts which it doesn't anymore since they been push further back since May. The battles ongoing in settlements near Bakhmut like Klishchiivka and Khromove should have their own articles since fighting have been ongoing there since May. That's why I still request the status for the Battle of Bakhmut be changed to a complete Russian Victory, not doing this this will undermine the neutrality of the article and community as a whole. @Cinderella157 @Slatersteven please make the necessary changes and don't let your personal opinion get in the way. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please wp:agf, after all the Battle of Moscow never even got as far as the city. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By using that logic, the Battles of Kherson and others should be consider ongoing since the fighting is still ongoing near them. As I stated before many decisions being made on some of the articles regarding the War in Ukraine are being driven by personal biasness, and I'm requesting that changes be made so that bias doesn't underminde the integrity of the articles and community as a whole. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the same flaw in the argument of "there's still fighting around the city/settlement" that I thought of earlier. By blindly using the argument, the battle of Robotyne should be ongoing, battle of piatykhatky should be ongoing. In fact all battles would have an end date delayed by a few days until fighting moved an arbitrary X distance away from the city. For example, battle of Popasna would be delayed until Russia cleared X distance away from it, battle of siverodonetsk would only end with the battle of lysichansk because the cities are right next to each other, battle of Izium would be over only when Russia captured those sattelite villages, etc. But what I tried so say in my comment below is that even if we consider reason/goal behind each minor fight, the battle of Bakhmut could still be considered ongoing depending on the definition used. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but this is about this, and not them. So make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying more like the inverse, that Russia isn't fighting to secure Bakhmut, but to move on past Bakhmut. But I noticed now and admit that these latest attacks could be interpreted both ways: attacks with the goal to reach Chasiv yar and beyond, or attacks to secure the flanks/buffer zone around Bakhmut. The latter case would clearly have Bakhmut tied to the main goal. Therefore, unless the above discussion of RS concludes that the flanking attacks (everything after May 20) should be treated separately from the term "Battle of Bakhmut", the battle (or series of battles under the parent name of Battle of Bakhmut) could be considered ongoing. We would need to wait and see what Russia's goals are. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if the Russian goals are to capture Chasiv Yar or any other settlements beyond Bakhmut than a separate article should be created to discuss that. Any attacks Ukraine have done near Bakhmut after it fell to Russian and Wagner forces should be consider part of the 2023 Ukrainian offensive as they both coincided. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * if the Russian goals are to capture Chasiv Yar or any other settlements beyond Bakhmut than a separate article should be created to discuss that. Yes, that's what I meant as one of the options. Any attacks Ukraine have done near Bakhmut after it fell to Russian and Wagner forces should be consider part of the 2023 Ukrainian offensive as they both coincided. They could be considered part of both if the used definition was that the "battle of Bakhmut" is a series of battles with Bakhmut as goal. That's why it's important to look at RS to know if they corroborate this definition better or worse than the definition that the battle ended on May 20. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true an argument could be made for it being part of both. But I still argue that the battle for the city itself as over. That's why I support creating a spreate article for any battles ongoing beyond Bakhmut such as in Klishchiivka and Khromove. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we may need to rewrite the whole atole as "The battle of Bakhmut is a major battle taking place between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russian Armed Forces in and around the city of Bakhmut during the larger eastern Ukraine campaign." and "On 1 August, Russian forces launched massive ground attacks on settlements south and southeast of Bakhmut. Both the Russian Ministry of Defense and pro-Russian Telegram pages claimed that the battle of Bakhmut had begun.[80][81] The following day,", so it is clear even Russia said the battle was also about the surrounding area. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but a separate article was written for the Battle of Soledar instead of it being added as part of the Battle of Bakhmut even though it was consider an important settlement on the flanks of Bakhmut. So the battles of Klishchiivka and Khromove should be consider the same instead of being part of the battle of Bakhmut. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Soledar is a (small) city after all. So its size is enough to warrant a separate article I would argue. I've seen a couple of articles of battles in villages being merged into a larger one for being stub-like or simply being to tied too their contexts (parent articles). And even if we make separate articles for them, it wouldn't automatically mean we should remove their mentions from this article. If they were related, we would still need to bridge the articles with a short summary and link at the top of the subsection. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (or fortunately), since the most general title template "Battle of X" is used, there is great freedom to set scope boundaries. Only an article titled "Battle of Bakhmut city" or "Battle in Bakhmut" would have the privilage of covering the urban fights exclusively. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is my point. So we either rename (and refocus) the article, or we accept is not just about the battle for the city. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support refocusing the article on only the city itself, there's no need to rename it as the title fits the description of the battle. And as I stated previously separate articles can be written for battles happening in important and strategic settlements nearby Bakhmut. If we decide against that then the title should be changed from the "Battle of Bakhmut" to "Bakhmut Campaign" as it will make more sense since we're going to be focusing on fighting going on near the surrounding areas as well. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "Bakhmut offensive" would be better because then it would fit well with being succeeded by "Bakhmut counteroffensive". But this kind of title change would be stepping into WP:OR territory, thus we would need to back it up with RS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think at this stage we need an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We're indeed very close to it, but I'm still hopeful for 's and 's comment on my goal explanation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

