Talk:August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources don't cite numbers

>Russia claimed that six tanks and ten armored vehicles were lost in the engagement.

By whom? Also the two sources don't mention this as far as I can tell. 89.68.62.168 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press: "It claimed that six Ukrainian tanks, four armored personnel carriers and six other armored vehicles were destroyed in the fighting." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ka-52 attack helicopter - wrong source

https://kyivindependent.com/military-ukraine-downs-russian-ka-52-attack-helicopter/ - this article reflects another incident. It's dated May 13, 2024 1:28 PM

Altrough there is an incident with a downed Ka-52 attack helicopter during this incidents, the source clearly doesn't refer to it. Cristi767 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

“Not verified yet”

The article says that the claims of Ukrainian vehicles being targeted on video isnt verified. How is it not verified if theres videos of it? Im confused 2603:8000:E203:922:3871:883A:2931:D826 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The "couldn't be verified" statement I'm pretty sure was referring to the claim of the Russians pushing the Ukrainians completely back, not that there were vehicle casualties; this was clarified. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Map needed

we need a map of incursions here in the same style of 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions. @Ecrusized @Rr016 Pusf.smbd (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. Ecrusized (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you a lot!! Your works are truly valuable for events like these. Pusf.smbd (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Ecrusized, please consider making an adjustment to the legend to reflect the fact that ISW's map refers to this area as the claimed limit of advance (not all confirmed). Thanks SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Ecrusized and @Physeters. The changes made to the ISW map between 8 August and 9 August are described in this report as recesses of the claimed limit of Ukrainian advances. This does not necessarily imply Russian counterattacks, as portrayed in the Commons map. Please consider removing the red arrows to avoid the implication that the affected areas were at one point under definitive Ukrainian control, rather than simply part of an earlier claimed limit of advance. Best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SaintPaulOfTarsus! In today's report, the ISW cites a source which claims that Russian forces are clearing Snagost. In my opinion, that sounds like a counterattack. As for the other recession, it sounds like it's a map correction, as you pointed out. Physeters^✉ 02:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

But I also believe when we've to explain, say, the strategic importance of such and such a settlement(like Sudzha) or defensive line or railway, there's no need to cite a 1943 map, but preferably a map printed in just the last 5 to 10 years that would be more relevant---because we're talking an ongoing war, not some doing research on WWII or even Russian Civil War! Bf0325 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

Ukraine is confirmed to have shot down the Ka-52 helicopter on August 6th. "Claimed" can be removed in the Casualties section. SamRuck (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

source (although the given source in the article also gives pretty good confirmation of the claim) - edit request has been carried out. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Ukrainians have also reportedly destroyed heavy equipment, including a Ka-52 "Alligator" ", that is not conformation it is an allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's somewhat of both, but the fact that it is in the article's own voice rather than saying "some Ukrainian soldier said he shot down a helicopter" makes it enough so; here's another if you don't like that one [1] - "During recent clashes in the Kursk Region, the Russian army lost at least two T-62M tanks and one Ka-52 helicopter, while Ukraine lost several armored vehicles and at least one Buk-M1 SAM system." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but none of this is enough yet to make it a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, but we're not "making it a fact", this is just changing "Ukraine claimed x" to "Ukraine stated their forces had done x", based off the support from sources treating the claim as a fact; if many sources are saying in their own voice that it was shot down and there's footage showing it not being in the air, (and unable to go back in the air any time soon) I don't see a problem with not just saying "Ukraine claimed x". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference, other than adding more characters? I do not think we need to change the wording, and that is my last comment untill I say I have changed my mind. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Rank and Word usage + Wrong source?

Vladimir Putin designated Denis Manturov as Oberführer of the Kursk Oblast as he tried to cope with the incursion

Nowhere in the source it says this. It also doesnt say Oberführer and it ALSO never mentions that Putin tried to 'cope about the incursion' This seems to be meme talk and demonizing - Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable and neutral source and not meant to use Nazi Ranks or word usage alongside invented facts to make a side look bad, even if it is or isnt deserved. Iska-Germany (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Mellk (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

U can't fix the reality (whatever is meant under this on the northern/southern hemisphere), only the words...;-) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 14:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Results" could be more comprehensive.

I know the situation is quite volatile and it's hard to keep up with the fog of war, but just calling the results "ongoing" is far too shallow. It should at least be

• Ongoing
• Ukraine captures ___ KM² of land, including the cities of ____, ____, ___...

2804:14D:54A1:827D:E411:C707:B422:9607 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Some media already put up an article claiming Ukraine is in control of Korenevo(like this one from Newsweek, [2]https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-kursk-incursion-updates-korenevo-moscow-1936403), but of course the situation is pretty fluid, and updated maps are definitely needed, say, from ISW or some objective 3rd party websites.

One thing I noticed about the current version of the article is that it cited a 1943 map to explain likely the strategic importance of Sudzha(which is currently under Ukrainian control)---are there no recent maps, say, printed in just the past 5 to 10 years? We're talking about an ongoing war, not doing some research on WWII or even Russian Civil War! Bf0325 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

russian towns with their ukrainian names

i find it funny how the towns of oktyabrskoe, glukhov and lgov are referred to by their ukrainian names (oktyabrske, glukhiv and lhiv)

is this like a mistake and will be fixed or nah? would be nice if it wasn't fixed tho- lol Albertoathome (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

nvm Albertoathome (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Map typo

Contested is spelled as "Constested." Not a major typo, thought I'd point it out. GGUltima (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

corrected LiveOnTropics (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda suspected - otherwise some retired commander from Poland is not a relevant source

"Retired Polish General and former commander of special forces, Roman Polko - WHO?? - stated that “It’s good that Ukraine is taking actions that surprise the Russians," and that "Ukraine is in a defensive position and is unable to conduct an operation to push Russia from the occupied regions, but Ukraine is defending itself in an active way," and that "One can’t allow the Russians to comfortably prepare new attacks.”" Quotes by officers and officials from Poland, as a source of some of the most belligerent statements during this war, should be vetted for importance, relevance, balance, and accuracy when being cited on the English language Wikipedia. A former German minister, cited in the previous quote, could be pushing it, but still has a political perspective. A possibly war-mad former general from Poland with no given reason to be quoted might not be so useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.165.82 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This "most belligerent", "possibly war-mad" is propaganda, by You. pl:Roman Polko position is relevant and quoted multiple times on his expert opinion on the ongoing subject. YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"War-mad", do you possess the ability to see? A war is going on since 2014 or 2022 (full invasion). Awhileo (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Lipetsk

Should we also include the drone raids this morning, including Lipetsk AB? Borgenland (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps; if sources reporting on the drone raids draw parallels between them and Russian defense of Kursk Oblast, then yes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added them provisionally and will not raise major objections at this stage if any reasonable revert summary is given. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Deescalation of edit war in section on fuel

Please take any problems with my addition (added to enhance NPOV) here, rather than instantly removing the entire thing for dubious reasons. LesbianTiamat (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, per wp:brd that is what YOU are supposed to do if reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Content not being sourced is not a "dubious reason", which is the main reason why your addition was removed. Everything needs sourcing here, especially in an article like this, even if you think it's "obvious". We need a source which gives weight and relevance to impacts on fossil fuels from the incursion, and you have not provided one, so your unsourced content was removed. Why did you think that adding it in the first place would relieve the undue weight issues with the economics section, or that you can insert any unsourced content you want just to do so? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It is horribly ridiculous to make a section on the impact on fuel and proceed to make some incongruous passage about YouTube and phone networks. I had already tried to rename it under a more-encompassing name but it seems some editors are WP:IDNHT. If anything in that section violates WP:SKYISBLUE, my first sentence would summarize the problem. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit the article, but I think the "economic impact" section would be better titled something like "wider impact", or "impacted infrastructure". There's not much support in the cited sources for an economic impact and having it mixed in w/ comments about youtube going down seems incongruous (as per above). We should, however, keep the section in some form, as it seems probable if the incursion lasts that it will have more verifiable wider impacts. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine expands territory east

Ukraine has expanded its landmass east, through acquisition of Russia land 2A02:C7C:52B5:6100:54A3:57B2:2A5A:5F71 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

HIMARS Convoy strike casualties

For the August 9th section, it states that "Some reports of over 500 to 1,000 Russian troops possibly killed"(link). The source that states this is very suspect (Washington examiner) and has a history of denying climate change. I think we should hold off on publishing any complete numbers until more information appears. What we do know, is that, about 15 military vehicles were destroyed so we can write that. Maxsmart50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Most reliable sources don't give any claims of troop casualties, [3] [4] [5] [6] and we should wait until they start doing so to report on any claims of warm-blooded losses. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

source for sudzha being captured?

Most sources I have seen for sudzha is that there is a Ukrainian presence in the West. But not that the city itself was captured. If this is the case, then shouldn't the map be edited to say that sudzha is not under Ukranian control? Genabab (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

source for maps is the Institute for the Study of War Waleed (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sudzha itself definitely isn't captured, but the article's map is not showing what areas are actually controlled, but rather the maximum extent of claims of milbloggers as to what area is controlled; the map isn't trying to be accurate, just show what some people are claiming, as this is entirely based off the ISW's map using such sourcing. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Main page ITN

Should this be featured in the ITN section of the Main page? Bajaria (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ITN? Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In the news. Bajaria (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bajaria: It has been nominated. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Provincial wars

Are oblasts really going to war with each other in the infobox? Borgenland (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we say they aRE? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say that though? Unless it's been changed since your comment. Procyon117 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently someone did. I removed a residual flag of Sumy afterwards. Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Artyukh link

Add the Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia pages for Volodymyr Artyukh in the infobox.

