Talk:Pongae-6

Pon'gae-6 is not name of the system and should be corrected to Pyoljji-1-2.

North Korea declared publicly through press release of Korean Central News Agency that designation of surface to air missile system is Pyoljji-1-2 and not "Pon'gae-6" which was asserted by GlobalSecurity.org that is in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as depreciated source for various reasons. [1]http://www.kcna.kp/en/article/q/134a0eb1839cb01381c703e991441821cad48c6f62eae84b4ed69e04d61e42af.kcmsf

Unfortunately due to continuous vandalism any attempt to correct incorrect information is being thwarted repeatedly and sources that I provide as references are outright ignored despite proving that Pyoljji-1-2 is indeed name of system, including press release by KCNA in which official designation of surface to air missile system is stated by North Korea. Along sources such as 38 North, Deutsche Welle and Yonhap News Agency are being disregarded. There is insistence that speculative designation and name "Pon'gae-6" is fact and that Pyoljji-1-2 is unrelated despite all sources discussing the system discuss tests of Pyoljji-1-2 along images released are of that system.

Unfortunately I was repeatedly asked to provide sources despite already providing them for Pyoljji-1-2 while there are no sources proving existence or use of designation "Pon'gae-6" unlike Pyoljji-1-2 that had 4 four tests since 2021 with last one from April 19th in 2024 is when North Korea disclosed designation of the surface to air missile system as Pyoljji-1-2. 95.168.107.11 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your source linked on this page is a dead link URL. The references you were providing earlier simply do not support your claim that Pon'gae-6 is the same system as Pyoljji-1-2, or that they are an alternative name, or even that Pon'gae-6 does not exist. It said none of those things. You have yet to provide a single source that says any of those things. If you have an issue with the page name you should go through the correct process and start a requested move discussion, not vandalize the article lede and editing warring to push original research. That's never acceptable here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You say that it is not acceptable yet here we are seeing you doing very thing you accuse me of such as vandalize the article lede and editing warring to push original research because of undeniable fact of your behavior to push your own opinion as fact of existence of "Pon'gae-6" as evident by history of your "contributions"/editing, are you going to deny what you did? I wonder.

Problem with your narrative based on your own personal opinion is that you are unable to provide single source!

You demand from me to provide single source when I already did so, several of them and I have obliged to your request multiple times yet you are never satisfied no matter what I do and listen to your demands along fulfill them over and over again. You asked for sources and I provided. Meanwhile you provided zero to support your own bold assertion.

Another is source I have provided is not dead linK URL as you assert as anyone can see it working and even if it does not work by clicking on hyperlink, they can always copy and paste URL to address bar of any web browser to see source in question thus do not blame me if Wikipedia's programming botched hyperlinking of a source.

Here link as reference

Burden of proof is on you and not on me as I have proven it unlike you that is yet to prove existence of actual "Pon'gae-6".

Unless you can by providing source that "Pon'gae-6" exists such as that designation officially confirmed by North Korea through press release disclosing such or footage of name plate on vehicle of it which for example happened with Juche 107 Year 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer as name plate was clearly visible with enough detail from footage of military parade in 2022.

You effectively peddle guesswork and speculations of your own along those before you as fact that system in question is designated as "Pon'gae-6" when North Korea officially through own media declared publicly it is designated by them as Pyoljji-1-2 yet I am suppose to believe that North Korea is wrong about what their own weapon system is designated as?

In the end what you demand of me is absurdity because I have to prove something does not exist when you can not prove it existing in first place yet burden of proof is on me to prove what does not exist yet you do not have to provide proof to prove that it exists. In fact you can not prove it exist hence you ask me to provide proof that it does not exist.

Very thing you accuse me of is what you are doing. That is a fact. Not personal attack.

I gave sources. You disregarded them. Then ask me again for sources. Only to disregard again.

During that time you have not provided not even one source. You are here in bad faith.

You do not provide source. You make bold assertion. You accuse me of doing what you do.

All I ask of you is to give me proof that North Korea has system designated as "Pon'gae-6" as you assert. If you are so confident in your own bold assertion then you can provide evidence of them having it. That is evidence of such system ever being referenced from North Korean sources. At very least bare minimum name plate on vehicle from North Korean footage. 95.168.107.11 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's Janes referring to the missile as Pon'gae 6. Again, you have addressed none of the points that were raised earlier about the lack of direct support in your links. You need to start listening when you're being told that you're violating policies repeatedly, and to stop casting aspersions at administrators attempting to enforce our core content policies. The burden of providing direct support in citations to a reliable source lies with the editor seeking to make the change -- e.g. you. That is not my responsibility, the onus is on you to abide by policy and gain consensus for your edits, not to edit war over unsupported claims. Your behavior here has long since passed into disruption, and it needs to stop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You were one casted aspersions on me by accusing me of vandalism and not providing sources when I did so including straight from North Korea about their own system meanwhile.

In comparison you put above far older source from agency headquartered outside North Korea that assumes missile system being tested is "Pon'gae-6" because of previous systems.

