Talk:Bombardment of Yeonpyeong/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

International Reactions Vandalism

Someone with more experience should correct this: "United States: The United States strongly advised North Korea to keep up there actions as they are dying to test out a nuclear bomb and there's no better place then North Korea.[62]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag

I dont think this should be merged at all, its severity in dipolmatic relations and finance alone is huge. The incident has not ended yet so how can we even know its scope? The reason for the lack of detail is because not all of the details have been reported yet.XavierGreen (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A merge is not appropriate for this article. __meco (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Its already up to at least start class if not b-class standards, and has been nominated to appear on the front page of wikipedi via in the news. As such im removing the tag.XavierGreen (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is largely a rehash of the NLL page with a few specifics of the actual event. Of course its on the Wikipedia news page, and obviously it impacts NK-SK relations and rattles financial markets, but it is too early to tell if this will become something bigger or will just blow over in a few days like numerous other events on the DMZ & NLL. It is therefore too early to say it shouldn't be merged with the NLL page. Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


the time stated in the article is that Korea time? it doesn't appear anywhere what timezone it refers to "began at 2:34 P.M. 23 November 2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources all state either 2:30pm or 2:34. I assume its korea time, but as i have no source to tell me that exactly i cannot put it into the article. If you happen to find a source that states the time zone feel free to edit it in.XavierGreen (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are all Korean Standard Time. clayjar (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Who shot first?

In the article it states that the North fired first (granted this is very likely and also what I personally think probably happened) how ever the North has disputed this saying that the South fired first, there is possibly an element of truth to this as the South were conducting military excersises on the border, shouldn't we remain neutral until we absolutely know the facts? (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this article actually goes against the neutrality clause a bit ... I think the only justification possible for assuming good faith on the South Korean claim is that typically the South Korean's are more honest in their press releases ... but it is awfully strange that the part of the exercise that immediately preceeded North Korea firing was land based South Korean artillery firing. Perhaps the North thought this would give them plausable deniability or perhaps the South believed that they could fire on the North, provoke a response, get them some bad press and continue as normal. Either way Wikipedia should not be taking sides in my opinion in this article, especially since it is a current event. The claimed that the other first fired should take precedence over the assumption that South Korea is more reliable.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There were indeed shots by South Korean troops in the island, prior to this incident, towards the south of the island, that is, the opposite direction from North Korea. North Korea claims that the entire vicinity of the island belongs to its own territorial water, since it does not recognize NLL. In this context, its claim has its own logics, except for that NLL has been serving as a valid borderline for decades since the Korean War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From my own personal experiences here in California with the Koreans of Koreatown, and the very wreckless manner in which they "accidentally" attempt to hit people in the crosswalks of our city, I would say that it is at least highly likely that at least one or two of the South Korean soldiers did in a similar fashion "accidently" first fire in the "wrong" direction upon North Korea. They cannot deny first firing weapons, its just they're asking us to believe there weren't any "accidental" firings upon the North prior to the North firing upon the South. I personally believe, and I think that it is self evident, that the South can and would presume upon America's naivety and backing because they tend to get very sloppy about that sort of thing. Such as? Such as the entirety of the manner in which they operate Koreatown itself: sidewalks are never cleaned, food preparation is atrocious with feet often placed upon the food preparation tables themselves, animals freely allowed within restaurants or grocery stores, and as above mentioned, a general disregard for life itself as if a crosswalk were a place to get away with the murder. With my own eyes I've seen them running over pet animals, take a stroll around the block to have a beer, then come driving back up laughing about the whole situation. They can, what you say, lie with their eyes, but have something else very evil going on within their hearts. WB2 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply flabbergasted from your perfect demonstration of an ad hominem argument. Congratulations, you deserve a big cone on your head. clayjar (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And they of course never get prosecuted about these sort of things; banking upon their favored status with the United States. I have often times called the authorities, and been to open court, but somehow they always seem to slip out from under the prosecutor's rebuke or censure. So on this one, and I believe it is also Wikipedia policy, sides cannot be taken. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for politically biased opinions. WB2 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from posting further irrelevant attacks on entire peoples if you don't want your comments deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of shells used by North Korea