Ukrainian: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%85_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%85,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Albertoathome (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You should also use this article as a citation for Artyukh: [7]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n9y4nm3lo Adam8410 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be the military leader, only the governor of Sumy Oblast who happened to order evacuation of nearby regions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

More captured

There are at least 100 prisoners according to video and photo data alone. According to Ukraine's statements, there are at least 300 I understand Wikipedia's tendency to downplay losses, but it should have been changed a long time ago to at least the true number of confirmed prisoners, not to mention the much larger number of confirmed losses of military equipment, 36 units as of yesterday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.43.90 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Or we can stop, not have them and wait till its over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Map update possibly?

The ISW and Radio Freedom maps match up closely enough showing that a new Lgov prong was established after the first one through Milyutevo was repelled. Are these sources citable enough or do we have to wait for further confirmation from sources such as Russian milbloggers and Russian sources in general? Though, I believe only the ISW map is showing the correct information since the two sites don't exactly line up and if I remember correctly, the Radio Freedom map might actually still be showing the previous Lgov prong. And the ISW updated much more often; the latest update was today 3PM ET. Honestly, I think the ISW map is the most accurate map overall after all the other maps I've seen.

ISW: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375

Radio Freedom: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1ZD-YrVB91qrF3EaagUOs7ur6Byj7YfE&femb=1&ll=51.32418598073745%2C35.35802716841694&z=11 (entirely in Russian) Albertoathome (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The map is not updated based off the WP:SYNTHesis of claims of individual sources, but rather it is sources solely to the ISW map; this ISW map itself is not trying to be very correct or accurate, but rather it displays the greatest extent of Russian claims of Ukrainian control; it still has some obvious inaccuracies, but the point of both the ISW map and this article's map is not to be the most accurate but just to show what some people are claiming. Relevant discussions can be found on the commons talk page. That said, this article's map does need to be updated to align with the ISW map update for today; I also personally think the most accurate maps are those of SuriyakMaps and other maps which try to display actual territorial control rather than where far-out raids and reconnaissance operations have taken place. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. For example, the line of Ukrainian control that goes to Korenevo was also recaptures by the Russians. Hollowww (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Russian casualties, atleast one entire Batallion was destroyed by an HIMARs strike, but this has not been reported yet in the casualties section 176.88.136.105 (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the attack near Rylsk, it is covered in the 9 August section. The infobox has no Russian losses, i guess because Ukraine has not released any figures for losses on Russian territory, and I have not seen any Russian figures either. Perhaps we could add something like "no data" in the infobox. Sjö (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Kursk NPP is not the world's biggest nuclear power plant

Under the Analysis heading is the sentence: 'Some sources suggested it is "an audacious attack on the world's biggest nuclear power plant"'. As well as being weasel words and unsupported by the cite, it's just not true. Kursk isn't even the biggest nuclear power plant in Russia. By generating capacity, it's 43rd in the world and 3rd in Russia. Finding a source for it seems unlikely, since searching for the phrase finds only this article. 82.12.148.203 (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done; the entire paragraph failed verification, as I couldn't find support in either source given for the article's text; content was removed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, it is one of very few operating RBMK sites. Maybe that information could be mentioned? 2001:A62:144B:A02:BC1D:92B9:2D5:8E27 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

First invasion (as in direct military intervention) of Russia since WW2

Multiple sources 1 2 3 4 are discussing the fact that this is the first time since World War 2 that another sovereign state has invaded/"militarily entered with troops into" internationally recognized borders of Russia, usually referencing Bloomberg. This seems notable enough of a history and talked about enough that it should be added to the article. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:14FB:8034:120B:EE28 (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be mentioned. --HenriHa (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Chernozemye Offensive?

That name covers the region the fighting is actually happening in (It's a region consisting of several Russian oblasts, including Kursk, Belgorod, and Bryansk, where the fighting is taking place). It's about as specific as you can get.(US Equivalent would be regional terms like Midwest or Deep South used in the census)

"Western Russia" is everything west of the Ural Mountains. It is about as unspecific as you can get. It's a horrible name.

Chernozemye's direct English translation is "Central Black-Earth Region" btw TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

[8] TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

there's the image we have TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Slobodka-Ivanovka

The map in the infobox claims an additional incursion towards Slobodka-Ivanovka on 12 August, but I can't see this described in the article or cited. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Rename (the article)

• the 2024 Battle in Kursk Oblast
• the 2024 Big battle in Kursk Oblast

, 2001:2020:329:ABB2:3134:37F9:CA8B:AF5C (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, so oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider titling this 2024 Kursk Offensive if it continues?

That's what the Media is going with, and if it lasts a bit and takes a bit more it would be fully correct.

Which is actually moreso than the Kharkiv or Kherson ones. The media called them Counteroffensives and so people did and so we did even though that's not really what the word traditionally means or was used to mean in WW2 or Vietnam era discussion. Counteroffensives are smaller more opportunistic grabs taking advantage of enemy gaps and weakness after a large offensive (IE: The Russian counteroffensives around Moscow in December 41 and January 42 taking advantage of overextended German lines). That's what counteroffensive historically meant, not any offensive retaking occupied territory. We still call stuff like Bagration an offensive, not a counter-offensive. Ukraine might be changing the way people use those words, but I digress. This is definitely an Offensive even under the weird current usage. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:88F7:7A87:CA32:FEFF (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A cursory Google search dredges up mixed use for "offensive" ([9][10][11]) and for "incursion" ([12][13][14][15][16]). At the moment, "incursion" seems to be generally more common, thus this article's title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.

Regarding The media called them Counteroffensives and so people did and so we did even though that's not really what the word traditionally means or was used to mean in WW2 or Vietnam era discussion. Counteroffensives are smaller more opportunistic grabs taking advantage of enemy gaps and weakness after a large offensive etc., it is generally not up to us to decide what is called what. We go by what title is most commonly recognizable (with some topic-specific exceptions), technically incorrect semantics included. What the media calls this operation may change as it progresses, and so a RM may be needed later down the line—but not now. ArkHyena (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

(That second point was mostly just a pet peeve and also to point out that this time everyone is using the correct word. That and I'm hoping maybe a little blurb with the technical definition used historically and how they technically aren't true 'counteroffensives' can be somewhere in the Kharkiv and Kherson articles, just somewhere in there).

As for the first point, ISW is calling it an offensive. Is that a good enough source? 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:14FE:B2CC:3ED7:E4A9 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

ISW is reliable, but ultimately this is a pretty minor semantics issue. The lead sentence could potentially be formatted to something like:

The 2024 Kurk Oblast incursion, also called the 2024 Kursk Offensive,(insert RS's here) is an ongoing series of battles between the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) and the Russian Armed Forces in Kursk Oblast, Russia. Taking place during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War...

It would be a pretty significant change to the lead section, so I'll wait to see what other editors think. ArkHyena (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree. This is not an 'incursion', it is a full-on offensive, Ukraine has seized large swathes of land (compared to the average gains of both sides per month during this war) in 72 hours and I see it as much more recognizable in the future to label this the "Kursk Offensive" because I believe it will be what it'll be referred to as. 2A01:CB08:18F:F200:9539:AE7F:3DCC:F5CB (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is pretty overwhelming mainstream consensus to call this Kursk Offensive or some variation thereof, just using brief googling, many many mainstream sources are calling it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:86A:951D:F0F5:F0FD (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine already captured 1000+ russian soldiers,and destroyed much more vehicle than is written here

Ukraine captured much more Russian soldiers,many videos testify to this,and much more Russian vehicle was destroyed,for example column of vehicle in Rylsk 2A00:20:D307:C6F9:86C:9B12:18E6:5960 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Do wp:rs? Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

People here really need to stop using this talk page for rumors/gossips/hearsays and start stating the places where they heard them. 172.56.235.144 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Slobodka-Ivanovka (incursion, August 12)

Wikidata, www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18801114.
Source regarding incursion yesterday (Slobodka-Ivanovka):

www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-12-2024
, 2001:2020:357:D8F7:713E:499D:3226:7DF3 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Casualties per Russia

Please @Durranistan, we are not including Russia claims into the infobox [17] . They are highly unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying they're reliable, but they are just claims, and people should know what Russia claims Ukraine's losses are (as there isn't a much better source of Ukrainian losses), even if it's unreliable. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems only fair, we put in both sides claims, or no sides claims (my preference). Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

we put in both sides claims
Yes. There is no Ukraine claims in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"[[18]], " Ukrainian first-person-view (FPV) drone hit a Russian Mi-28 attack helicopter over Russia's Kursk Oblast on Aug. 6, a source in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) told the Kyiv Independent on Aug. 7.". Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am primarily opposed to "400 casualties" figure sourced to an article saying Russia says it halted a Ukrainian incursion into its territory. Evidence suggests it hasn’t right in the title. The mechanized equipment losses claims do have some video confirmation at least.

