Talk:Battle of Bakhmut/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Strategic Ukrainian defeat

I don't see a source saying this, anybody? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is supposed to be the summary of the last paragraph of the Attrition and result section which does have such sources Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's where I was looking and haven't found one. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That wording was added after my original citation. It's like a double reverse, thus unnecessary. But I think the main point is the word "strategic". It would imply that Ukraine lost more than just the battle of Bakhmut. I can imagine that the editor who included that was considering the effect of the battle in the 2023 counteroffensive, which would make sense, but would be better with a more direct citation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted that citation now. It still needs more work though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-academic sources in Result

Since we've collected lots of academic sources for the section, we can rely on these. Let's start getting rid of non-academic ones.

For example, Reuters article Wagner's global operations: War, oil and gold | Reuters only has 2 sentences on Bakhmut. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as the content itself isn't impacted, then it should be ok. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:07, 27 May 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)