Talk:August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion: Difference between revisions

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: August 6. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 6 August 2024 by reviewer Jdcomix (talk · contribs). Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Ukraine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

>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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some media already put up an article claiming Ukraine is in control of Korenevo(like this one from Newsweek, [1]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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 [2] - "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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please @Durranistan, we are not including Russia claims into the infobox [3] . They are highly unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

"[[4]], " 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A cursory Google search dredges up mixed use for "offensive" ([5][6][7]) and for "incursion" ([8][9][10][11][12]). 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Forbes has called it an invasion. See here [13]XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: [14] [15] [16] [17] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source calling it in invasion. [18]. Other sources refer to it as an offensive, such as the institute for the study of war. See here [19]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, multiple RS call this now an invasion (e.g. [20]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Agree. Most reliable sources don't give any claims of troop casualties, [21] [22] [23] [24] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

It has been proposed in this section that August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion be renamed and moved to August 2024 Western Russia incursions. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion → August 2024 Western Russia incursion – accurate description Waleed (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC) 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,[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

What about to transfer the article to its existing redirect and call this as is^[1], since there is no formal declaration of a war from either side. Borisenko-ru (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• Wait for now.
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

You should also use this article as a citation for Artyukh: [25]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n9y4nm3lo Adam8410 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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