Note how there is no Ukraine-claimed manpower casualties in the infobox currently, while we do have a video confirmation for dozens of POWs. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no Ukrainian manpower casualty claims in the infobox because there are none; Ukrainian officials have been very quiet about anything to do with the incursion, and any Ukrainian milblogger claims, which aren't very much more reliable than claims of Russian ones just because they're on the "right side", haven't been reported on. There are still some Ukrainian claims in the infobox, as was said, so just because Ukraine hasn't made a specific type of claim doesn't mean we can't add the claim's Russian counterpart. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

just because Ukraine hasn't made a specific type of claim doesn't mean we can't add the claim's Russian counterpart
... but because Russian claims are highly unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a problematic way of going about this. I don't think anyone would deny that Russia's numbers are more than likely inaccurate, but we also know that Ukraine's are too. So emphasizing only Russia as untrustworthy appears to be nothing more than western bias. Which is obviously a big problem in how this war is recorded on Wikipedia. Ozone742 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Russia's numbers are more than likely inaccurate, but we also know that Ukraine's are too
First. There are no Ukrainian casualties claims in the infobox.
Second. Ukrainian casualties claims are more or less in line with independent assessments. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean Western independent assessments, and they're not typically. Especially regarding Ukraine's own KIA. My response was more about the approach of holding Russia to a different level of skepticism for no real reason. Ozone742 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You provided no proof for your claims so your arguments cannot be accepted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, we aren't putting unreliable claims into the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both @Durranistan, @Flemmish Nietzsche and Slatersteven. Both sides POV needs to be presented, as per WP's NPOV guidelines, regardless what we think how reliable or unreliable either Russian or Ukrainian claims are. If we remove one sides POV, we would have to remove the other ones as well (as Slatersteven suggested). The article (secondary source) in this case that is being used for the Russian claim is CNN, which is considered RS per Wikipedia. We are not citing a Russian (primary) source directly. Further, as per Wikipedia's guidelines in this case, we have properly attributed the claim to Russia, thus leaving it to the readers to decide if they believe it or not. You do not see us removing Nazi German claims of Allied casualties in different WW2 battle articles just because we could consider them unreliable. In any case, all WP guidelines and policies are covered in this case. The claim made has been cited to an RS and properly attributed. EkoGraf (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Both POVs are included in the article body so your argument is already satisfied.

But note the main argument in the discussion. We shall not include unreliable claims into the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So the estimates of Russian losses started to appear. Military expert on first results after a week of Ukrainian assault on Kursk Oblast / The New Voice of Ukraine (nv.ua) assesses these as 1:10 to Russian losses.

Should we rush these into the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Be very aware of propaganda weasel words, such as "Incursion"

The title and terminology in the article uses the weasel word "incursion". We can be sure that if the Russian army had done this, it would be labeled an "invasion" or at least an "attack". All things war in government propaganda rely on verbal manipulation and buzzwords, "full scale invasion of Ukraine" being a particularly common one recently despite there being no 'invasion-fullness scale' metric, and the diminutizing nature of the word "incursion" should be treated with suspicion in the same regard right from the off. There is no reason to wait for such propaganda terms to gain traction.

Remedies could be for the starting paragraph to include a phrase or two such as "local invasion", "an invading force", "carried out an attack", and so forth. Westerners have been subjected to quite enough propaganda phrases by now, lets keep it militarily accurate. As of this date (8/8), a mechanized unit, under the Ukrainian flag, is still advancing through Russian territory and attacking settlements. For the sake of the truth, the word "incursion" when referencing NATO or Ukrainian forces needs to be phased out as the scale of the invasive activities in Russian territory increases. --(unsigned comment by 188.114.165.82 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 8 August 2024)

I'd respectfully disagree....While one could argue that WP has something of a systemic bias in favor of Ukraine and against Russia, this is largely the result of the sources it considers "reliable" - namely mostly Western mainstream legacy media. But as far as the word "incursion" goes, this actually strikes me as entirely neutral, as the operation by Ukrainian forces in Kursk Region (at least thus far) have been confined to within rather close proximity of the border. And "incursion," to be sure, is a sort of invasion, but just using the unqualified label "invasion" suggests to me something on a much larger scale, whereas an "incursion" is of much more limited scale - in terms of the amount of forces involved, the depth to which they penetrate, the duration, etc. BTW, even most pro-Russian sources have been using the word "incursion" to describe this Ukrainian operation. -2003:CA:8743:80CB:6C10:8118:7D0F:E2B (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The use of "full-scale invasion of Ukraine" isn't "propaganda", it's disambiguation; Russia invaded Ukraine on a smaller scale in 2014, so the "full scale" is meant to provide clarity when referring to the 2022 invasion.

As for the use of incursion here - to me it is precisely the right word. It carries connotations of a sudden, limited-scale entry into enemy territory. It is not mutually exclusive with concept of "invasion" - indeed, you'll see some definitions of invasion which say "large-scale incursion" - it's just more specific. --AntiDionysius (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say the exact same things if I could reply to their comment (which I can’t for some reason); Russia’s mass offensive into Ukraine isn’t comparable to Ukraine attacking and occupying a tiny bit of Russian territory. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If this continues for a very long time and/or is increased in scale, we might consider changing the terminology, but for now this seems quite appropriate. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is not an invasion, but definitely not just an incursion. This is a significant military operation, a battle or at least an attack. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You just couldn't let it go, you had to say when referencing NATO or Ukrainian forces, didn't you? Your veins were going to explode without spitting some of that nice fascist propaganda. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this not an invasion? Now if RS do not call it an invasion fair do's, so how do RS refer to it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Forbes has called it an invasion. See here [19]XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

David Axe is calling it an invasion, but what do you expect? He's also not the representative of everyone at Forbes; most more reliable sources are calling it an incursion: [20] [21] [22] [23] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source calling it in invasion. [24]. Other sources refer to it as an offensive, such as the institute for the study of war. See here [25]. The word offensive is much more commonly used in english language military science than the word "incursion".XavierGreen (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet business insider calls it both an invasion and an incursion; sources which call it an offensive also use the word incursion, so "incursion" still seems to be the prevailing overall usage. "Offensive" is also used more because many offensives are not just incursions, but we don't have to not use a word just because its less precise counterpart is "used more overall among sources which aren't referring to incursions". If sources most commonly use the word "incursion" when referring to this conflict, then that's what the title of this article is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, multiple RS call this now an invasion (e.g. [26]). Hence the page can be renamed accordingly. But it can be also named as "offensive", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I second what AntiDionysius said. If it continues and expands in scope then it's a proper invasion. Until then we go with the (admittedly pro-Ukrainian) sources 'incursion'. It's not Wikipedia's fault that reliable sources are mostly pro-Ukrainian. Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche for providing sources. Paladin Arthur (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "incursion" does not justify it being called an "incursion". It is not an incursion, it is the biggest offensive since that in Kharkiv. I think we should call it what it is, an offensive. The Ukrainians have no plan to retreat, considering the scale of the "incursion", and seemingly intend on seizing Lgov, a town of 20,000 people. That is not small, atleast taking into account the scale of this war's advances. Astralium1 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we think it isn't an incursion, (although it's only been three days since the incursion's start and we should wait to see how this plays out instead of assuming that Ukraine will advance further; the prospect of a city that Ukraine could advance to doesn't mean anything if they don't actually do it or hold their territory; I would also argue the biggest offensive since Kharkiv is the ongoing Pokrovsk offensive, which isn't being treated as such as it's connected to existing occupied territory but nevertheless has much more troops than both of these engagements and has greater implications if successful) if most sources are using the term "incursion", which based off what I've seen is definitely the case, then we stick with the current title. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine has captured somewhere around 600km² of land. This is uncomparable to the Belgorod incursion that captured minimal land. If this attack lasts any longer and becomes a real front, I don't believe sources will continue to use "incursion". Astralium1 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to necessarily take sides regarding the appropriateness of words such as incursion/offensive/invasion, but some sources do call it an invasion specifically in the context of stating that this is the first time another country invaded (as in "militarily entered") Russian land (not counting the Republic of Crimea that Russia took and established in 2014, or the four Ukrainian oblasts) since World War 2. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:14FB:8034:120B:EE28 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think incursion implies a sort lived action, no longer than a day or two, to raid an enemy territory to capture or kill, destroy or sabotage infastructure etc. If Ukraine had rolled in, taken 100 conscript prisoners and then ran away after blowing up some fuel lines or something, I'd say incursion. It's a lot more than that though, they've been there a week, attempted to seize and control many square miles of territory, dug in, reinforced. That's no incursion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:86A:951D:F0F5:F0FD (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the gains (shown in the map) be described as “claimed?”

The map menu says that the advances and the control of territory is “claimed” (which implies that the information isn’t verified) despite the citation of sources (throughout this article) backing the capture of at least some parts of Russia as facts. I think this should be phrased better (maybe as “approximate gains” or just “gains”) or maybe even a whole new color for unconfirmed gains from the incursion. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed in part before (here), but in short the map is based entirely off the ISW's map [27], who themself say that the contents of their map are not confirmed and are rather maximalist claims of controlled territory; until the ISW's map shows only what they think Ukraine actually controls, this article's map legend will keep it's wording. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why ISW is repeatedly treated as "the authoritative source", rather than... "a source"? If we were to use the ISW map we should state the source in the given articles where the map is used: something like "...according to the Institute for the Study of War". 2600:1012:A021:8AD:3CF9:378F:AC6F:409F (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Attribution of the ISW map is already given, seen in Media Viewer in the bottom text saying "citing Institute for the Study of War"; questions about the map itself should also be asked at its page on Commons rather than here, where the creators of the map will likely see it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Losses refresh

Hey, here is a refresh of losses until 11th august must not be all. I don't have human losses because no one knows the number and it often bullshit (like +2000 Russian soliders that surended from what I already saw...). Losses are documented by photo, but often there is a video of the destruction: geolocated or distinctive with symbols (triangle)

Ukrainian Losses:

1 2S1 Gvozdika

At least 6 T-64BV destroyed  ·  ·  ·  ·  ·

5 BTR-4E destroyed  ·  ·  ·  ·

3 BTR-4/ BTR-4E captured

4 Marder 1A3 ·  ·  ·

1 Stryker M1132 ESV

3 Cougar (MRAP 4x4)

1 International MaxxPro (in Belgorod region near Kolotilovka)

2 ou 3 Kozak ·

1 4x4 rocket launcher

1 radar station

1 towed artillery M777

Russian Losses:

2 T-62M (already written) and 2 KamAZ 65221-22 trucks destroyed

1 Kamov Ka-52 (already written)

1 Mil Mi-8 (pilot managed to land after a drone hit their tail rotor) (already written)

2 trucks transporting two T-72B destroyed

1 D-20 towed artillery and a unknown truck model destroyed

From the Russian column hit the 9th august: : 6 trucks damaged and 8 destroyed including these models: KamAZ-4350, KamAZ-5350, KamAZ-6350, KamAZ-43114

Cordially, HorsePower68 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure we need this level of detail, nor shous we be analyzing sources, say what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

C/e needed?