“Russian victory”
The Status field in the infobox has been hijacked to announce a “Russian victory,” when 1) two of the sources cited there are headed “Brutal Battle for Bakhmut Leaves Russia With an Uncertain Victory” and “Bakhmut Falls But Is It Really a Russian Victory?” and 2) “Russian victory” belongs in the Result field per the docs in infobox military conflict not status of an ongoing conflict. This is nonsense. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says this is for key facts, not WP:WEASEL ‘victory-not victory.” The status field should say the Russians have captured the territory within city limits but fighting is ongoing at its edges and in surrounding key terrain. —Michael Z. 01:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for the RfC above (which could make this section obsolete), I would gladly reply to your concerns. I would prefer to focus there. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I did try to implement a small suggestion of yours in the meantime. We should probably wait for the RfC before making such changes then. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that’s the opposite of “implementing my suggestion.” Please read the template docs I referred to to understand the constraints. —Michael Z. 04:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Status parameter in infobox
What's going on with the "status" parameter in the infobox? It looks atrocious with the bullet points and extreme detail, and signals obvious behind-the-scenes arguments in a way that Wikipedia articles should not show to readers. Can we return this to a simpler version, or just blank it while discussion is ongoing? It's way outside of what documentation says the parameter should do. HappyWith (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Same goes for the date parameter btw, forgot to mention HappyWith (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is, how to simplify without giving the wrong impression? The old value of Ongoing is not adequate anymore. Given an RfC is happening, I think the most adequate single word status would be Uncertain, or we could just keep it as is and wait for the RfC to finish (which has the potential to make this discussion obsolete). There's also Cinderella157's idea of See Aftermath, but the same concern from the last sentence would still apply. I think we should have a little bit of patience now to do the right thing and not spend energy/edits/reverts in vain. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Inconclusive" is one of the options recommended in documentation. We could add a footnote there saying that the ending of the battle is disputed between the sides. I think that would be fairly uncontroversial to do while the discussion is ongoing. HappyWith (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't object, though I would prefer to wait for Cinderella157's response since I attempted something similar earlier. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * disputed between the sides are you talking about editors' sides or RUS/UKR sides? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * RUS/UKR sides. We could also mention the disputes between different newspapers briefly, etc. HappyWith (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexiscoutinho Heads-up: I think you have just passed WP:3RR in your revert of my infobox edit. Might want to self-revert on that last revert and discuss here. HappyWith (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still have one (revert) left, besides, I wouldn't consider this edit-warring, but an attempt to respect the RfC. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the RfC is to indictly resolve the issue of the satus/result. How about we just lave things alone unil there is a resolution. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, the RfC is about the scope of the page, not about the infobox. Of course if the scope will be changed, then whole page should be completely re-written. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The info box is a summery of the lede, which is a summery of the article, So if the artocel says X so does the info box. So let the RFC run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox has been messy for a while now. I think we can wait for the results of the RfC. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the fault of a few people who have personal biasness towards one side in the conflict. The status should just state the obvious, the Battle of Bakhmut is a Russian Victory saying anything else is just beating around the bush and it's seems like some moderators are making up any excuse to keep the battle as ongoing as well as changing the narrative of the battle just so their point could be proven which is a violation of the rules which prohibits biasness. This unfortunately is constant problem with many articles regarding the conflict in Ukraine where editors are putting their personal opinion ahead of writing the truth and it has absolutely diminish what little credibility the wiki community had. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah, Wikipedia is terribly biased and it wants to hide the truth of Russia's glorious victory... as if we haven't read these comments for months already. How about actually contributing meaningully to the discussion? Nobody is even denying that Russia has won the battle. Discussion is taking place about whether it has ended or not. If it has, it will be mentioned that it is a Russian victory indeed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have try to contribute but every time I try to edit by adding new information provided by unbiased source it gets rejected because the source isn't Pro-West or Ukrainian. I'm not making an assumption about there being a Pro-Ukraine biasness in the Wikipedia community, it's just fact. Look at the language use by some editors towards any positive news for the Russian side. As one of the users said during discussion if it was Ukraine who had captured Bakhmut the moderators won't think twice about arguing if the battle was over. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Or they might, wp:AGF, and stop commenting on users here, if you have a complaint about how you (or they are acting) are being treated take it here wp:ani, I would advise against it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, moderators (in fact we have none) and editors are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Where are photos from the Russian side? Russian victory photo?
