Talk:2024 Kursk offensive

Rename to 2024 Kursk offensive

This seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME.

Alternatively, it could be renamed to 2024 Kursk offensives, because the counter-offensive as well as the Glushkovo attempt can be seen as their own offensives.

I'm not allowed to file a rename request, as I'm not WP:XC (see WP:RUSUKR). So, can someone else file it?

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 10:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Location

Remove Belgorod Oblast from Location in the infobox.

Firstly, it's from a related event. If those should be listed, then Bryansk Oblast is missing, because the AFU tried incursions there, too.

Secondly, it doesn't fit the title. The rename request to August 2024 Western Russia incursions failed.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 10:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to footnote. If there were any attempted incursions into Bryansk, they're not mentioned in the article. Mentioning Belgorod but clarifying it is not the main effort, similar to 2024 Kharkiv offensive with Sumy and Chernihiv, is the best option in my view. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 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.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion below. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

---

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion → 2024 Kursk offensive – The offensive is far beyond 2024 August until now, so the "2024 August" is less suitable for this moment. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

other reason per @Valentinianus I:.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I agree its silly now to name it august, we can't keep on having rename discussions, can we leave it at leat 4 weeks? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason why there are so many rename discussions is because it is no longer August. Seeing that, the most obvious and intuitive course of action would be to simply drop the "August" and have it be "2024 Kursk Oblast incursion". However, all the requests so far seem to be going beyond just that and making a change that not everyone can agree on.

This is the reason why, despite wanting to see the article be renamed, I would say that I oppose this. When it comes to bigger changes, there's a good likelihood that the discussion would end up getting bogged down, not because people disagree with dropping "August" from the title, but because they disagree with the exact specifics of the proposed change. On the other hand, if we go with the more intuitive change of simply removing "August" from the title and having it be "2024 Kursk Oblast incursion", I don't see why there won't be a full 100% (or nearly 100%) consensus behind that change. It is also very likely that there won't be any further rename discussions after that change is being made, because most people aren't going to see any reason to want to change the title any further if it is titled "2024 Kursk Oblast incursion".

Rather than getting bogged down with the specifics of what exactly the title should be changed to, it is much better to first make a change that is fully uncontroversial, and then consider making further changes later on. The consensus would be much stronger and the renaming would also happen much faster with less need for discussion. And once the more obvious change has been completed, that then gives people more time to propose and discuss the more substantive changes, like whether it should be called an "incursion", "offensive", "invasion", or something else. Another benefit is that the renaming will also seem a lot less arbitrary and much more precise and narrow: rather than simply taking the idea of whoever happened to make the requested move that is active at this particular moment simply because we need to remove "August" from the title, which might seem arbitrary, it would be better to focus on the one very simple and uncontroversial change first and then discuss any other potential changes after that. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing August only is ok for me, if it could help making any progress.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

→ Western Russia theater of operations (with or without a timeframe) could/would be one option. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Some variation of "western Russia" was already attempted to no success. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRITERIA, more concise (and accurate). Offensive seems to be more commonly used as well. Media don't refer to it as the Western Russia theatre

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:CRITERIA as three real improvements (offensive instead of incursion, drop August, drop Oblast) over the current name. gidonb (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. More than an incursion, less than an invasion of Russia, as has been stated by many in the previous RMs but never acted upon. With this the proposed title is one that has a good chance of actually achieving consensus around it, rather than the questionable proposals of RMs of past. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per norm and nature of the operation. Hind242 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support as it is already September, and it is an offensive rather than an incursion.PatrickChiao (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per norm. If the Russian 2024 Kharkiv offensive is considered an offensive, then this should certainly be considered one as well. One Hop2482 (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Western Russia offensive, then? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 19:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Kursk offensive is clearer. Western Russia reeks of OR. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily only “Kursk” ("Putin tasked the FSB with conducting a counterterrorism operation in Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk oblasts on August 9 following the start of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast on August 6, but then ..."). ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Despite that reliable sources overwhelmingly still refer to Kursk specifically. Unless "western Russia" is a term used in sources to describe this then it remains OR. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kharkiv offensive hasn't penetrated as far as Kursk, nor has it occupied the same number of settlements. If Ukraine holds more land, and more settlements, why is Ukraine's offensive treated just as an "incursion"? Scuba 02:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Support look forward to being back here on new-years when we change the name to be Ukrainian Kursk Offensive. Scuba 02:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. For reasons already said. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Support at least the month dropping. It's going to be October very soon (in fact it's already October in the timezone where I'm from). Having August still in the title is kinda ridiculous at this point. Procyon117 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Support Why is this article still called incursion? It's NOT an incursion!!! Look up the definition of incursion! Words mean things! I say again - WORDS MEAN THINGS AND HAVE DEFINITIONS - THIS IS NOT AN INCURSION BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION! Why must every objective article about this war be bandwagoned by pro-Ukraine copers!??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:C74:E4B7:50DC:102 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support definitely not an incursion. But I would second 'Scu ba' in that in addition to dropping the month it looks like we will have to drop the year as well. But we will think about this tomorrow. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 30 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.