"reported from the Sudzha". 80.67.37.2 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Sjö (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unclear text in article

"Ukrainian state television aired a report claiming that the town was under Ukrainian control and showing Ukrainian soldiers removing the Russian flag from an official building and throwing it to the ground.[105]"

The linked source is talking about Sudzha, but it's not reflected in the text of the wikipedia article.170.203.220.18 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed-Protected Edit Request 15 August 2024

I have created a page for Eduard Moskalyov, who can now be linked to in the infobox. 1stViscountessNivlac (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cremastra (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian troops sighted at Vyazovoye, Belgorod Oblast

Link with a photo and geolocation - https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/15-august-ukrainian-military-presence-reported-in-vyazovoye They are in eastern part of the village so it's likely taken.

Maybe it's just a temporary incursion like the one at Poroz a few days ago, but it should be noted nonetheless. 79.140.150.24 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Russian losses are incomplete

The capture of 2 T-80BVMs and a T-90M has been confirmed:

T-80BVM (1):

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1822691454193463446

T-80BVM (2): https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1823813967787249697

T-90M: 84.78.23.126 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Really, every single tank loss? Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

One-week-old Russian government claim of 31 civilians killed

See here. 104.171.53.110 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Name of 3rd Battalion Correction

In the Order of Battle section, the 3rd Battalion of the 14th UAV Regiment of the Unmanned Systems Forces has English name "Nightingale" instead of "Nachtigall." This can be seen in the pinned photo as well as the flag photo on the battalion's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ptah_ngl/ 2601:83:C100:BB0:B9E6:C7DF:8670:9089 (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Glushkovo bridge is destroyed

Ukrainian troops destroyed the bridge at Glushkovo town, some 11 km west of the pocket they currently occupy. Source - https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/16-august-a-bridge-in-glushkovo-town-of-kursk-region-was 79.140.150.24 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is this significant, its a bridge. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the biggest of the three bridges that connect the southern part of Glushkovo district to the rest of Russia (it is separated from the rest of Russia by the river Seym). Ukraine is already targeting the other two. If they destroy all three, they will have effectively cut off the Russian military south of the river, and with Ukraine south and west of the district, and Ukrainians troops to the east, that whole area is very vulnerable to be taken over soon. That includes the district capital of Glushkovo, as well as the important town of Tyotkino, both the size of Sudzha 79.140.150.24 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So its not the only bridge they can use? Also how big is the southern part of Glushkovo district? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

About 600 km2 79.140.150.24 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

When (and if) all three bridges are destroyed, and when (and if) those Russian forces are cut off and illiminated, and when (and if) RS calls this a major victory. We can add this, until then no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument isn't based on policy. Any developments relating to the subject of this page, as reported in reliable sources, may be due for inclusion in the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done It is notable, and in multiple international media sources. The Russian government has stated publicly that the loss of the bridge will hinder, by land, evacuation of the ~20,000 civilians in the district. That statement makes it further notable. It's in the article prose now, with two sources. N2e (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please fix the grammar/syntax here

The sentence "The ministry accused the journalists of entering Russia illegally to report about a "criminal terrorist attack committed by Ukrainian soldiers", adding said that it would file charges against the reporters." seems to either be missing a word or having too many. In either case, it scans as agrammatical.... 2001:A62:144B:A02:29FD:40D5:2E2F:B837 (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 2001:A62:144B:A02:29FD:40D5:2E2F:B837 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian invasion of Russia

It should be named Ukrainian invasion of Russia and extended about possibile figurę directions and attacks if it will and Kursk raid is part of it. 83.23.165.192 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If it becomes a wider invasion, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be that guy but I kinnda agree with calling it "Ukrainian invasion of Russia" should the ultimate goal prove to be the takeover of whole of Russia. 2A02:6B6F:E4D3:5700:5859:1BA6:FBC5:F109 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not each war or invasion has the purpose of "takeover whole country". Even though I don't like how the title is and prefer to call this the "Ukrainian Invasion of Kursk", the current title "August 2024 Kursk Oblast Incursion" makes by far the most sense, especially when the previous Belgorod Oblast incursions are called "2023 Belgorod Oblast Incursions". If this goes into the next year though I'd argue the page should be called something else. Setergh (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Russian state sources

I think are OK for fully attributed claimes made by those sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Posting WP:TASS and WP:RIANOVOSTI for further reference. Borgenland (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that this is the largest invasion into Russian land since WWII?

Many reliable sources refer this incursion as the largest of its kind since the Second World War. Shouldn't the article reflect this?

Russians evacuated from Kursk voice anger at Ukrainian incursion - The Washington Post Russian Border Post Reveals Signs of Ukraine’s Surprise Attack - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Why Ukraine attacked Russia and other questions about Kyiv’s incursion | CNN Russia-Ukraine war: Ukraine claims control of 1,000 sq km in Russia's Kursk region | AP News Man-Man122 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not just the largest, but the first since WW2 that an invasion happened by another country. This was brought up in an earlier section but no action has been taken yet. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:3CF9:378F:AC6F:409F (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure this really adds anything, we are not the Guinness book of record. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just saying, there are plenty of articles (such as major US election pages and major war/battle pages) where editors are all too happy to add a bunch of trivia, many of which may not be important to the article (things like "the biggest votes gained by a candidate" for the Nth time, when it's unsurprising when the voting population has been growing over time), simply because they meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirement. I don't think it's that much to ask if it is a notable point and the sources are actively talking about it.

I do think that saying the "largest" is superfluous though when it has been the only one since World War 2 - the latter which someone in the past 24 hours has now added to the article. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:3CF9:378F:AC6F:409F (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"So" is not a proper response to good faith discussion you know. There is no harm mentioning this in the article and there are editors that expressed interest in its inclusion, with no proper arguments provided as to why it shouldn't be.

The recent addition of "first invasion of Russia since WW2" did make this discussion moot (although perhaps additional sources can be appended to that). 172.56.235.144 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nor can I see any benefit (as I said). Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article should reflect this quip, since it was mentioned in a number of reliable sources [28] [29] [30]. It gives valuable historical context to readers. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Cremastra (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Corrections to the Timeline and Order of Battle Sections

In the Timeline section for August 18th, the following paragraph should be corrected: "Marines from the 501st Separate Naval Infantry Battalion posted a video of them tearing down the Russian flag from the municipal building of Apanasivka, replacing it with the Ukrainian flag." The last part about replacing the flag should be removed since neither the video nor the article of the source show or claim that Ukrainians replaced the Russian flag with Ukrainian one. Also, perhaps the name of the settlement should be replaced to "Apanasovka" as "Apanasivka" is the Ukrainian spelling.

Also, it seems that in the Order of Battle section, the name of Ukraine's 3rd Batallion of Unmanned Systems Forces was changed back from "Nightingale" to "Nachtigall." I assume this is because of how the the batallion is referred to in Ukraine, which, when translated, is indeed "Nachtigall." This is the way it is referred to in the provided source. However, as the batallion's instagram shows, their English name is "Nightingale." Source: https://www.instagram.com/ptah_ngl/ I suggest, to avoid confusion, that the source claiming the batallions involvement be replaced (or added) with the video from the above Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-ftNzRMlOx/ In this video, the batallion's soldiers replace Russian flag in the village of Sverdlikovo. This video shows, at the very end, the batallion's English name: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4veC8CtIXB/ 2601:83:C100:BB0:B9E6:C7DF:8670:9089 (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. There's no need to cite instagram, which isn't a very reliable source, when the CNN article already referenced in the order of battle uses the English name. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's losses

Ukrainian losses during 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion amount to 2,300 soldiers, Russian Ministry of Defense says. Yarkovesh (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

and what does Comical Ali say on that? 2001:A62:144B:A02:29FD:40D5:2E2F:B837 (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Russian claims should Go to the "per Russia" section, as it is a potentially biased source 2003:F5:C70F:2C8:2D33:95:CF9F:66F4 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Brevity and historical significance

So this article is now literally longer than the corresponding page for the 1943 Battle of Kursk, which I, shouldn't have to point out is beyond ridiculous.

This is a small battle that, unless something extreme happens like detonating a nuclear power plant, isn't going to have much strategic significance either.

Kursk 1943 was the third most important battle of WWII with millions of soldiers on both sides.

Encyclopedia entries aren't a place for competing teams of cheerleaders to write fanfic. 31.135.76.18 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk 15473 words This article 7406 words.

No this article is not bigger, by even a tiny fraction. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

By page count on my phone, this is 70 pages vs 68 pages. About 80% of this article could be cut, and would actually improve the information conveyed to the reader.

