Talk:Sudzha

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Russia: Human geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Ukrainian name

Dear @Mellk:, can you please explain why did you undo my revisions on Sudzha and Biryuch? The fact that Ukrainian speakers were the majority of the population of these towns (according to the 1897 Russian Empire census) must be enough for the historical importance of the Ukrainian names. Ґайдечахв74Лпадаоо (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for control claim?

It seems that there is no verifiable source in the article that can back up the claim that the city is under control by the Ukrainian Armed Forces as seen in the introduction. Violent Combustion (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. There was a lot of disruption earlier. Mellk (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudzha is now under AFU control

It was officially confirmed today that sudzha is under AFU control. the wikipedia article should be updated to reflect such news https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1821944844522004939 68.6.230.124 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Mellk (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Television report

I am sceptical of including the mention of the Ukrainian TV report due to WP:NOTNEWS. The information can also not be confirmed.[1] Mellk (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a UK based newspaper and is considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source. You should have not undone my good faith edit without gaining a consensus on the talk page.Dn9ahx (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters has also confirmed Ukrainian control over the town - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-state-tv-shows-ukrainian-troops-pulling-down-russian-flag-sudzha-2024-08-14/ - Dn9ahx (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a video and sourced to Reuters. Reuters also did not confirm anything. They reported that the television channel aired that report and described the footage. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. We do not need to throw in all recent unconfirmed claims that were made just because they were reported. Mellk (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is like saying that TMT confirmed that Russia is still in control. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a sentence to say that that some Chechen commander says it’s not the case.Dn9ahx (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This information would be better suited for August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion. This article is simply about the settlement, so IMO it is not a good idea to write a lot about competing claims of control and reports of military activity. We already have a sentence about claims of control on 10 August, which I think is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed quite worrying that some editors think "A state TV correspondent in the town said Ukrainian forces were in full control of Sudzha" means we can write this in wikivoice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellk (talk • contribs)

Imagine suggesting that the civillians of an occupied town could possibly be responsible for tearing down their own cultural monument. As if the occupier, being an occupier, doesnt make it obvious enough who did it.

Theirs no bias on wikipedia 24.241.61.138 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The monument was erected by the previous government. The government has changed. Locals threw down the old monument. What prejudice? The Russians already did that a hundred years ago. They simply crushed all the monuments that were worshiped, and destroyed all the churches in which they prayed. No need to imagine something. This is a historical fact. --2001:999:700:D49C:62EE:E876:3E25:96F4 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should "an incursion into the region" be rephrased to say "an offensive into the region"?

This article links to the 2024 Kursk offensive (previously: "2024 August Kursk Incursion") in its lead section, though it still calls it an incursion (as was the common name at the time.) Should it not be updated to say "an offensive into the region" instead of "an incursion into the region" to prevent confusion if someone clicks on the linked article? SirDoor (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]