The War started...

...with the Ukrainian invasion of Russia, in August 2024... according to some local residents... as reported/repeated by France 24 on 25 September. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 21:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

the war started in 2022. Why is special when Ukraine crosses Russia's border for a military operation when Russia's been doing it for the last two years? Scuba 02:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba The war started in 2014 according to the Ruso-Ukrainian war article. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 08:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather pedantic, but okay, the invasion started in 2022. Scuba 13:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a point? gidonb (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just sharing. Yesterday France 24 (FTA channel, same as https://www.france24.com/en/live) repeated several times the reportage referenced above, live reporter adding a view of some Kursk oblast residents according to whom "the war started..."; according to Russian official media... the only available media for many locals ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 19:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't just share stuff, unless on your own user pages. This is an important page for the editorial process on the main page. Just sharing stuff clutters the page and slows down editorial processes. gidonb (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to say that "local residents said in their opinion that the war began today", as a reflection of the attitude of those residents. Zowayix001 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Local residents are not experts in politics and hardly they speak clearly. per WP:PRIMARY their words are invalid ref for wikipedia. It is quite possible they wanted to say for them the war started today, but that's again must come from secondary sources as a commentary about the perception of the war among the populace. --Altenmann >talk 21:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Its also wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember watching this segment several times (didn't change the channel, the remote was missing); from the conversation between the presenter in a studio and the reporter (author of the reportage) it appeared that some of the locals believe the official media according to which the war started with the invasion of Ukraine (soon English shall/will be declared a foreign agent...?). ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 09:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Every frontline has at least two sides (and (official) ideologies), including both/more sides would be NPOV, at least informational-ly? (PS! Currently listening to FREEДОМ...) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 14:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

read WP:FALSEBALANCE This war started when Russia invaded Ukraine, we do not not a patently false counter claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

so, had "they" had Internet in June 24 1914, the first german war would have been titled "July 1914 bullet"? ;-) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? What edit do you want us to make? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Title change. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We are having a move discussion above, we do not need another. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also formally warning you against making an undiscussed move like you did yesterday. You might get cited for move-warring. Borgenland (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Any more warnings?!? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

With pleasure: WP:NOTASOAPBOX. It is fun to chat, but it is a waste of editors' time. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
;-) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Btw, by today Russia has issued 2 arrest and extradition warrants on two Rai News 24 journalists (for trespassing the border, with an intent to...). ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 17:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

"Related events" section

No evidence is provided therse events are "related" besides being in the same time feame. The whole war is "related", because this invasion caused changes in plans and redistributions or reserves for both sides. Therefore (A) it must be removed from this, already heavily cluttered page and (B) the first two subsections belong to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Belarusian section belongs to Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --Altenmann >talk 18:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed the last two subsections. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Spawn the timeline section

I suggest to split the Timeline of the Ukrainian Kursk offensive and keep here only the summary of major developments, because the article became intractable due to WP:RECENTISM. By the way, what? Nothing happened after September 24? Or Wikipedians just got bored? --Altenmann >talk 18:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The solution to the recentism in the timeline is to simply remove the non-essential content altogether rather than splitting off content which would eventually be deleted. Not much of note happened in Kursk since around 18 September. More of the same offensive actions by both sides in the same directions with little frontline changes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Destablization of the Eastern Front