Since before Pon'gae-5 were 4, 3, 2 and 1 thus assertion made by Jane's is not based on fact as is pure speculation that missile system being tested must be "Pon'gae-6".

I quote them directly: "North Korea conducted a launch of what appears to be the new Pon'gae-6 SAM system on 30 September."

It is Jane's themselves speculating as it being "Pon'gae-6" when North Korea at that time did not disclose designation of the system, now we know it is Pyoljji-1-2 and not "Pon'gae-6". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.107.11 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your source does not prove existence of "Pon'gae-6" as it is speculation by source you cite, unlike Pyoljji-1-2 that is directly confirmed by North Korea themselves.

Since you mention Wikipedia's core content policies then adhere to them by providing source from North Korea of them referencing "Pon'gae-6" air defense system.

If you have source directly from North Korea that references "Pon'gae-6" in press release, TV report or even image taken of it where name plate can be seen, provide it.

You asked me for sources and I did so, now please I ask you to provide source on par with mine. From North Korea such as press release referencing "Pon'gae-6". 95.168.107.11 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems that hyperlinking and referencing URL from KCNA is automatically broken by Wikipedia's programming, trying without "hyperlink" and referencing, just plain text.

http://www.kcna.kp/en/article/q/134a0eb1839cb01381c703e991441821cad48c6f62eae84b4ed69e04d61e42af.kcmsf 95.168.107.11 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The quote from Janes directly supports the statement that Pon'gae 6 is the name of the system that was test fired on Sep. 30. It's not speculation, it's a direct conclusion from a reliable source. You asked for a source, I gave you one. I've asked for sources repeatedly from you and you have not shown a single one that validates the edits you were trying to make. Your entire argument here is based on inadmissible original research. We are not open source researchers here. We only report what reliable sources say, and reliable sources are quite clear that the system is called the Pon'gae 6. No reliable sources have been provided that say Pon'gae 6 doesn't exist, or that it's the same system as Pyoljji-1-2. It's as simple as that. You have repeatedly failed to meet your required burden of sourcing. Gaslighting history isn't going to get you anywhere. Stop wasting our time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not wasting your time as I point out flaw of your argument that is your own bold assertion and original research as you place guesswork/speculation by Jane's above official disclosure by North Korea along you are disregarding direct conclusion from a reliable source that being 38 North as you have reverted multiple times edits that contained article from it.

Either you have read article and completely disregarded it based on own interest or have not read thoroughly to notice it supports what you assert as my "original research" as you continue with casting aspersions on me including accusing me of gaslighting you after I criticized your argument that is logically flawed, as is you placing third party source above first place, Jane's over North Korea themselves on own system.

Very assertion by Jane's you cite source from is from 2021 when designation of air defense system being tested was not disclosed by North Korea. Source I used from 38 North is article written after disclosure being made by North Korea on missile test from April 19/20 of 2024 including designation of air defense system that was being tested. Please read article from 38 North again and you will see test from 2021 being attributed to Pyoljji-1-2 (that Jane's asserted was "Pon'gae-6") along those after it including test done on April 19/20 this year.

95.168.107.11 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is the article for Pon'gae 6. The 38 North article makes no mention whatsoever of Pon'gae 6, it is wholly irrelevant to the subject of this article. Meanwhile, we already have a source that directly supports Pon'gae 6 as being a weapon system that exists and that was tested on the given date. We have no source -- and your 38 north source does not do this either -- that supports the edits you're trying to make, which have alternated between stating that Pon'gae 6 is not the name of the system and that Pon'gae 6 and Pyoljji-1-2 are the same system. You can't seem to make up your mind which original research POV you want to push, but it doesn't matter because neither one of them is a claim made by the 38 North article. That's what I keep telling you, and what you're not listening to. The magic words you need to find to support your change are a reliable source stating "Pon'gae 6 is also called Pyoljji-1-2" or "Pon'gae-6 was a mistaken name, it is now called Pyoljji-1-2." You're trying to assert (at the moment) that the name was changed. You should be able to provide a reliable source for that name change. But you've done no such thing, and I know that you cannot because I've already checked numerous variations on these search terms, and no source exists that says this. Again, if you have a problem with the article name, there is a process for adjusting it. This is not that process. If you wanted to write an article on Pyoljji-1-2, you could have done so. But disrupting this article is not an acceptable way of doing that. You clearly do not understand nor have you attempted to read our policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing, verifiability, and original research despite repeatedly having them linked for you. This is evidenced by your mistaken claim that somehow "third party" sources are less acceptable than "first party" sources. That is not how our policies work -- we take the *best* source, and a perennially reliable, fact-checked, peer-reviewed source like Janes will *always* be a better source than a self-published-source, particularly one like the DPRK which has a long history of making inconsistent or openly false statements, without any of the traditional indicia of reliability. We do *not* use sources that do not directly support the claims being made, like the 38 North article does. I cannot explain it any more simply than that -- if you refuse to listen, that's on you. Ultimately, this is all very simple -- you need consensus for this change, and you don't have it. I won't be wasting time arguing this further -- you have not responded to a single point I've made thus far about your policy violations; making this a clearcut case of disruptive IDHT behavior. If you're not willing to listen to other editors, there's nothing to discuss -- you're not going to get consensus for these changes through tendentious editing behavior. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I always read what I wrote and nothing has changed nor alternated between my argument as you are trying to separate them or it could be my proficiency with English language is imperfect since I am not native speaker of the language yet I did not wrote anything to warrant such interpretation that you have about what I have stated. You ask me to listen to you when repeatedly you refuse to listen to me and before that you complained about my aspersions towards you when beforehand you made such against me. Every accusation that you have made against me is what you did beforehand to me.