Part of the problem is that every random news report of a dacha changing hands is treated as substantiated fact AND important enough to include in the wiki. If World War II battles were treated this way, they would be thousands of thousands of pages long. And I cannot overemphasize the absurdity of treating allegations in an ongoing operation as substantiated fact. 89.113.145.163 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages? That might well just be a formatting issue (its also wp:or), maybe due to the ridiculously huge OB (yes and we must also list Mrs Caldwel's garden. But it's not bigger. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not actually have this amount of granular data for WW2 because on the eastern front nobody involved had free media and in general there were far fewer cameras (let alone satellites) pointed at the battlefield at any given moment.... 2001:A62:144B:A02:F17A:56B8:CAF9:180A (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move August 19

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.

---

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion to Chernozemye offensive

This is clearly a full scale offensive, as Ukrainian sources and just the general picture on the ground make clear.

Kursk is too narrow, Western Russia is way too broad(It's literally everything west of the Urals, all of European Russia). Chernozemye is the Russian region consisting of Kursk, Belgorod, Bryansk, Oryol, Voronezh, and Lipetsk. All of the Oblasts bordering Ukraine plus what's behind them. It's an official legally defined area, and it's the most accurate term we have. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Chernozemye_regions_map.png/800px-Chernozemye_regions_map.png 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E966:FB7F:B8AC:6CF6 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support myself 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E966:FB7F:B8AC:6CF6 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: extremely obscure term with no precedent in reliable sources. This is your own personal neologism and it has no place here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: bad case of WP:OR and vote tampering. Borgenland (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2024 (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.

Slobodka-Ivanovka

The map in the infobox claims an additional incursion towards Slobodka-Ivanovka on 12 August, but I can't see this described in the article or cited. Nor have I seen this reported elsewhere. Is this accurate? Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It was reported by ISW on August 12th 79.140.150.24 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Can a specific citation be added to text please? WP:V is a basic requirement we should follow. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Blow by blow

I think the daily update of evert event is making the page unwieldy and violates wp:news, we need only mention major events. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The question is what, or how much should be cut. I made a start; revert any content deletions you disagree with. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can remove the taking of single towns or the taking out of single weapon systems. It does not matter in the greater scheme of things if Ukraine took out one t-72 or Russia took out one missile launcher. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes for your point on weapon destructions, however Ukraine taking a town here would actually be very notable, as they've only taken one so far (Sudzha). I think changes in who controls what settlements are more notable than vague statements like "Syrskyi said his forces control x amount of territory". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And what if it is retaken, we do have a map for this type of thing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Civilians casualties figure

The figure for civilian casualties comes from TASS, which is a state-owned Russian news agency, why is this reported as factual? Slazac (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, this needs attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Without better sources the figures should just be deleted. Attribution isn't good enough. 174.74.71.210 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses Section Request

Hey everybody, I just want to send a request that any casualties and losses not listed under "claimed" should be backed up by concrete sources. Take, for example, reference #14 [31], a list of unverified claims from twitter compiled by The Warzone and advertised as such in the article. The associated the statement "2 M142 HIMARS launchers" is especially suspect as the only evidence towards the claim in the article is a (presumably) Russian military drone recording of an attack on one unidentified MLRS in an undisclosed location. We were shown one unidentified MLRS being destroyed. Thus, for the intents and purposes of this article, one unidentified MLRS has been destroyed, not two HIMARS systems. It would be best to move the HIMARS statement and any statement associated with the article down to claims until more information on the subjects are made available. PresidentDuck (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. But if there is unsourced material, or statements that are not supported by verifiable reliable sources, it should simply be removed, with a clear edit comment as the the reason. N2e (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Causalities should in fact be updated since the 1350 Ukranian armed forces lost is from the 11th

also You cant give your own personal opinion on what they may or may not be. We go off of reliable sources which warzone and newsweeks are. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-it-destroyed-two-himars-launchers-near-kursk-border-1940184 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:F5EB:5C3:6AB2:7D2E (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Russia is not a reliable source. 2001:A62:144B:A02:29FD:40D5:2E2F:B837 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You could say the same about any country every country has lied during war time. Regardless reliable sources confirm the claim. See the policies of wikipedia like WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:NPOV 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:54B:ADD6:A772:B59B (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim itself is advertised as a claim in both of the articles you are referencing. You should not list losses as verified if the evidence does not support it. That doesn't just go for Russia, but Ukraine as well. The only thing we were shown was the loss of one unidentified MLRS. The claim made surrounding that was that Russia destroyed two HIMARS launchers, two technical vehicles, and two pallets of additional missiles. Until actual evidence is provided on the extent of those losses, the only thing that should be listed as Ukrainian losses (in regard to that example) is one unidentified MLRS. The two HIMARS figure should, in turn, be moved to "Claimed by Russia" until actual evidence of those losses is presented. This is the same reason we don't put the unconfirmed losses of 500 Russian service members lost in the column attack under the casualties and losses section as confirmed, because they are unverifiable claims. PresidentDuck (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@2601:3C5:8200:97E0:F5EB:5C3:6AB2:7D2E I agree that the HIMARS should be under the 'per Russia' section, the article you provided does not contain proof that the launchers were destroyed, only that the Russian MOD claims they were. Since the claim comes from the Russian Government, it should be in the 'per Russia' section, for obvious reasons. 27.33.150.151 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Neither of the sources listed are pro russian. also, your claim of "one unidentified MLRS" goes against wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view we don't go off of what users think it is. Maybe an update will be made at a later time. Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say "x happened". They just say "Russia says x happened". Big difference. 2001:A62:144B:A02:29FD:40D5:2E2F:B837 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that the articles themselves are pro-Russian. I am saying that the articles are reporting on claims made by the Russian government, a distinction that both Newsweek and The Warzone make clear in their respective articles on the event. That is why the statement "2 M142 HIMARS launchers" is not fit to be put in the section without the preface that it is under the "Per Russia" header. Failing to correct that statement is a violation of wikipedia's verifiability policy and tantamount to misinformation. Furthermore, I would be appreciative if you could explain how my "claim of 'one unidentified MLRS'" goes against wikipedia's NPOV policy. Had I made a claim that the event did not happen, or had I specified another weapons system that I had thought was destroyed, then such a claim would be valid. Rather, the only correction that I suggested was to relocate the unverified information to the "Per Russia" subsection and to replace it with "one unidentified MLRS" as the only evidence of the earlier claim is a single video which shows one unidentified MLRS being attacked. PresidentDuck (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't go around making edits based on what you believe is right without a reliable source. if you do that you face being blocked from editing.You seem to be new so I recommend you read the five pillars of wikipedia. Thank you and enjoy your time on Wikipedia Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not made any edits to the page, all I have done is state the case on the veracity of unsubstantiated claims and recommended that the page be corrected to reflect the verifiability of existing information and the actual content/purpose of the articles referenced. If you do not wish to do that, I have no means of stopping you, however I would recommend against pursuing thinly veiled threats to block my editing privileges due to our disagreement. Please, have a good day. PresidentDuck (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

None of this is about anyone’s personal opinion. If the sources are unconfirmed (that is, if an article says “Moscow claims…” or “Kyiv claims…”), then that piece of information shall be listed under the Per Russia or Per Ukraine sections. Please and thank you. NairDefense (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says that "Russia claims" that it happened. And so this is not objective or proven

Exactly the same way Ukraine claiming that they took 500 prisoners is also a case of "Kyiv claims"

Neither are proof and so the claim about HIMARS goes under the "Russia claimed" header Slimebor (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that this should go under "Per Russia". This is exactly why we have the subheading "Per Russia", to tell readers the the information comes from one of warring countries. The sources make it clear that it is Russian claims and they should be presented as such. Sjö (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And now the HIMARS losses are back above the "Per Russia" subheading, moved by Mr.User200. This appears to be against the consensus on this talk page, and I believe that it should be moved. Sjö (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

One confirmed loss of a HIMARS have been reported by oryxblog recently,it is the most verifiable and trustworthy site we have, so I have added 1 HIMARS to the losses list.

Here it is,

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html Golem469 (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Change main title to “August 2024 Kursk Offensive” 71.41.187.202 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

see move request above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reports of incursion in Belgorod?

Hi, I’ve noticed multiple news sources claiming that Ukraine has extended their incursion to Belgorod as of 27 August:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0rh2h2d6yc
• https://www.kyivpost.com/post/38038
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-telegram-channels-say-ukrainian-forces-attacked-russian-border-belgorod-2024-08-27/
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-forces-attempt-cross-russian-145249606.html

Would this affect the article and its title? How would we include this in the article? My guess is that we just wait for further information. RidgelantRL (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It already is included, under August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion#Belgorod Oblast; the attempts to break through the Belgorod border have been going on intermittently since the start of the offensive, but as the vast majority of the fighting is still taking place in Kursk Oblast, that's how the article is titled and formatted, and will continue to be until Ukraine holds not insignificant territory in the oblast. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, got it RidgelantRL (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

MIcroblogers

Really? do we need to have the opinions of nobodies? Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Di you mean the milbloggers (military bloggers) that are attributed a dozen or so times on the page? As far as I can see, none of those are linked directly, but instead their information is reported by RS that have made editorial decisions to include it in their texts. As long as it is properly attributed I see no problem with including it in the article. Basically it is no different than a newspaper reporting what "an unidentified source in the administration" says. As far as I know, it has been the position of Wikipedia for a long time that the vetting of sources is done by the RS and that we should avoid second-guessing them. However, the RS themselves are careful to attribute the claims and we should do the same. Sjö (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

NO I mean Microblogers, and not everything in RS has to be reported, The timeline is already huge. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the type of content you are concerned about? Sjö (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My mistake I miss read it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Analysis section

It is stated that Michael Kofman concludes in the NYT article that the incursion would be disastrous. The article actually states that he believes it would NOT be disastrous. Can someone correct this? 2601:80:C97E:9190:6447:52E:7976:10E9 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement of the Wagner Group

To date, Wagner PMC employees work only on the Black Continent and in Belarus. The Company's divisions are neither in Rosgvardia, nor in the ranks of the Ministry of Defence of Russia, nor anywhere else.