We should probably mention that the offensive led to the absolute collapse of Vuledar and other key positions in the Donetsk Region within the timespan of September and October, and along with driving further antiukrianian sentiment in Russia. BarakHussan (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Source, saying this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4][5] BarakHussan (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Of the first three sources, at that point, I did not check the rest only one says that the losses on the east are due to sending forces to the Kursk region, so rather than checking the rest I will, simply ask. Provide a quote that says something to the tune of " the offensive led to the absolute collapse of Vuledar and other key positions in the Donetsk Region". Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No verbatum "led to absolute collapse" but here are ones that indicate it did nothing to stop russian advances and left donetsk vulnerable [6][7][8] BarakHussan (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That is called wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen reliable source saying that Donetsk Front collapsed because of Kursk offensive (how would you even prove such a thing? There's thousands of counfounding variables). There is ample RS saying that the Kursk Offensive failed in one of its primary stated objective to draw Russian troops out of Donetsk to reinforce Kursk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:69D4:C47E:D214:1B3C (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• The wasting of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk offensive led to the ongoing collapse of their Eastern front (e.g. [9]). Some even say that Zaluzhyi and all his staff were fired because he was against such plan. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

October 11th

Following the start of the second phase of the Russian counteroffensive in the oblast the Russian army has managed to drive Ukrainian forces out of many of their positions taken in August on different axes, retreating towards the border again. The replacement of the experienced brigades by defense forces and reservists has made it impossible to contain the Russian pressure exerted since September. Of course, the figure of 50,000 troops on this front is nonsensical and illogical considering the difficulty the Ukrainian army is already having to maintain its positions on the other fronts. New Ukrainian reinforcements leave for Sumy in response to contain the Russian advance, reinforcements that on the other hand, are needed elsewhere, which indicates that the Ukrainian non-withdrawal from Kursk is due only to political reasons after its certified military failure. Ukraine currently controls less than 600 square kilometers. 2A02:C7E:5E5B:5400:EFAC:573D:9DBD:405E (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a copy-paste of a recent message on Telegram by SuriyakMaps; a reliable source (i.e. not Telegram) is needed for information on the recent developments to be added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Map Update

Slobodka Ivanovka is under Russian control since the start. But its mentioned as Ukrainian controlled area.

link- https://deepstatemap.live/#14/51.5371000/34.3284520

Similarly, Obukhovka(under Snagost) was also taken by Russian Forces around mid-September.

link- https://deepstatemap.live/#15/51.2817294/34.9624336 Kapitan Siddharth (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an "RS", but for the Kursk offensive map we for the time being only use the ISW map. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So why use one over the other if they are both RS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Update as of 10/27

I've noticed that in the recent days that no one has written about the North Korean concentration of troops in the oblast. As I am not an extended confirmed user, I cannot make this update myself, so I have attached a n article I have read and verified. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/world/europe/north-korean-troops-arrive-kursk-russia.html# Vestrix (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to also add this recent update to this comment and I think North Korea should be added under "Supported by" or something

https://amp.dw.com/en/ukraine-reports-first-clash-with-north-korean-troops/a-70706179 RamiPat (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of North Korean troops "supporting" Russia...

Title. All allegations were made by biased Western media, which had previously made false claims about the conflict. There is still no confirmed evidence of North Korean troops participating in military operations in this conflict. Even the Pentagon declared days ago that it could not confirm the presence in military actions of North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast, so all of this is just heresay. Hence I suggest to either remove the "supported by North Korea" in the infobox, or change it into "allegedly according western media". Thanks Mattia332 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that nobody truly knows what North Korean troops are doing in Russia. Naturally, the Ukrainian/Western narrative will claim that they are there to fight alongside the Russians, but from an unbiased perspective, there's no need to jump to this conclusion. First, the Russians currently hold a numerical advantage on the front compared to the Ukrainians. Additionally, the North Korean troops could have been sent simply to gain combat experience from an ally (Russia) currently engaged in a modern conflict. Mattia332 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree to remove that, since the sources are not impartial and are pro-Western, allies of Ukraine. Or in any case also include the participation of NATO countries, to remain more neutral.🤝 AlecBarrioYT (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC North Korea

Should we add NK as a beligerant?

