Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to include North Korea in the infobox. There is not a consensus that this should be accompanied by any sort of qualifying label. Concerns that the sourcing is not quite strong enough yet were not persuasive to most editors. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous discussion:

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

Polling

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  • 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 [1], but uninvolved third parties have made the same assessment: with the US State Department [2], Blinken [3], South Korean intelligence [4], and ISW [5] 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 [6] and the Irish Star [7]. And here is NPR using in their own voice that North Korean and Russian "forces [have] joined in battle against Ukrainian troops" [8]. --haha169 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support inclusion as co-belligerent YBSOne (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Long discussion regarding sources Nemov (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [9], ISW [10], 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: [11], 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)[reply]
    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. [12] The US, Ukraine and South Korea say ...
  2. [13] Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports
  3. [14] not seeing anything here that is not ambiguous journalese
  4. [15] South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast.
  5. [16] North Korean soldiers have engaged in combat operations against Ukraine alongside their Russian allies, South Korea's spy agency said on Wednesday.
  6. [17] we see North Koreans being active in Ukraine A bit contradictory v Kursk and what is "active"? NATO press release - primary source
  7. [18] North Korean troops have begun engaging in combat operations alongside Russian forces, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday
  8. [19] North Korean soldiers have clashed with Ukrainian troops for the first time, Ukraine's top officials have revealed.
  9. [20] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
First of all, the breaking news from two months ago is that North Korean officers were killed in Donetsk, Ukraine [21]. 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. [22], 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. [23], 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." [24] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're right, just comes across as WP:STONEWALLING at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support. Solid sourcing to add as such.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed, no reason to put this on hold. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Nemov (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    My comment was clear enough. The RFC can continue. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Do any RS say they have moved into Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
}@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Please don't ping me again and quit WP:BLUDGEONING. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would you support adding it on the Russo-Ukrainian war page? FOARP (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not discuss this here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"If you keep on keeping this alive it will." - Not sure what you mean here. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK Steve. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post RFC discussion

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why dont you update your report in decending order?

[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:NOT Hoben7599 (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walter_Tau/sandbox . Walter Tau (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
So what is it you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has been topic banned. TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Events Section Textual Error

[edit]


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)[reply]

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

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1260970176"