PMC "Wagner" at this stage does not take part in the Special Military Operation. In case of a change in the situation, it will be announced additionally.

https://t.me/razgruzka_vagnera/600 Sirani99 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

So, why is this relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it is stated in the order of battle that Wagner is participating, which this user's claim attempts to refute. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And I am unsure that source is enough to refute a claim by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But you cannot refute the statement "Wagner claims "Look ma, no hands" Per WP:RS sources about themselves are usually valid, with proper attribution. --Altenmann >talk 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Who’s updating the map?

The map currently says “as of 20 August”, which was five days ago. Surely the battle lines haven’t been completely frozen since then?2600:1014:B094:5FE:6C23:1D0A:AE03:A83 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. The map being updated on commons does not mean someone here will manually change the date every time. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is accurate and it certainly does not meet WP:V in terms of citing sources to support its claims. The blobs around Slobodka-Ivanovka and towards Tyotkino are not mentioned in the article and I am unclear whether they represent the permanent capture of territory, as the map implies. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been said before, the map only displays the maximalist claims of various Russian or Ukrainian milbloggers, copied from the ISW's map, found here, and as of right now does not present, or try to present, what the actual situation is. If you wish to change what sources the map is based on or what it tries to achieve, then talk to the people who make the map. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My concern is about what we show in this article and whether our content satisfies basic Wikipedia principles, namely WP:V. I don't think we should be displaying a map that does not present what the actual situation is. Or, at very least, we should be explicit as to what the map is displaying. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we use the template

External image
Interactive Map: Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

 ? Always up to date, no? --Altenmann >talk 23:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Commanders to Order of Battle

Should we add the commanders of units to the Order of Battle Jonathan Teagan (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Content in the infobox has to also be in the article. If this content isn't in the article, it shouldn't be added to the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't make myself clear, I wasn't referring to the infobox, but the Order of Battle section at the bottom of the page Jonathan Teagan (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. I don't believe we usually show commanders in such sections. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Kholod

Since Kholod is just the commander of a battalion should he be listed as a commander in the infobox Jonathan Teagan (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Attempting to gain consensus

• Comment So far I believe the main options are:

Option A) August 2024 Western Russia incursions (original RM proposal): 5 people support

Option B) Ukrainian invasion of Russia: 8 people support

Other options- "Kursk invasion" 1 person; "Kursk offensive" 1 person; "2024 Kursk counter-offensive" 1 person; "2024 Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Western Russia" 1 person; "August 2024 Kursk Oblast offensive" 1 person

Option C) August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion (current title)- 17 users opposed the originally-proposed title ("August 2024 Western Russia incursions") which would mean remaining with the current title by default in the absence of consensus otherwise. Most of those comments were within the first day or two of the RM being opened and many indicated needing more time to decide.

However, out of the fourteen comments in the last week, all 14 clearly oppose retaining the current article title, so it seems that over time, consensus has shifted towards the position that the article title needs some sort of change. To try to achieve some sort of consensus, I'll ping the users who voted "oppose" to the originally-proposed title in the first few days of this RM, to see if they still back retaining the current article title or whether one of the other options is now preferred. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I would still prefer the original title, but am willing to settle on the current one (August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion) Micmicc (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Option C. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chessrat Do we not already have consensus to keep the current title? This RM should have been closed three days ago, but consensus still shows that the majority opinion is to is to simply retain the current title. I also think those who support "invasion" and oppose "incursion" both agree on "offensive", which could be used instead, and seems to already have some consensus, as "2024 Kursk Oblast offensive" (the "Oblast" of which should be retained to clarify the lack of fighting, or advances near, Kursk itself). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the "oppose" votes were of the variety of "wait and see how events develop" or "oppose the originally-proposed title". Given that all of the support for the current title was expressed within the first few days of the RM, and none of the 14 users who commented in the last week supported retaining the current title, I wanted to gauge whether the support for retaining the current title still existed. (And presumably no uninvolved editors believed there was consensus, else someone would have closed this already). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the compilation of votes and the ping. After further consideration, I think 2024 Ukrainian incursion in Western Russia or something around that would work. EmilePersaud (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I support Opition C. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support Option C. IDB.S (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am supporting Option C before there is anything big happens in Russia outside Kursk Oblast. MykolaHK (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Option A Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I support Option C, but 2024 Kursk Offensive seems more appropriate due to the amount of troops committed. Zenixtronix (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Option B, specifically 2024 Kursk offensive.

If the current incursions into Belgorod Oblast break through Russian defences, then it should be renamed to 2024 Western Russia offensives or we just create a respective separate article.

If Russia regains control and starts counteroffensives into the Sumy and Cherniv Oblasts, then we could also create a new article called 2024 Russo-Ukrainian border campaign that combines all of these offensives with the 2024 Kharkiv offensive.

~ Valentinianus I (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be most supportive fine with 2024 Kursk offensive which was suggested, as this isn't a mere incursion anymore like the previous operations. However, this name isn't used as often in RS' so idk.

Of the options provided, I'd choose Option C primarily, as the offensive is confined to Kursk Oblast for now, and is still being referred to that way. Option A secondarily, as the incursions outside of Kursk Oblast haven't manifested to be anything significant. Absolutely not Option B, as this has not manifested to anything significant enough to deem it a mass invasion of Russia. It's a campaign confined to one oblast, and it has not expanded beyond that land in any meaningful way - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 19:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Poklane, Presidentofyes12, Slatersteven, GreatLeader1945, MaeseLeon, Iwaqarhashmi, IDB.S, Procyon117, MykolaHK, Maximajorian Viridio, N2E, WeaponizingArchitecture, Micmicc, EmilePersaud, Alexeyevitch, and Ybsone:

• Option C still wait as the Kursk direction and theatre is the most notable, so should be still present in title. Also consensus was gained already, wait longer for the next votes. YBSOne (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm kinda still of the opinion that the current title should be kept still, but I'm more of on the fence now, I also wouldn't oppose "Ukrainian invasion of Russia", especially considering the recent military administration in Kursk Oblast. Procyon117 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option B Specifically offensive. I think this makes more sense than incursion given that Ukraine is occupying the territory, establishing logistics and some form of martial law type administration of the area, if only to solidify it in preparation for some future land exchange diplomacy. That being said, the RS support incursion/offensive/invasion pretty much equally, sometimes within the same article, so it's honestly pretty subjective. People who say incursion are not "wrong" according to RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:5CE2:DED9:FEFF:4AD8 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option B "Ukrainian invasion of Russia" for being clear, concise, and used in reliable sources. When I was looking for the article I myself typed in 'Ukrainian invasion of Russia' to find it and I imagine that's will be a much more common query and name for this subject than the other options. TocMan (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option B "Ukrainian invasion of Russia". Its simple and clear and it falls into every category for an invasion considering that Ukraine sent there over 10k troops supported with tanks, IFVs, artillery which took dozens of Russian villages.Nightwolf87 (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option B "2024 Ukrainian invasion of Russia" it's simple, corresponds with how people would refer to this in plain languages, and makes sense. I think the present title is awkward, and using incursion is sort of weighted.If you look at the definition of incursion, I agree with others, IMHO its not correct for this situation.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. Simple and clear. I'm 1 of the 8 original supporters. gidonb (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option C for now - the AFU still control a relatively small territory for it to be considered an "invasion". Some users want to make it sound the same as the Russian invasion of Ukraine but this is not comparable in any way. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out below its now September can we at least agree to remove August and just call it " 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion " for now? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No because that may conflict with March 2024 western Russia incursion, which also contains an incursion into Kursk; this is why I think a titling of 2024 Kursk offensive is better as the former is obviously not a full offensive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - clear consensus not to move (votes "oppose" + "wait" --Altenmann >talk 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) --Altenmann >talk 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

---

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion → August 2024 Western Russia incursions – accurate description As multiple sources (some listed already in the article) have reported a second incursion in Belgorod Oblast, so the article should be renamed as to August 2024 Western Russia incursions or August 2024 Belgorod and Kursk Oblast incursions to reflect the current situation, Waleed (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Too wordy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Loose the 'August' from August 2024 Western Russia incursions. The last word in the proposal is already in the plural, allowing for many events in one article. Both current and proposed names are equally bad imo. Neutral on both vs each other. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kennet.mattfolk I'd love to remove August, but March 2024 western Russia incursion gets in the way Waleed (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why have any month? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Move to: What about to transfer the article to its existing redirect and call this as is, since there is no formal declaration of a war from either side. Borisenko-ru (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Support August 2024 Western Russia incursions as the scope has grown, no need to list the oblasts individually as the title will have to be updated each time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: changing to full oppose now that it's been 10 days; the incursion is still clearly limited to Kursk Oblast, as the Belgorod village capture proved to be only temporary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Wait: A raid on a village which happens to not be in Kursk Oblast is not enough to change the article title; if it expands and Ukraine captures more than one or two villages, then sure, but most sources are still referring to this in the scope of Kursk Oblast, as that's where the vast majority of fighting is taking place; we didn't change the title to "Sumy–Kursk Oblast border conflict" just because Russia reportedly captured a village in Ukraine's Sumy Oblast yesterday. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. One village here and there in another Oblast could just be raids to divert Russian troops. If Ukrainian forces clearly try to hold and gain ground there for days, I'd saw we move. Poklane (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The village has been captured now, not just a hit and run Waleed (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still just one village; not enough to change the article title or give equal weight to both oblast's operations; Kursk is still the primary topic here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Previous raids/incursions by anti-Putin Russian units also left them in control of villages for days. Let's just give it a few days. Poklane (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, one village has been captured in another oblast, it may not be a permanent footage or incursion there- as it seems rn, the operation is still focused around Kursk Oblast - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 13:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per @Slatersteven GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a precedent for the name in the form of March 2024 western Russia incursion Waleed (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per @presidentofyes MaeseLeon (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I think it's too soon to rename the article. The situation is still developing, and we don't have a clear picture of what's going to happen. Waqar💬 15:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Still, we don't know what's exactly going on. So it's too early to change the name. IDB.S (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait for now, although it seems like they've entered Belgorod Oblast as well. If it is sustained then I'll support the move. Procyon117 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait per Procyon117.MykolaHK (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Western Russian is FAR too broad a name, that's literally everything outside of Siberia.