All of the images in this page seems to be only from the Ukrainian side. There is absolutely none from the Russian side, not even the Wagner victory photo on top of a building that should be the front-page photo which is the signal to the end of the battle for the city itself. This can seem that the editors are heavily biased towards Ukraine. Add the victory photo on the front-page and add at least one photo of a Wagner soldier down in the article. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See "editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments" in the header at the top of this page. If you have an image in mind that should be displayed, name the image. Comment on article content. Any further comments on contributors ("editors are heavily biased") will result in a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesnt answer the question, however 2A01:E11:400E:30:FC36:F7CD:E503:DCDE (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's planned. If you upload a good resolution version of that photo (the one that was on front page on many journals showing the sunset on a rooftop) at commons, I can include it in the article. Make sure the image isn't copyrighted otherwise they will delete it and won't even listen to you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a good "Russian victory image" of Prigozhin posing with Wagner fighters following the capture of the last block in Bakhmut https://gdb.rferl.org/69771acc-9f0f-4f11-acd0-d72957e32713_w1080_h608_s.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That has an AP (Associated Press) mark on it. It is separately attributed to AP here. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should remove the logo. Can the AP even claim that photo? I know the original source is a video of him declaring the victory. Would be very hard to imagine him giving copyright permissions to an American organization. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence that it's public domain? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 02:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the inverse thinking? How can you expect me to prove that witches don't exist? I guess I'll just have to extract a frame from the raw video which doesn't have any watermark then. By the way, you haven't replied to my question at commons, I would appreciate if you did. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. We need images to conform to WP:COMMONS licensing requirements if it is to be hosted there, or WP:FAIRUSE if it is hosted on Wikipedia itself. Either way we need to have evidence of who own/released the copyright. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 10:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Status
Whichever clown edited this page doesn’t have the IQ to understand battle of Bakhmut took place in Bakhmut not in the “surrounding areas” Wikipedia has become such a laughingstock that no one wants to use it as a source or reference any more. Stop embarrassing yourself. The battle of Bakhmut ended on May 20, 2023. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with reliable sources. Do you have one? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this above in the RFC. 12:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Russian Victory
According to recent maps and lack of manpower on the Ukrainian side, Russia did in fact secure more outskirts of Bakhmut, the last 2% is officially captured so it should be relabeled as a full Russian victory due to these factors.SCPdude629 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)SCPdude629
 * See wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an "active" RfC about this. Your comment has nothing to do with wp:or so relax. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Update to the "Further Ukrainian counterattacks (14 June 2023–present)" section.
With Russian counterattacks routing and reversing the territorial advancements made by the 3rd Assault Brigade here, surely it is worth updating to state that Russia has captured a vast majority of the land that Ukraine retook during the Summer counter offensive? Coobadge1 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree Mattia332 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Time period of the battle for the city
Technically, UA forces remained on the outskirts of the city after 20 May. They were pushed away only 1-2 week(s) a ago, meaning that the battle finished around 10-18 December, not the 20 May.

Berobalkan (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * RS consider that as irrelevant. If really true, that could only be phrased as an extra detail in the article, not go against the general understanding of scope and timeframe of the article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bakhmut
I know this is useless because Wikipedia is competely corrupted. But it’s called battle of Bakhmut precisely because it’s fought within the city limits of Bakhmut. Fighting outside of Bakhmut isn’t considered “battle of Bakhmut”? Yasarhossain07 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No. The battle of Bakhmut started two months before the Russians advanced to city limits.
