Editing Talk:Korean conflict (section)

== Belligerents again ==

The current teams of "supporters" in the infobox are:
*United States, Japan, Canada, United Kingdom, and France
*China, Soviet Union (until 1991), and Russia.
I think we need clearer criteria here. Any country that participated in the Korean War could be termed a belligerent, but I would doubt that makes them a belligerent in the wider Korean conflict. Japan clearly has had some conflict with North Korea over the years. The US has always had a military presence in the South, so this is qualitatively different from most of the others. I would question the usefulness of listing Canada, the UK, and France, particularly as they are not mentioned in the article (apart from a brief mention of Canada). I don't believe that Russia has taken a side in the conflict. I think the nature of the conflict makes it difficult to sum up like this. I think there are two options: remove "Belligerents" from the infobox, or remove any listed belligerents if there isn't a justification of their significance (including being mentioned in the article).--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
:I have removed Russia, Canada, United Kingdom, and France, as there is no mention of them in the article.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::Now Iran is included!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::There being no response, and seeing the list of supporters has ballooned further, I have removed the belligerents altogether.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 02:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
::::This was re-added as "International support" with no citations. There was no indication what criteria was used to determine whether a country was on the list or not. I have removed.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Unless the editors who are adding this information respond on the Talk page, I will revert to a list that consists of the belligerents mentioned in the article.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Jack Upland}} please go ahead. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;[[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I have now done this. As far as I can see, the two lists reflect the supporters mentioned in this article. This is fairly arbitrary (for example, the inclusion of Canada), but I think this is the best way to go about it. At the same time, I have added some material about NK's foreign relations during the Cold War. I believe that the inclusion of East Germany is warranted as they had an agreement for military co-operation. These lists should be parallel to the mentions in the article itself and as such should be treated as fluid. That is, if a country is deemed not very relevant to the conflict, it should be removed both from the text and the infobox. Similarly, if a country is added to the text, it should also be mentioned in the infobox (if it supports either side).--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Jack Upland}} What would you think of removing the "supporters" sections from the infobox, and putting as "belligerents" the countries that participated militarily in the Korean War? I'm suggesting this for two reasons: (1) "support" is not well-defined (does it mean during the War or just during a minor dispute many years later or perhaps material aid to N or S Korea?); (2) there's been a lot of questionable editing of the support list, especially by Flamingoboomer9000 (currently blocked for 48 hours) and their sock FlamingoBrefan2033, with unsourced additions of many countries such as Togo, Laos, Somalia, etc. that are not referred to in the article. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 06:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

:This is not an article about the [[Korean War]]. Many countries participated in 1950-1953, but have had very little to do with the subsequent conflict.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 06:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

::Good point. Then maybe the "belligerents" lists should also go. The term ''belligerent'' normally refers to armed conflict, not peacetime rivalry. As far as I'm aware, the term ''belligerent'' was not even used for the US/USSR in the Cold War, because there was never direct armed conflict between the two countries.
::If you think the "support" lists should remain, could you give me a definition of what "support" includes and doesn't include? For example, Vietnam is listed as supporting N Korea, which I believe is nominally correct. However, it has far more extensive commercial ties with S Korea than with N Korea, and actually quite good relations with S Korea. Both Vietnam and S Korea have worries about China, so the bond between them is not just commercial. My fear is that the division of countries into supporters of N vs S Korea is full of inaccuracies and is too simplistic. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
:::I have never supported these lists (see section "Infobox" above). I don't think they add anything. I don't think there's much problem with the term "belligerents". There has been armed conflict, and not just 1950-53. But that's not the point. I don't think it is very hard to find a criteria for the "support" list. China also has far more extensive ties with South Korea. Russia's position is not easy to define. Yugoslavia's position was complex (see below). I don't think having a close relationship with North Korea (as Seychelles does and Yugoslavia did) necessarily means an involvement in the Korean conflict. Also, I don't think a verbal position really qualifies a country for the list. I think these issues are best explained in prose. I really don't think we should have a list of countries that are not mentioned in the article and which have a very remote involvement in the conflict. This is pointless, and it only serves to create arguments and confuse readers. Therefore I would support removing all lists of belligerents and supporters. I don't understand the enthusiasm for adding these lists, and it is annoying that none of these editors bother to make their case on the Talk page.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I very much agree with your points. I'll remove those lists, and we'll see whether or not we get any pushback. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 09:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's worth noting that [[Cold War]] doesn't have an infobox, for much the same reasons.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Supporters" was getting out of control again. I have removed the majority per [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]]. Some of the remainder might also need to be removed per the comments above, I'll leave that decision to someone else. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, since people don't seem to understand, a list of supporters that isn't covered in the main body of the article doesn't belong in the infobox per [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' There appears to be a consensus to keep these entries to a minimum IAW [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]]. The infobox should be supported by the body of the article. We don't write the article in the infobox. It doesn't supplant the article. The extensive list that would be added is both unsourced and not supported by the article.  Unsourced material can be removed at any time per [[WP:VER]] - not withstanding the other issues identified. There appears support that the infobox does not report belligerents in the [[Korean War]] but subsequent. I don't disagree though perhaps we should somehow make this clear to the reader though but this doesn't appear to be the present issue. Consequently, I have revered the recent edit to reinstate the list to the infobox. <small>Unsigned: 10:04, 26 February 2022‎ Cinderella157 </small>

:*Further to that per [[Template:Infobox military conflict]], {{tq|When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article}}. So even if the lengthy list was covered in the article body, there's no guarantee it would also be included in the infobox too. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:**Why did you remove Australia in the infobox of this conflict. I do hope a debate will be opened on either Australia should be added or not. [[User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd|SpinnerLaserzthe2nd]] ([[User talk:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd|talk]]) 18:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:***I've explained already. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] and [[Template:Infobox military conflict]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 18:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:****That doesn't really answer my question as the article mentions "Western allies" (which includes Australia) and there are a lot of sources that Australia still continues to support South Korea till this day with the ongoing Operation Argo and with a lot of evidence that Australia is still providing military support to South Korea. That is up to you if you do not wish to respond but I will be starting a separate discussion considering that Australia had strong relations with South Korea. [[User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd|SpinnerLaserzthe2nd]] ([[User talk:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd|talk]]) 18:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)