The most recent name to include both is Chernozemye or Chernozem Region or more literally the Central Black Earth Region. That's the name for the regional grouping which includes those two(plus a few others, but notably Belgorod and Kursk are the only two on the Ukrainian Border).

It was ALSO the name for an older subdivision split into Kursk and Belgorod in 1933, Chernozemye Oblast. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:F077:EEBC:D9C8:6C0F (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait until we can determine if the Belgorod incursion is lasting. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, it is too early to call it something broader than it is, as in "Western Russia". It is clearly a Urkrainian incursion into Russian territory, perhaps the first formal one with Ukrainian military forces, and a military battle is underway, now in 2024, and it is not the tank battle of Kursk in WWII. N2e (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait same reasoning as Procyon117. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 13:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait for now, to give editors more time to monitor the rapidly evolving situation. --Minoa (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: "Western Russia" could refer to a whole lot of other locations, Kursk is FAR more on-point. Micmicc (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Against - Western Russia is IMO too vague and I question whether it's a common name used by news organisations over Kursk. Also, what's with the August prefix, it doesn't need to be there. EmilePersaud (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"August" is added as without it the title may conflict with March 2024 western Russia incursion, which although not as notable, is still an incursion into western Russia in 2024. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per N2e. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait per Procyon117. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support since battles have expanded outside Kursk Oblast. And also remove the 'August' from the name. --HenriHa (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Surprised nobody raised this point, but what is an "incursion"? "Incursion" implies a brief invasion, which this is not. By all sources, the UAF is sending significant reserves to this sector and intends to hold on to Russian territory in order to have leverage during future negotiations. Whether this is a stupid operation or not, and whether it fails quickly or not, is irrelevant. This is not an "incursion," but an invasion. This article should be titled "Ukrainian invasion of Russia," "Ukrainian invasion of Kursk," "Ukrainian Kursk Operation," "2024 Kursk invasion," or something to that line. "Incursion" is emphatically not being used correctly in this title. 2601:85:C100:46C0:44A5:868:D46A:B9A1 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Chernozemye is the name of the region both Belgorod and Kursk are in. It's more specific than Western Russia(which is literally everything west of the Urals), but actually covers everything unlike Kursk TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

is it used by any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-incursion-war-east.html

No. Most sources focus on Kursk, where the vast majority of the fighting is taking place. But the point I raised isn't about "Chernozemye," but about the misusage of the word "incursion." Even in the above source. Take from it what you will. 2601:85:C100:46C0:3D9E:220D:8817:D35D (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Incursion should not be used. Offensive, Counteroffensive, Operation, or Invasion should be used instead. Dark Energy9 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - If this article is retitled it should presumably be from "incursion" to "offensive". PrimaPrime (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Wait for now. Ybsone (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, better replace by its redirect 2024 Kursk counter-offensive to concisely describe this offensive as a reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Lklundin (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is an offensive, but not really a counter attack since that is usually in response to an attack that occurred prior in that area, with the counter offensive taking back land. I would say 2024 Ukrainian Offensive in Western Russia or 2024 Western Russia Offensive to keep it concise and to include Belgorod in the case of that becoming a more important part of this theater of the war. Dark Energy9 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ukraine was attacked, in this area. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize, I misunderstood the definition. Perhaps 2024 Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Western Russia. Dark Energy9 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While Ukraine was attacked overall, there has not been any signifcant military activity in this region for months if not years. Ergo, within the scope of the time and scale, it's a Ukranian Offensive. If Russia pushes out Ukraine from Kursk, and then keeps attacking into Ukraine, it's a Russian counteroffensive. Keep in mind that "offensive" and "counteroffensive" are not "moral" terms and so there's nothing "wrong" with Ukraine launching offensives into Russia, its just descriptors of troop movements within a timeframe (imho) 2605:A601:5553:B000:86A:951D:F0F5:F0FD (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  And even then Counteroffensive being used to describe things like Kherson and Kharkiv isn’t even technically correct in the way we historically use the terms. Counteroffensives are smaller and occur as a result of an enemy overstretching in an offensive leading to loses in the periphery(stuff like the December 41 - January 42 Russian attacks to regain Moscow’s flanks). Ukraine destroying the pinsir towards Mykolaiv in March 2022 or retaking the Kharkiv Suburbs in May-June, THOSE are actual counter offensives. Or what Russia did in Kharkiv between December 2022 and February 2023 taking advantage of overstretched stalled out Ukrainians trying to claw east after the offensive in September-November, that’s a counter offensive.

  Kherson and Kharkiv are traditionally just plan offensives. People calling them, and THIS now, counteroffensives does seem to be an effort to change the word to have a moral or ‘defender’ character ir doesn’t traditionally have. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:25DB:3774:9AE0:B0FC (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree the word has been jury-rigged, even "politized" within the scope of this war but we don't get to choose how words are used within the zeitgeist so meh. But even within this "politized" definition there's no way it's a counteroffensive. There was literally nothing happening in Kursk when Ukraine punched through aside from some few hundred Russian conscripts getting drunk on the border - hence offensive. 2605:A601:5553:B000:A59D:89F3:917D:41F9 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, offensive is correct.[32] The Russians would be the one launching a counteroffensive here.[33] Mellk (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: If there is an incursion outside Kursk oblast, that's enough to change the article name. “Western Russia incursions” does indeed fit for this. Hadjnix 17:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Ukrainian invasion of Russia. Cleaner and immediately understandable by the title, as well as being accurate. Yes, Ukraine isn't sending its entire military to invade Russia, but its still a sizable force that has captured large swaths of Kursk. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - the incursions in other oblasts seems to insignificant as of now. Most also associate the incursion with Kursk Oblast

Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Kursk Offensive, as that seems to be a pretty common name in RS. It might be necessary to call it the 2024 Kursk Offensive as to distuingh this from the Battle of Kursk. The fact that 1 village in Belgorod Oblast isn't really worth changing the title, and regardless Western Russia (everything but Siberia) is far too broad of a term, something like Chernozemye Offensive makes much more sense. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Based on the "precedent" established by Wikipedia dealing with these kinds of military actions, the August 2024 Kursk Offensive would be a better name. For instance the Kharkiv attack by Russia this year was called an Offensive even though it was signifcantly smaller in scope and effect than this one (imho). Also West Russia is far too broad a term. Also, a brief google seach shows broad support among mainstream sources for "kursk Offensive" Finally, in regards to offensive vs invasion, invasion to me implies a sort mass scale attack, a nation/corp/division level attack, for instance Nazi Germany's Invasion of France, i think given the fact that this attack seems to be already countered and is in the process of being rolled back, offensive works better than invasion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:86A:951D:F0F5:F0FD (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a reason why Ukrainian invasion of Russia is being avoided as a title, despite it being the straightforward and most accurate description of this event? For precedent see Russian invasion of Ukraine.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Imho, it isn't large enough in mass to constitute an invasion. Several brigade strength forces at most, so about 3000-10000 depending on who you ask. Furthermore, I think that it falls under the invasion of Ukraine by Russia from a conceptional standpoint, as in, this is one battle/offensive in the overall Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems strange to call it an invasion within an invasion, unless you are claiming this attack is an entirely new war?

  However, the strongest argument is the number of mainstream sources - a brief google search shows about 10X as many references to Kursk Offensive than Kursk Invasion, though I didn't account for things like WW2 references so that might not be fully accurate. Still, it seems generally that newspapers are calling this Kursk Offensive, so we should too! 2605:A601:5553:B000:8C20:1312:865B:C64C (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Russian invasion of Ukraine is part of the Russo-Ukrainian war. This Ukrainian invasion of Russia would also fall under that. A cursory glance at reliable sources shows that they are referring to this as an invasion:

  Atlantic Council

  The Economist

  The New York Times

  As these articles point out, it's unclear what Ukraine's goal is with these occupied lands. Nevertheless, they agree that it's a Ukrainian invasion of Russia. That brings me to my initial question: why not use the simply understood article title of Ukrainian invasion of Russia? JasonMacker (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  A cursory glance at reliable sources, many thousands of them, are also referring to this as an offensive, including one of your three.

  https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-kursk-offensive-proves-surprise-is-still-possible-in-modern-war/

  How many more are referring to it as an offensive versus an invasion, I don't know, because of the WW2 Kursk confounding variable. Google search raw numbers come out to about one million hits for "Kursk Offensive" versus one hundred thousand hits for "Kursk Invasion." Again though there is occlusion there. I guess there is a degree of subjectivity here.

  Imho it seems pretty disproportionate to call this attack an invasion in comparison to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which involved something like 150000-200000 troops and thousands upon thousands of armor pieces and artillery. Are we really calling something like 10 odd semi-exhausted battalions who have taken something like 30 cow paddy villages an "invasion." They will probably be routed out of there within a few months. It is a rather pitiful invasion but in proportion to other offensives such as Russia's Kharkiv offensive, it works out.

