# Talk:Dai Hong Dan incident

I don't think it is appropriate to list the leaders of the US and North Korea as the Commanders in this incident. It should be the commander of the destroyer and the captain of the North Korean vessel, if known. It should be possible to find these out from news reports and public record 86.6.209.188 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

agreed LasseFolkersen (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
i doubt the name of the captain of the N.K ship is known  Virolac414 (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
no, but it would be correct to list this as an operation under GWOT. The Somali pirates were part of the GWOT, and the US responded as such. Also, the Korean cargo ship was staffed by Korean military reserves, so they would be considered combatants, not civilian hostages. 2601:285:C080:2330:B0B3:34BC:EFF9:7348 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@AFeatherlessBipehead: By what criteria is this considered one? Opencooper (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

How is it not? The US navy was involved and it was an attack by armed individuals. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
A military conflict is between armed forces of a state. One side here were Somalian pirates, who do not officially represent their country in that capacity. Opencooper (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
No, a military conflict does not have to be between states. Just look at any article such as Lord's Resistance Army insurgency, for a military conflict, both sides just needs to be armed as in armed conflict. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The military conflict infobox has never been used solely for conflicts between the military of two states. That would be an unhelpful restriction on the infobox (which would also contradict the scope of the Military history WikiProject). Yue🌙 18:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)