Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

@Mr.User200, I don't see these numbers there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Filter by date, after filtering by Battle. I'm using the current start/end dates of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Filter by date is not working for me. Can somebody check. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, Category Battle of Bakhmut, Died from 03.07.2022, died up to 20.05.2023. Shows 5,250 persons. Mr.User200 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In either way, it should be reported as "as reported by ualosses anonymous website". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

An anonymous website has none of the hallmarks of an RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To be true is not a Anonymous site, also it was noted that UALosses' figures have been reported on and used by other reliable sources such as The Economist , Deutsche Welle , Le Monde and others, while also there is the fact that other casualty-tracking projects (Mediazona, Meduza and the Book of Memory group) which are regarded as reliable also analyzed the reliability of UALosses when they started and deemed them reliable .Mr.User200 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To be true, if it is not anonymous, who is ualosses.org? There is noting at the web site to explain who is operating the site. The hallmark of a WP:RS is evidence of editorial oversight. There is no such evidence. At best, it is a primary source but not an original document. It is more akin to a social media source (https://x.com/LossesUA) and how we treat such sources is well established. If this particular figure has been reported in a WP:NEWSORG source, then we might deal with it but not as things stand. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.User200. UALosses' figures have been widely reported on by reliable news outlets and UALosses' reliability has been analyzed in depth by other reliable sources, which confirmed their reliability. And he cited some of the sources and reviews of UALosses' reliability that I myself pointed out in an earlier discussion. Thus, as long as the information is appropriately attributed to the source so the reader is properly informed there should be no problem and I have no problem with Manyareasexpert's edit version as seen here which I think is appropriately worded. EkoGraf (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have just finished reviewing every entry on UALosses from the period 24 – 28 February 2022, all 781 of them. I performed "spot checks" on those records that are relevant to my research, as well as on some data that appeared dubious to me.

My conclusion as that while this is a pretty impressive web-scraping project, it is rough, unrefined, and clearly generated by automated processes with little human oversight. It is not uncommon for it to misidentify military units, and/or, more frequently, placenames. In other cases, it fails to pull these elements in from the source and returns these parameters as "unknown", even when they are clearly stated in the prose. In one instance, the same man was listed twice due to a one-letter difference in the way his surname was spelled. All this is to be expected in the context of a massive (60,000+ records) automated text-processing operation, but it happens on UALosses a little too much for my liking, and clearly speaks to a lack of human intervention.

The importance of editorial oversight in RS has been raised by Cinderella157 above. WP:RS, specifically WP:QUESTIONABLE, tells us that questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. I would argue that this may describe the quality of UALosses as a source at the current moment. That being said, there is a lot of potential in this project, and it should prove useful for research. My recommendation is to use UALosses with caution and if you must reference it on Wikipedia, use the sources that it cites instead of using the database itself, if possible. The information is generally pulled from open sources, mostly local news sites, though it sometimes cites Facebook, YouTube, Ukrainian Wikipedia articles, and similar databases.

Regarding casualty counts, when you get some particular number from the website's search feature, you are essentially querying a somewhat flawed and incomplete database generated by automated processes. I don't know if I would be comfortable considering that figure authoritative or worth mentioning next to credible estimates. In light of my experience with the website, I would like to defer to my fellow editors on whether or not UALosses's Bakhmut number should be used in this article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I will just restate. Multiple reliable casualty-tracking projects, which have themselves been used by Wikipedia for years, analyzed UALosses' database and found them to be reliable and comparable to their own work. This has been cited by Mr.User200. And their figures have been cited and reported on by a number of RS media outlets and not just that, but even used by some (like The Economist) in their own estimates where they compared them to figures by other sources. So RS media outlets consider them worth mentioning next to other credible estimates. If needed, the question of their reliability can be referenced within the article to the fact-checking that was done by the other casualty-tracking projects and media outlets. In any case, like I said, I am very satisfied with Manyareasexpert's appropriate attribution of the information, so the reader is properly informed. I have nothing else to add. EkoGraf (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort impressive for wiki-editor. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside the issues I raised in my other comment, there remain problems with using the UALosses number, which has now increased to 5,436, in the article. After testing a few scripts on this data, I have concluded that the website indiscriminately categorizes any casualty within the entire Bakhmut Raion administrative division as a casualty of the battle of Bakhmut. This is a very broad and unprecedented interpretation of the geographic scope of this battle, which goes far beyond what is covered in our article, and does not correspond with any other sources to my knowledge. I seriously doubt, for instance, that sources would contextualize contemporary combat around Siversk, Toretsk, and Niu-York, relatively far from the center of fighting, as part of some sort of larger struggle for Bakhmut. Allow me to demonstrate:

