Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

WP:ECR

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

---

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

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RopeTricks: The motivation behind my restructuring to absorb the Analysis section into the Aftermath was Cinderella's main comment above, which I generally agree. It makes sense for the subsections under Analysis to be written from a historic POV, in other words, from a post-battle POV. This kinda fits with the tone of an Aftermath. For example, what was the strategic importance of the battle for the war as a whole? What was the impact of the battlefield on the battle and the battle on the battlefield (the legacy of destruction). I think the "military strength and tactics" subsection doesn't fit there though. I would also recommend you reading Cinderella's original reply. What do you think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I found and read Cinderalla's comment after the fact, which was my fault. You guys can revert if you want. I actually agree with your opinions and conclusions about historical value. Carry on! RopeTricks (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on biased western sources

Clear overuse of biased ,unreliable and propaganda driven sources

in the casaulty section for example you focused on russian losses with very very questionable numbers and claims (especially considering wagner had no more than 50k troops at their peak) while completely ignoring ukranian losses 196.121.173.111 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I see someone also removed the Russian estimates while I was away. I wonder if monocratically... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties

Other articles separate Russian and Ukrainian casualties into different sections but in this one its just says "military casualties". However, there are no estimates of Ukrainian casualties in that section. I know they took heavy casualties near the end when they were practically fighting to the last man and stubbornly resisting American calls to withdraw. Yet this is not reflected anywhere in the article and neither are other Ukrainian casualties. There isn't even an estimate in the info box anymore. Hopefully someone can fix this. Maxsmart50 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

change “battle of Bakhmut” to “Battle of Bakhmut”, in the first sentence of the introduction Antniomanso (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The first word in the sentence is the, only the first word should be capitalized. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Caused by heavy casualties

who were later reinforced by many other units—including special forces and territorial defense units—in order to fill in gaps caused by heavy casualties - who added that misinformation not found in sources? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "in order to fill in gaps caused by heavy casualties" was added by RopeTricks with this edit, though you might have done the same footwork I did to locate this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

False. I did the footwork myself. I merely rephrased an entry made by user LordLoko on 8 December 2022. LordLoko is the user that originally entered the so-called "misinformation". The phrase "until later were reinforced from many other units in other to fill in the gaps caused by the heavy casualties." did not exist on the page until Loko's edit. I "added" nothing, I merely rewrote his pre-existing entry many days later on 15 December 2022. RopeTricks (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing "in order to fill in gaps caused by heavy casualties" can be directly traced to the edit I linked. Unless you can reasonably show that it occurred earlier it is not false that you introduced the phrase. If you are responding to Manyareasexpert and misinformation not found in sources, that is another issue. It is all a matter of indenting and who you are responding to. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

LordLoko originally added the "fill in the gaps" text. Their initial entry was made on 8 December 2022, writing "until later were reinforced from many other units in other to fill in the gaps caused by the heavy casualties". That's who originally populated the article with the "misinformation". Refer to them for further inquiry, not me. RopeTricks (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)