Talk:Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation

Merger proposal
I propose that Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev be merged into Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation. I think that the content in the Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev article can easily be explained in the context of Belgorod-Khar'kov Operation, and the Belgorod-Khar'kov Operation article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Polkovodets Rumyantsev will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Pavlo1 (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur on the merger. Ryan.opel (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this was a wrong page move. I've tried several edits to smoothen things out, but it's not working out very well. Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev was the code name for the Belgorod-Khar'kov Strategic Offensive Operation; which for the Soviets, was the offensive portion of the Battle of Kursk. This strategic offensive had two portions of its own: Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation and the Belgorod-Bogodukhov Offensive Operation. The above editors completely missed the difference and merged both into one article. The least messy solution may be to rename. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are willing to do the work, I'd support the split. BTW, can the article be moved to Belgorod-Kharkov Offensive Operation? The apostrophe looks awkward. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the lede a bit. Easier for everyone that way. And frankly, sources sometimes omit the word "Strategic", which results in both the part and the whole sharing the exact same name. EyeTruth (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about the apostrophe. I'm changing the article name to remove it. It's referred to simply as "Kharkov" in most other places in English Wikipedia, as well as in most books written in English. EyeTruth (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

unbalanced
Hi, while the viewpoints of the german defence are fine and well referenced, I would like to see more material from the Soviet side for a more balanced article. Not so easy to do, though. This is why I put a tag on that section. AadaamS (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this bias in descriptions of Eastern Front WW2 battles in general. I understand the problem is that the West mainly had access to German archives until relatively recently, but it's odd that if the battle being described is either a German offensive or a Soviet offensive, the point of view is almost always that of the Germans! This has the effect that, in Soviet offensives, Wikipedia tends to adopt the point of view of the "defenders", i.e. the Germans. Or that's my perception, anyway The andf (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe adding relevant material from a similar article in the Russian Wikipedia could help? As long as is referenced adequately (with Russian sources). Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

German page
Please link German page. Belgorod-Charkower Operation --79.229.247.236 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I this is some kind of bug in the wikidata/MediaWiki software/configuration. The german article is linked to Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev which then redirects to this page. Some other pages are still referring to the old name, some to this page. This has created some confusion and the assistance of a more experienced Wikipedian would be useful. AadaamS (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where the bug is; I just now tried accessing this article from the German page and it redirected correctly. Likewise, pages referring to the old name shouldn't be a problem so long as the redirect is in place.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Official languages in SU
“Both Russian and Ukrainian were official languages in the Soviet Union” Ukrainian language was one of the official languages (together with Russian) only in Ukrainian Republic, not in the whole Union. Actually, it was not quite “official”, all official documentation was in Russian but Ukrainian was used as a second one Nebosklon (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue and excessive quotes from a primary source". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)