  Also I think invasion implies conquest or at least holding for some time, Ukraine has stated for the record they aren't particularly interested in that (which isn't suprising at all since they LITERALLY are going to get glide bombed into hamburger meat). Russia definitely is interested in conquest. 2605:A601:5553:B000:5D2A:800D:2A44:8608 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Ukrainian invasion of Russia, most common term used by sources e.g. Sky News, FT, Bloomberg, The Times, Atlantic Council. The term "incursion" is also used fairly commonly so I wouldn't oppose a title with that as a second option, but the simplest title which is most commonly used by sources is the one that makes the most sense. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Ukrainian invasion of Russia. This is the term I found in several sources, including NPR. gidonb (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't like the term "Western Russia" in this context solely because it sounds much too broad and the title "August 2024 Western Russia incursion" just isn't detailed enough. I might support it in a title that could look like "2024 Ukrainian incursion/invasion in/of Western Russia," although I guess "Western Russia" would still be too broad. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, my preference from best to worst would be "Russia", "Kursk Oblast", and "Western Russia" in that order. Using simply "Russia" doesn't imply anything about how much of Russia is included, whereas "western Russia" is both vague, not used by sources, and implies a large area. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Russia is simple, clear, commonly used, and an improvement over Kursk Oblast. West Russia is NOT an improvement over Kursk Oblast. gidonb (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: I Believe the situation at hand does insinuate a change of the title and yes Western Russia while vague I think it gives the reader enough context to know what they are reading. August could be dropped but honestly "August 2024 Western Russia Incursions" fits in this case.Mkdasher64 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Ukrainian invasion of Russia. I agree with Chessrat above, but I also believe that "incursion" may undermine the scope of the development too much.Seqv (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Is calling Ukraine's offfensive into Kursk Oblast an "invasion of Russia" not a bit misleading? It makes it sound like Ukraine is using all their forces to invade Russia from all sides, taking large swaths of territory every day and marching on Moscow (or at least trying to), when that is of course not the case, and the offensive is still only limited to Kursk Oblast, as there are no confirmed sustained occuaptions of any settlements in Belgorod Oblast; giving Ukraine's offensive into Kursk and Russia's Feb. 2022 invasion the same weight and scale in titling makes zero sense; most sources which do happen to use the "invasion" titling also use "incursion" or "offensive" somewhere else; the current name seems fine to me, and if not, "Ukrainian Kursk Oblast offensive" or even "Ukrainian invasion of Kursk Oblast" would be better. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"It makes it sound like Ukraine is using all their forces to invade Russia from all sides, taking large swaths of territory every day and marching on Moscow (or at least trying to)"

I don't see how- not all invasions have the goal of conquering an entire country like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine did. Some invasions like the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Israeli invasions of Lebanon, Turkish invasion of Syria, 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc, had more limited goals. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

While you are technically correct in regards to your definition of "small scale" invasions, within the scope of the overall War in Ukraine, which is what this article exists under, it is absurd - ABSURD - to call this an invasion. Quite simply - the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is approximately two orders of magnitude bigger than the Kursk Offensive/Incursion - that is, it's 100 times bigger than this in terms of manpower, armor, air force and ambition. Russia sieged, destroyed and conquered Ukraine's fourth largest city. It overran 1/5th of Ukraine, it put a fourth of the country to flight and destroyed its power grid. What has Ukraine conquered? What has it destroyed? Who has it killed? Some cow paddies? Some border outposts? Some drunken civies too addled to evacuate? If this article ends up being called an invasion I will eat my shoes. Yes there are reliable sources calling this an invasion, but so what, they're wrong, and there are many thousands of others calling it an offensive/incursion (it should be called an offensive imho). 2605:A601:5553:B000:605D:21A:9068:5B71 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support with or without 'Western' included. The terms invasion, incursion, and offensive seem to be equally and interchangeably used in sources, so a common name doesn't seem to exist between these. Incursion is the most succinct and in my opinion applicable in this situation at the moment. Yeoutie (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• 2024 Ukrainian invasion of Russia or 2024 Ukrainian incursion in Kursk and Belgorod would make more sense at this point. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agree 2024 Ukrainian invasion of Russia or just simply Ukrainian invasion of Russia makes sense since ukrainian army invaded kursk oblast using huge number like 10-15k per western claims Foxy Husky (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This page should be renamed to Kursk Invasion (currently a redirect page) per sources like [34] or [35]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment It looks like consensus has not been established. Could we close this out and have a debate instead about putting invasion in the title? That is an important debate given how scattered the RS are on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:9C9E:D748:431E:26CB (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Media really dropped the ball by not calling it "the InKursksion"...

Or: "Kursk 2 - Kyiv Drift" 2001:A62:144B:A02:F17A:56B8:CAF9:180A (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2024 (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.

August is over

Per local time it is already September, so it cannot be called the "August 2024" whatever you want to call it any more.... 2001:A62:15FE:2F02:58EB:5AEC:984F:F735 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not August (in some places anyway), but the Requested Move is still ongoing for some reason, so the page technically shouldn't be moved. I would close it as no consensus to move, which @Altenmann did previously but self-reverted, and boldly move the page to 2024 Kursk offensive, but we need someone uninvolved to close the discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I self-reverted, because I dis something wrong; I don't remember what now. you can request admin closure in WP:RFCL,section "Other types of closing requests". Just mention that it appears no be a non-controversial closure, but the sensitive area better have admin closure. 02:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support "Offensive", because it went way beyond a simple incursion of kind that were previously. --Altenmann >talk 02:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Great. May I ask why you self-reverted when closing the discussion earlier? It already seemed to have fizzled out by then, and the lack of consensus was clear. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I remember it now: there was a subsection "Attempting to gain consensus" which fell into {subst:RM top}, so I thought I screwed something up with formatting. Now I simply promoted the subsection as an independent section outside the closed section and redid the closure. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion → Kursk Offensive (2024) – Many people here have proposed moving it to "Ukrainian Invasion of Russia". However, operations have mostly only occured in Kursk oblast, and the belgorad ones were temporary raids and can be ignored and lumped in with the many other raids that have routinely occured in this war. "Invasion of Russia" overestimates the scale of the attack. It would be like calling the Kargil War a "Pakistani invasion of India". The current "incursion" however UNDERESTIMATES the scale of the attack. Ukraine is occupying land for extended periods of time. This is an invasion of kursk oblast. Many sources have used the term "offensive". I would also be open to calling it the "Ukrainian Invasion of Kursk" but currently most sources use "offensive" or "incursion". I think offensive makes more sense. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/08/ukraines-kursk-offensive-big-stakes-big-risks-for-both-sides/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/25/ukraine-kursk-offensive-russia-videos/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8nykdnlkpo.amp https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-nato-chief-backs-kursk-offensive/live-70098983 Hind242 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• procedural oppose Let's have one move request at a time? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2024 (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.

Misleading statement?

"Although President Putin repeatedly promised that young conscripts would not be deployed in the war with Ukraine, conscripts from several Russian regions were sent to fight with Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast.[258] Many conscripts fell into Ukrainian captivity.[259]" is kind of misleading since Russian law did prohibit conscript from be deployed abroad (in this case in Ukraine) which Putin promise conscript he would not. However Ukraine invaded Kursk a Russian sovereign territory and internationally recognized as such, conscript would be obviously deployed inside Russia. Other statement such "civillian complained about Russian gov abandoned them" is also kind of ridiculous since Ukraine invaded Russian territory and already evacuated civillian for their safety Dauzlee (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This source shows that the civillians are talking about the situation while the Russians were in control. They complain that the Russian authorities didn't help them evacuate (except that they evacuated the elderly and frail) and that they turned off water and light. That is something the Russians can only do where they control the area. This source reports that Russian conscripts are fighting in Russian-occupied Ukraine. So I don't think either statement is misleading. Sjö (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it is, as this statement is about Kusk (which is in Russia). Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid argument for the text about conscripts. We could either remove it or rephrase it to something mentioning that conscripts in Kursk thought they would be safe since they would not be deployed in occupied Ukraine. We would need a source to support that, though. Sjö (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be better yes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For the first one it should be cautiously treated as a claim, since it was from a Ukrainian soldier especially when he said "They did not declare evacuation and immediately turned off water and light, so they created unbearable living conditions" which is doubtful and propagandistic in tone, CBC itself said they currently hasn't verify such video the Ukrainian soldier have provided. It should be changed into "a Ukrainian soldier claimed that some Russian citizen complained about Russian government abandoning them". If a Russian soldier said the same thing about Ukraine you would rightfully doubt such claims. For the second, while conscript did fought in Ukraine the statement is still misleading as this Wikipedia article is about Kursk. The statement only suitable when the battle took place in Ukraine, for example like "although Putin promise conscript not to be deployed abroad, conscript are still send to the front line in Ukraine" Dauzlee (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Update Article Name

It's been almost a week into September but the article is still called "August". Somebody please fix 85.229.111.139 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

see move request above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

its called august because it started in august Jeff0justin (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason it's been almost a week is that the discussion for the move request can only be closed after 7 days, meaning that according to Wikipedia policy, it should take at least 7 days of time for consensus to be established and for the discussion to then be closed. After the 7 days have passed, assuming that consensus has already been established by that point, someone (who has the permissions to do this) can then come in, close the discussion, and perform the renaming if necessary. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also suggest reading Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia aims toward a long-term, historical view. No need to hurry. --Robertiki (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)