More information Location, Number of casualties ...

Location	Number of casualties	Mentioned in article?
Bakhmut	2,415	Yes
Soledar	400	Yes
Spirne	223	No
Ivanivske	187	Yes
Klishchiivka	162	Yes
Bilohorivka	148	No
Chasiv Yar	144	No
Unspecified	140
Berestove	108	No
Kurdiumivka	102	Yes
Khromove	97	Yes
Yakovlivka	93	Yes
Krasna Hora	72	Yes
Orikhovo-Vasylivka	66	Yes
Bohdanivka	65	No
Zaitseve	64	Yes
Siversk	63	No
Rozdolivka	63	No
Verkhniokamianske	57	No
Ozarianivka	44	Yes
Opytne	40	Yes
Zaliznianske	36	Yes
Kodema	35	No
Dubovo-Vasylivka	34	No
Serebrianka	32	No
Ivano-Darivka	32	No
Paraskoviivka	32	Yes
Druzhba	27	No
Toretsk	26	No
Vasiukivka	26	No
Niu-York	23	No
Mykolaivka Druha	22	No
Pokrovske	22	Yes
Minkivka	22	No
Pidhorodne	21	Yes
Fedorivka	20	No
Berkhivka	20	Yes
Blahodatne	19	No
Bakhmutske	18	Yes
Odradivka	16	No
Zvanivka	13	No
Vesela Dolyna	13	No
Vershyna	13	Yes
Pryvillia	10	No
Klynove	10	No
Vesele	10	No
Travneve	9	No
Pivnichne	9	No
Hryhorivka	9	No
Mykolaivka	9	No
Volodymyrivka	7	No
Svitlodarsk	7	No
Novoluhanske	7	Yes
Bakhmut hromada	6
Andriivka	5	Yes
Semyhiria	5	No
Krasnopolivka	4	No
Hryhorivka	4	No
Dacha	4	No
Shumy	4	No
Ivanhrad	3	Yes
Dyliivka	3	No
Dibrova	3	No
Nykyforivka	3	No
Sakko i Vantsetti	3	No
Zalizne	3	No
Yahidne	2	No
Novoselivka	2	No
Pereizne	2	No
Dronivka	2	No
Kuzmynivka	2	No
Svitlodarsk hromada	2
Luhanske	2	No
Dolomitne	2	No
Nelipivka	1	No
Vyimka	1	No
Pivdenne	1	No
Sukha Balka	1	No
Riznykivka	1	No
Fedorivka Druha	1	No
Leonidivka	1	No
Shcherbynivka	1	No
Sum	5,436

Close

To the website's proponents in this discussion: unless you can explain why men who died as far south as Toretsk and Niu-York and as far north as Siversk should be counted among the casualties of the battle of Bakhmut, I would suggest that the UALosses number be removed for its use of this dubious interpretation of what constitutes the battle. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Good find, thank you for your impressive work. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. Data indicates the figures include Ukrainian military fatalities in the whole Bakhmut raion (district), and not just the area in and around the city. This can be pointed out. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There is the possibility that including such a figure is more misleading than helpful, but I will defer to other editors on this. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe the very good and detailed table you researched, based on the source, could be used in the article's casualty section itself bellow the paragraph and that way it would be distinguished how many they documented that died in the actual battle itself (4,066 by your count). It would also resolve the issue of the data possibly misleading readers. I would just change column title "Mentioned in article?" to something like "Area of the battle" or something like that. PS I changed the start date of the date range from July 3rd to July 15th since I found a source (cited in the article) which considers July 15th the start date of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree for now with your edit here . But I added sourcing for two dates that are considered the start of the battle, July 15 per Mediazona and July 27 per CIT. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As already pointed out at Special:PermanentLink/1289759292#UALosses , open sources of the Book of Memory and UALosses, such as obituaries, also cover cases of non-combat deaths of military personnel - from illness, accidents, suicides or even murders. Their number can reach a third of the combat ones - Hard numbers: how to perceive new data on military losses – DW – 27.02.2024 . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Weird focus on russian casualties and giving multiple western sources most of which are inflating russian losses while only citing one source for ukrainian casualties which is unreliable as it's severly downplaying ukranian losses 196.112.163.197 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, do you have any RS that contest any of this? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

