Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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:

• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#north korea should be listed as an ally of russia
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Should we add North Korea as ally of Russia
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea in infobox note wording

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 [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)
• 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[9] 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.[10] 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)

• This report by the BBC released 7 hours ago is very circumspect about the actual combat involvement of NK troops. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please point out which of the eight sources that I supplied are not good quality secondary sources making the claim in their own voice? --haha169 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  All of the sources I have seen linked in this discussion are WP:NEWSORG sources. As such, they are qualified as being secondary sources. None of them make a statement in their own voice. Where they have quoted a government etc, that source is a primary source by definition (contrary to your assertion). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  "their actions do not rise to the same level of Belarus (yet) and they do not appear in the infobox."

  It is in the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 00:07, 23 November 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 [11], ISW [12], 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: [13], 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. [14] The US, Ukraine and South Korea say ... [15] Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports [16] not seeing anything here that is not ambiguous journalese [17] South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast. [18] North Korean soldiers have engaged in combat operations against Ukraine alongside their Russian allies, South Korea's spy agency said on Wednesday. [19] we see North Koreans being active in Ukraine A bit contradictory v Kursk and what is "active"? NATO press release - primary source [20] North Korean troops have begun engaging in combat operations alongside Russian forces, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday [21] North Korean soldiers have clashed with Ukrainian troops for the first time, Ukraine's top officials have revealed. [22] 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: 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. 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. "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. 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 I did not provide sources 5-8 so I won't comment "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: 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. 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. 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. 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 [23]. So at that point, deployment would have been underway with advance teams of North Korean soldiers having already been sent to Ukraine. 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. 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. Similar to above 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? 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. [24], 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. [25], 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." [26] 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:

Long, long list of sources

Dr. Choi Yonghwan of the INSS in a paper published by RUSI and Dr Edward Howell of Christchurch College, University of Oxford, in a paper published by Chatham House. There's also this article from Le Monde which states "For the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), fighting alongside the Russians is a kind of return to its roots... The deployment of North Korean soldiers on the Ukrainian front is the first break by Kim Jong-un from an isolationist policy". There’s also this analysis of video footage of the destruction of North Korean materiel at the front from David Axe (a credible journalist in this field) published in Forbes which says ” Without those thousands of North Korean troops and dozens of howitzers and launchers, the Russian war effort would be even more fragile than it already is”. And this Newsweek article "In a further escalation of the war, thousands of North Korean troops last month joined Russian forces in frontline areas like Kursk, where Ukraine has been carrying out a counteroffensive since August. And Kari Schake in Foreign Policy in an article titled “North Korea Joining Russia’s War Is A Sign Of Weakness”. Yet another reliable source is [Japan Times], which states in an article "North Korea shocked the world by sending more than 10,000 troops to Russia for its war against Ukraine — Pyongyang’s first deployment of troops for large-scale combat since the end of the Korean War in 1953.".

Also very worth reading is this analysis submitted for the Lieber Institute's Ukraine Symposium by Steve Szymanski and Joshua C.T. Keruski, both officers of the US Army's JAG, on the position of North Korean forces in the Ukraine war under the laws of war:

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) affirms there is no specific intensity threshold for finding that an IAC [International Armed Conflict] exists. The ICRC also notes that even minor skirmishes between armed forces, by land, sea, or air could trigger an IAC. In short, the test for whether an IAC exists is de facto and thus objectively assessed based on the totality of the circumstances. Based on the above standards, an IAC had certainly ripened between the DPRK and Ukraine as of the November 4, 2024 combat engagement. Despite a Ukrainian official’s characterization of “small contacts, not full-scale engagement,” the circumstances nonetheless support the conclusion that an IAC exists."

Regardless of whether you are willing to accept the views of US army officers on this (and I note Szymanski is a Fellow and Instructor at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Sanremo), they at least define a standard for judging whether a country is actually a party to a conflict that isn't just editor-created. And North Korea's involvement in this war most definitely fits it, because there is no de minimis rule to involvement in a conflict, nor is it a requirement that troops be "involved in offensive actions on the front line" or whatever - skirmishes/strikes are sufficient.

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)

• Support per many of the above, especially FOARP. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - If this doesn't count as participating I don't know what counts. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 04:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Press coverage has now made this WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support based on reports that soldiers from the DPRK are engaging in combat with Ukrainian soldiers. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support North Korean soldiers are fighting on behalf of their government. Hence the country is actively waging war. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no doubt whatsoever that troops from North Korea are fighting as cannon fodder for Putin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the sourcing provided by Nemov above. It's what's happening and what the reliable sources state is happening. TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support; supported by sourcing. seefooddiet (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support; there's ample evidence from reliable sources of North Korean soldiers engaging in combat with Ukrainian soldiers by the thousand. Open and shut case.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support due to evidence shown Rc2barrington (talk) 01:25, 30 November 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." 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)

• Comment - See also This WSJ report of an NK general wounded in Kursk from just today.

@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:

• The sole source for NK taking part in the Vietnam war is this article from NK News ( a source that already long since reports NK troops as fighting alongside Russia).
• The source for NK taking part in the Yom Kipur war is this Business Insider article (again, a source long since reporting North Korean involvement in Russia's war against Ukraine).
• North Korean involvement in the Ogaden war is sourced to this article in the Diplomat, a source that has, again, already started to treat North Korean involvement in the Ukraine war essentially as a fait accompli.

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." 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 [[27]], not just an allegation. Oagaden [[28]], not just an allegation. Yom Kippur [[29]], 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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"

"The US Department of Defense currently has no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia."

Bonus, france24 debunking all the "evidence" presented so far. 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

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)

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."

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

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 [30]. 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.wiki.x.io/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 (May 31, 2023)

- The British Challenger 2 Is The Wrong Tank For Ukraine (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

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)

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)

• Maybe just put "Russia" in bold. We do this for example in Spanish Civil War where the sides were aided by "volunteers" from other nations as active, but more minor, participants.—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good suggestion. FOARP (talk) 10:45, 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)

• ... 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 [31][32][33]). 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)

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.wiki.x.io/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)