I have absolutely nowhere asserted that designation of Pyoljji-1-2 was before it as Pon'gae-6 since North Korea has never publicly stated new SAM system designated as latter and you can read repeatedly what I wrote to see I have never asserted such at any point. Your argument against mine at this moment relies upon that I have stated what you assert as I did when in fact I did not anywhere claim Pyoljii-1-2 was Pon'gae-6 at any moment in its existence since from publicly available information North Korea never designated Pyoljii-1-2 as Pon'gae-6.

That is how I see your statement where you assert in my name what I said according to you when in fact I never said what you assert.

North Korea did not disclose designation of new surface to air missile / air defense system when they made first test of it, at that time it was not known what designation North Korea had for system yet Jane's wrote an article about missile test and proceeded to refer to it as Pon'gae-6 and I quote them directly:

"North Korea conducted a launch of what appears to be the new Pon'gae-6 SAM system on 30 September ... KCNA image also suggests that the missile test-fired is the Pon'gae-6 surface-to-air missile system that was seen at a parade in October 2020, given similarities in the launch tubes set-up, and the 10-wheeled transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicle. It is the first known test-firing of this system."

Remember, North Korea did not close designation of new SAM system at that time yet Jane's at their own volition gave their designation of it without anything solid to justify it.

Compared to 38 North that made conclusions after North Korea publicly disclosed designation of new air defense system in question is Pyoljji-1-2 on April 19/20 of 2024.

"별찌-1-2 (Pyoljji-1-2/Meteor-1-2)

During a parade in October 2020, another type of long-range solid-propellant road-mobile SAM was put on display. North Korea subsequently claimed that this new SAM was tested in September 2021, November 2022, February 2024 and April 2024. During the April 2024 test, the SAM was referred to by state media as Meteor-1-2."

Both Jane's and 38 North mention same events, parade held in October 2020 and first missile test that happened in September of 2021.

Person that wrote article for 38 North is also author of another source used in Pon'gae-6 article, a PDF document in which author does not refer to new SAM system as Pon'gae-6.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220329044241/https://oneearthfuture.org/research-analysis/brief-defence-development-exhibition-democratic-peoples-republic-korea

Also you have other news articles and analysis that do not refer to Pon'gae-6 are used for Wikipedia's Pon'gae-6 article as too there being one which somehow refers to Pon'gae-7 that again is used as source about Pon'gae-6 that you insist it exists based on your own original research. You are disregarding most recent sources such as North Korea themselves disclosing their own designation they use for their own system and article written afterwards on 38 North. You give precedence to 3 year old article made by Jane's where they assert without evidence that new SAM system is designated as Pon'gae-6 over press release by North Korea themselves disclosing designation of that SAM system as Pyoljii-1-2.

It is North Korea that decides what is designation of their weapons, not mine, not yours and certainly not Jane's right to do so. Unless you want to try to assert otherwise?

If you had any actual ground to stand on to support your assertion Pon'gae-6 exists or new SAM system being referred to as such by North Korea then you would have provided source long ago.

Why do you not remove all sources/references that do not have Pon'gae-6 anywhere in article? That only refer to new SAM system and one of them mentions Pon'gae-7, why not remove that?

Those are not related to Pon'gae-6 since you insist it exists thus have sources that refer to it as such and keep that Jane's along one other Korean article that refer to Pon'gae-6.

So remove all articles that do not mention Pon'gae-6 as they only refer to new SAM system along that KCNA article disclosing name of new SAM system as Pyoljji-1-2.

That will take out vast majority of content from article as too 3 out of 4 missile tests to boot. After all according to you Pon'gae-6 exists.

Because what Jane's assert with their guesswork must be true, they would never ever lie even when it is not done in bad faith, just guesswork.

North Korea disclosed designation of new SAM system as Pyoljji-1-2 on 4th missile test, Jane's put their own placeholder for new SAM system as Pon'gae-6 when 1st missile test occurred.

Since North Korea only referred to Pyoljji-1-2 as new SAM system before 4th missile test of the system and went public with designation after 4th missile test of then new SAM system.

Jane's, GlobalSecurity.org and some others have referred to Pyoljii-1-2 as Pon'gae-6 since at time name of new SAM system was not disclosed by North Korea until April 19/20 of 2024.

I ask for article to be renamed because North Korea disclosed actual designation of SAM system they use that they previously simply referred to as new SAM system. Never as Pon'gae-6.

That is assertion made by Jane's, their speculation and guess work about they thought was supposed name of the system since North Korea did not disclose it when Jane's labelled it. 95.168.107.11 (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)