 * Please read and understand WP:GS/RUSUKR: as a non-EC editor, your edits in pages on on this topic, including talk pages, are restricted to constructive suggestions, and not general complaints. —Michael Z. 06:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That have taken basically every satellite town around bakhmut beyond Klishchiivka and are advancing on Chasiv Yar and have entered Bohdanivka, how this is considered still within the proximity of Bakhmut is beyond me. Are we going to roll Chasiv Yar into the outskirts of Bakhmut too to continue denying the Ukrainians lost the battle? 82.2.231.172 (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally, if it was up to me, the battle should be considered by editors to be realistically and practically over when/if the Russians retake Klischivka, regardless of RS headlines or if Ukraine or Russia make any official comments or declarations about it. RopeTricks (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Maybe we should move the fighting around the city into a separate article? That would make the situation more clear. Berobalkan (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there’s a reason to WP:SPLIT it, it seems logical that the longer battle in the context of the operational campaign would be the parent article, and a smaller-scale zoom-in might be the child article, about fighting in city limits, or the Wagner action, or something. But I don’t think I’d favour a compromise split only to satisfy some editors who want to put an end date in an infobox. —Michael Z. 18:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * only to satisfy some editors who want to put an end date in an infobox. As if this was the case... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What was the point of allowing Yasarhossain07 to remain in Wikipedia after the ANI report after personal attacks and useless trash like these ? A better question, why did anybody here bother replying to yet another thread dealing with the same topic as 50 others started with the trash remark I know this is useless because Wikipedia is competely corrupted.? The only reason I am not removing this thread is because four different established editors have participated on here already. I'll have these editors remember to WP:DENY more often. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Another source on status
A new article about the battle. it refers several times to the date Prigozhin declared victory, but not to an end date. (Please remember, WP:headlines are not reliable sources.) The last two paragraphs sum up an inconclusive battle:


 * In the months since Prigozhin declared victory in Bakhmut, Russia's troops have made little forward progress. The battle was not decisive for either side. Ukraine launched its counteroffensive in June. Bakhmut has become one of its three main axes, but despite heavy fighting so far only small bits of territory around Bakhmut have been reclaimed. Another winter may slow what fighting continues.
 * “Everything is destroyed,” a deputy battalion commander who fought there said. “No, they don't take the city. They just destroyed the city.”

—Michael Z. 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an absurd thing to say considering almost all of the land retaken by Ukraine in the counter offensive around bakhmut has been retaken by Russia in recent days. 82.2.231.172 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear @Michael Z.,
 * This article appears to decisively support the case for a concluded battle of Bakhmut, given its extensive use of the past tense.
 * Furthermore, the paragraph you've included here seems to implicitly suggest an end date at some point between Prigozhin's May 20 declaration of victory and Ukraine's June counteroffensive.
 * Notably, it also separates the counteroffensive on the Bakhmut axis, which is portrayed as ongoing, from the battle, which is contrary to our current framing of a single continuous battle. I may very well be wrong, but my understanding through stalking the discussions on this talk page is that you are a proponent of the latter, so I am hoping to understand your perspective on how this article might clarify the situation.
 * My regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles pretty much ought to use the past tense for events, because our crystal balls are not reliable sources. What I wrote does not imply that.