Whilst not really been discused here is has elsewhere so it seems approtate to ask here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

hello! I do not agree since the sources that affirm it are not independent, they are pro-West, we would have to wait for it to be confirmed independently, or in its case if North Korea is put as a belligerent, also include NATO On the Ukrainian side, that is confirmed. AlecBarrioYT (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of North Korean troops in the Belligerents section

The people reporting that North Korea is currently in Kursk, fighting with Russia, are South Korea and Ukraine. So, it should be included as 'per Ukraine and South Korea'. One Hop2482 (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@One Hop2482:  Not done: This is under discussion in the previous section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2024

2024 Kursk offensive → Sudzha offensive – The entire narrative of the article is that the Ukrainian Armed Forces didn't reach Kursk, and that is why they failed. But the Ukrainian Armed Forces did not have the goal of capturing the regional center. One of Ukraine's goals was to capture Sudzha, an important transport hub to the north of the Sumy Oblast. And it succeeded.

Even if you disagree with me, the offensive never reached Kursk, and therefore the title is simply misleading. MarcusTraianus (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Kursk" here refers to Kursk Oblast, not the city, as do all media outlets reporting on the offensive; I also don't see anywhere in the article supposing that reaching Kursk city was a realistic goal of Ukraine, or that they "failed" to achieve it; lastly, using "Kursk" in the title is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME; no matter how inaccurate you think it is, that is nonetheless what reliable sources refer to when discussing these events. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche: Okay, then it should be named Kursk Oblast offensive, not 'Kursk offensive'. MarcusTraianus (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like unnecessary wordiness and not reflecting of what sources say; just "Kursk" is often used by the media as a shorthand for the entire region, despite that also being the name of the city. If reliable sources just say "Kursk" (similar to Kharkiv 1, Kharkiv 2, Kherson for the entire oblasts), then there's no reason we shouldn't either. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This was the entire point of the last move request: use the common name. We changed the name to the common name. And no sources call this campaign by the proposed name. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire narrative of the article is that the Ukrainian Armed Forces didn't reach Kursk, and that is why they failed - I see no evidence of that narrative in the articles lead paragraphs. One of Ukraine's goals was to capture Sudzha, an important transport hub to the north of the Sumy Oblast. And it succeeded. Yes, it also captured several dozen other towns and villages, Sudzha was the most important one I think but their ambition was a chunk of Kursk not just Sudzha. Even if you disagree with me, the offensive never reached Kursk, and therefore the title is simply misleading. Not to me - didn't even know Kursk was the capital of Kursk oblast, good to know!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:145E:CBB8:9FB8:2155 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Community sanctions WP:RUSUKR
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Chicdat's latter argument. Borgenland (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose & speedy close per WP:COMMONNAME. I have never once heard of "Sudzha offensive", and it sounds like the proposer didn't understand that Kursk is the name of a region that extends beyond the city of the same name.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and because the offensive is taking place in Kursk Oblast, not just in Sudzha. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Community sanctions WP:RUSUKR
• Oppose Sudzha offensive would alienate the common reader as most people never heard or seen the name "Sudzha" before. Rager7 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, most people who have heard of the name (myself included) did so when reading/hearing about the offensive. Those who are not as familiar with the topic, don't know about the offensive, and try to look it up to read into it, probably have not heard of the name. So by adding "Sudzha" into the title of the article, it makes it so that they are less likely to discover the article to begin with, which ironically makes them less likely to learn what "Sudzha" even is. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, most people aren't into geopolitics (let alone politics itself) and the geography of other people's nation. By renaming this article, you're alienating newcomers that have some interest into politics or news in foreign affairs. Rager7 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We didn't redirect 2024 Kharkiv offensive page to for example Vovchansk offensive page just because Russian forces only reached Vovchansk and didn't reached Kharkiv city itself. So I see no reason why it is necessary to redirect page, it is also important to mention that Ukrainian forces tried to launch offensive operations not just towards Sudzha but also towards Korenevo for example. Hyfdghg (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Community sanctions WP:RUSUKR