And no mention of Polish involvement 24.80.141.155 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Recently, the Daily Mail just released a documentary on the battle of bakhmut and I need to report that all of you should avoid using it as a source for information. There are serious inconsistencies with the documentary about the events precuring the battle, including placing Severodonetsk as the core reason bakhmut was eventually pushed, along with conflicts with current articles based on casualties and military strength. Not only that, the documentary uses heavily loaded language that rival russian state media coverage. I generally recommend to view this video to get a full breakdown on inconsistencies, but in short, DO NOT ADD INFORMATION BASED ON THE DAILY MAIL DOCUMENTARY. BarakHussan (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

See wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Didn't notice the change, thanks for pointing it out. BarakHussan (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As the title says, it appears the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion has engaged in the Battle of Bakhmut on the Ukrainian side. It would be appropriate so if they were listed as one of the units involved.

Source: https://kyivindependent.com/national/meet-the-chechens-fighting-russia-in-ukraine Ihavetoentermyusername (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done

By my read,

A part of the group is now deployed near Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast (what the article says)

is not the same as

it appears the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion has engaged in the Battle of Bakhmut on the Ukrainian side (what you are saying).

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts Battle of Bakhmut, Location ...

Battle of Bakhmut
Location {{{place}}}
Units involved
Wagner Group  Russian Armed Forces Russian Airborne Troops DNR People's Militia Redut	Armed Forces of Ukraine National Guard of Ukraine Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment

Close

How is the mention of the Wagner Group, a key and most prominent combatant in this battle, not a "key fact" that should be stated in the infobox? Per this template, we should be removing the names of the commanders as well since they are mentioned in the article elsewhere and should be thus considered redundant information. I would ask that you please revert yourself and start a discussion regarding the issue at the talk page, since the previous version was the most stable one for two years and since per WP guidelines, when there is a disagreement, the stable version/status quo is to be preserved until the dispute is resolved. Let other editors way in regarding this and maybe find a compromise. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The units involve section of the infobox was blanked with the summary none of these are "units" except the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment and that is not supported by the body of the article (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) as a key or significant fact to be summarised in the infobox. It is based on an X post - not an RS. You would agree that these are not units and don't belong there but would readd them in the belligerent section. The belligerent section is for "state players", so it is equally incorrect to add most of what was deleted back under the belligerent section. In a land battle between Russia and the DPR against Ukraine, it is redundant to say in the infobox that the battle involved the Russian Armed Forces, DNR People's Militia and Armed Forces of Ukraine. Listing Russian Airborne Troops and National Guard of Ukraine isn't much better. Redut is not mentioned in the body of the article a not a key fact per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This only leaves Wagner, which is reasonably a key fact. However, we must consider that the infobox is a supplement to the lead (where Wagner is mentioned several times) and whether having only Wagner under units is a benefit to our readers or potentially misleading. A further consideration is that this is clearly not all of Wagner (ie it is not a unit), in the same way that Russian Airborne Troops is not a unit and not all of Russian's airborne troops were deployed at Bakhmut. There is also the matter of flags and per MOS:MILFLAGS, we don't use mixed flags in the infobox. That is why the Russian flag is shown against Prigozhin and not the Wagner symbol. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I still think they should be listed but I leave it to other editors to express their opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)