 * We do not have to decide whether it is necessarily a single continuous battle or not. But if reliable sources do not agree that the battle ended on a certain date, then we cannot put an end date in the infobox. —Michael Z. 02:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2023
The battle of Bakhmut has resulted in a Russian victory, as no Ukrainian soldier is currently found in any parts of the city of Bakhmut and the UAF has been completely pushed out of the city. Thus you should change the result from "Ongoing" to "Russian victory" Andre36723291 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/bakhmut-how-ukraine-lost-city-russia-won-hollow-victory-2023-12?r=US&IR=T
 * This article clearly states multiple times that Ukraine has lost Bakhmut
 * https://www.iswresearch.org/2023/12/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment_48.html
 * This ISW assessment clearly states that fighting is going on in Bohdanivka and that Russian forces are near Ivanivske, Russia has completely reversed the gains made in the counter offensive around Bakhmut and is now threatening settlements past it, the fighting clearly is no longer on the outskirts or immediate area surrounding it and should be stated as such. Coobadge1 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. But you also have to prove that you're not cherry picking. Unfortunately, that means sampling a large number of sources like in the RfC above. There, I suggested making an extra analysis following that style but with only December sources. If someone made it, it would likely be a nail in the coffin for the proponents of keeping the battle ongoing. But as of now, even I can't fulfill your edit request. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See RfC above. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Change "2022 Kherson Counteroffensive" and "Liberation of Kherson" to Ongoing
According to the logic presented by the editors of this page, as long as the suburbs and periphery of a city is still being contested, however uselessly, the battle is "ongoing" even if outside wikipedia has long acknowledged that the battle is over with Russian victory. In accordance to this logic, Kherson counteroffensive and Liberation is not a Ukranian victory because the south bank of Kherson is still being contested, indeed far more than contested, under complete and total dominance by thousands of russian troops and hundreds of armor pieces. Furthermore, Kherson is being bombed by rockets and drones every day but Bakhmutt is not (because the ukranians dont have enough ammo to do this). If a few suicide packs of ukranian conscripts bayonetted to the front ten kilometers from Bakmutt can change the battle of bakhmutt to "ongoing" then there is no conceivable way Kherson has been liberated and the kherson counteroffensive concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5589:6E00:F55C:A701:FA37:F2C9 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't ask to make changes to other articles here, you make a case there, and read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Request for comment on first sentence of lead and scope
More comments/input would be appreciated at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. This has to do with whether the battle should be considered over or not per sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it would be great if we did another analysis but this time only considering sources from December. The last time I checked, there were 3 pages in Google search with hits of the term "battle of Bakhmut". Thus I think this month alone has plenty of coverage for a more focused and recent analysis. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope the uninvolved RfC "closer" weighs in the proper analyses of souces when deciding on an outcome. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That discussion appears to be limited to WP:XC, but I will add here that if in the future Ukrainian forces should launch a counteroffensive then we could start a page on the Second Battle of Bakhmut similar to the First Battle of the Isonzo, the Second Battle of the Isonzo, the Third Battle of the Isonzo and so on up to the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Who is this Slatersteven user?
And why are they allowed to single handedly derail this article for months on end? 62.4.44.220 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * RfCs > anchors. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to get into this Wikipedia 'lingo', just like I have no desire to edit any pages myself. I have been, as a (to the best of my ability) neutral observer of this conflict, drawn to some articles on Wikipedia, and the obvious bias towards one side.
 * I have, purely out of curiosity, been following this article for a while. To state that its anything other than highly biased would be a reach. From not acknowledging the battle ended at all, to obscuring the objective of a battle for a town (where, what a surprise, 2 sides fight over the control of said town), to now being an article about a battle that decided to not display the result of the battle anywhere at all.
 * And what's next? It is to be declared a Ukrainian victory, as the goal was to lose the town while inflicting casualties on the attacker? I mean, that is comical. Or tragic, somewhere along those lines. Its insane that such a take is even expressed here. Might as well declare all 20% of the Ukraine lost so far as not lost, its all one big bait, part of a master plan to draw the Russians thin :)
 * And the great majority of these ukrainian morale propaganda takes comes from a single user, which again, makes me wonder is this user just a regular user like me? Or is it some superuser? Why is this one voice, clearly in discord with most, and in discord with common sense, given this much importance? Why does this one user have this agenda to disrupt an article about a battle for a town, that clearly ended in one side having control of said town, for months on end?
 * What is next? Is Slatersteven gonna come here and start a philosophical debate over what victory means? Are we gonna go edit all the Kiev counteroffensive battles as Russian victory, as the Russian retreat was clearly "a gesture of good will"?
 * This hurts Wikipedia as a whole. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to complain about users. Also, per WP:GS/RUSUKR, "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.". If you have an issue with a user, take it to WP:ANI. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 23:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Russian Victory
Russia did win this battle, if its obvious on maps and reports why are others either disputing, delaying or denying it? There are many statements indicating that Russia won, the biggest proof thus far is their control over the city. Even the Western Outskirts on the front line have been push away, further securing their control. SCPdude629 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Russians handily won this battle and pretending they didn't is ignoring reality. We might not like the outcome but Bakhmut is now solidly in Russian hands. Ignoring reality isn't gonna help us defeat the Russians 2600:1702:3163:CA40:101B:AEBC:9F6A:3A02 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not according to those who claim the losses Russia suffered meant they in fact may well have lost. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)