Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

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 [1] 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) [2] --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." [3] --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" [4]. 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" [5])

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: [6]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: [7] SK supports report of officers, says deployment of regular troops is "likely", and says Russia-NK agreements "resemble a military alliance"

10/10: [8] Ukraine & SK say NK military engineers in support roles behind front lines. [9] Ukraine says "several thousand" NK troops are training in Russia

17/10: [10] 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. [11] Budanov (Ukr.) says 11,000 NK troops in Russia, "ready to fight" in Ukraine by 1/11

18/10: [12][13] SK says NK sending troops to Russia, with 1,500 special forces arrived and training. Anonymous sources say final total may be ~12,000 [14]

23/10: [15] US says 3,000 NK troops training in Russia

24/10: [16] 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: [17] Ukraine says NK troops to be deployed in combat zones on 27/10 and 28/10

28/10: [18] 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: [19] US says NK troops in Kursk. [20] 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: [21] 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: [22] Ukraine says 7,000 NK troops armed and deployed around Ukraine

4/11: [23] US says 10,000 NK troops in Kursk, 11–12,000 in Russia. [24] Kovalenko (Ukr.) says first NK troops under fire in Kursk

5/11: [25] 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? [26] Corroborated by US official

6/11: [27] Russia ratifies mutual defense treaty with NK (signed in June)

7/11: [28] Ukraine says 11,000 NK troops along Ukraine border in Russia

11/11: [29] NK ratifies the mutual defense treaty. It will officially take effect when both sides exchange ratification instruments

12/11: [30] 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): [31] 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 [32] 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: [33] 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"

[34]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: [35] 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..."

[36] 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"

[37] 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..."

[38] 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: [39] CNN citing Ukr. official

2. [40] CNN commenting on an anonymously-sourced livestream that they don't claim to verify

3. [41] Can't check; links don't seem to work (supposed to be "Missiles launched into Ukraine from Belarus")

4. [42] The status quo source for supporting NK involvement only references government-affiliated sources for NK being present. This was good enough back then

5. [43] The only source that seems to meet the inconsistently-applied independence requirement, being third-party analysis of data

6. [44] NYT referencing US officials

7. Can't check; don't have the book

8. Can't check; don't have the book

9. [45] (For the fact this is supporting) ISW citing Reuters's citing of an EU official

10. [46] (For the fact this is supporting) ISW citing literally Putin

11. Can't check; don't have the book

12. [47] US government source. (I thought CIA WFB was discussed in perennial sources but I guess not)

13. [48] 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 [49] 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)