Initially, The Chosun Ilbo reported 200 shells according to the headline of this link:, "北 해안포 도발 감행, 연평도에 포탄 200여발 떨어져". However, The Chosun Ilbo quickly changed their headline to "북한 해안포 도발 감행, 연평도에 포탄 100여발 떨어져" which states only 100 shells. Please feel free to contact the reporter Dong-hyeon Kim at, but the initial 200 shells took root in other media outlets and that is what is being used around the world. clayjar (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Air Sorties

What exactly were these? Ground attack? Recon? Air superiority? I think I have only seen the media mention repositioning aircraft. (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the aircraft were parked within the area subject to bombardment, then they may have been moved merely to prevent them from being hit by the shells. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the Korean news outlets assume these sorties to be a type of ground attacks with a frequent mention of nearby missile bases in North Korea. Unfortunately, there are no details available on these missions except the announcement that North has suffered considerable casualties as well. clayjar (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I saw a mention of F-16s; these would be providing air cover over the area in question. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Availability of CCTV video of Yeonpyeong attack

Here is the link to the video sourced by the local government CCTV fed through Yonhap CDN server: clayjar (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilian damage

The text doesn't mention the houses damaged, the burning hills or the firefighters and equipment brought over by boat. (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The cause of the shelling

Currently, the section reads:

The North Korean actions were believed by some experts to have been at least partially due to the succession of power taking place in the North Korean government, with Kim Jong-un assuming control of the country from Kim Jong-il, and the role of the North Korean military in foreign policy.[14] It has also been suggested that the provocation is linked to the North's need for food aid.[15]

While I am no big fan of NK, I'd comment that this paragraph curiously omits the fact that SK has been doing military drills in disputed areas and sounds as if the victim of this attack had done nothing to provoke it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find sources for further information, by all means incorporate it into the text.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The way it reads now, it's kinda confusing. When I read it I thought Kim Jong-un already became leader. It needs more clarity.Dio Only Uses a Knife (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked that sentance so that it sounds less awkward.XavierGreen (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this section as it currently reads has a big neutrality issue. The opinion of one scholar, albeit ubiquitously promulgated by Western Media, has been more or less canonized. The version of the North Koreans has been demoted from a mention in the lede to a short mention at the end of this section. This is quite inappropriate and does not conform with our NPOV policy. __meco (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats because the North Koreans have said almost nothing about the incident. If you know of more information about their views on the incident by all means include it in hte article.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Here. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


"The official North Korean news agency KCNA stated that North Korea fired after the South had "recklessly" fired into their waters. South Korea had been engaging in an artillery training exercise in the vicinity.[5]"

Seems like this to me should be taken out of the intro.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is it in any way appropriate that only the version of one of the belligerents should feature in the introduction? __meco (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The map

Better use a vector and language neutral version. This one (File:Shelling of north korea in 2010.PNG) doesn't have a original source for the "where of the shelling" and the "shooting training zone". So I changed back to this one (File:Map of the shelling of Yeonpyeong.svg). Feel free to modify it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what's Idh0854 doing? He changed all the language versions (incl. Chinese, French and so on) of this article to his non-language neutral (Korean and bad translated English), non-vector picture. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the Infobox objectionable?

I've looked at plenty of Military-history articles regarding past wars - and the little infobox at the top-right of the article is a neat little way of summarising the events.

However I do find it a bit objectionable when applied to ongoing events like this. Assigning attributes such as Result:Inconclusive makes it look like we are reading the score from a sporting-event. The whole thing feels like it's based on that old board-game classic: Risk.

Does anyone else think the Infobox is a bit out-of-place when applied to ongoing tactical exchanges between nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M62902 (talkcontribs) 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, equating it to Risk is actually quite accurate since risk is based off of Napoleonic warfare. War from one point of view is truley a game between states with spoils to be won and lost. It is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history practice to include infoboxes on its battlepages. Indeed an article generally wont get promoted to higher quality levels without one. To my knowledge every featured article regarding a battle includes a battlebox. It provides a fast and easy way for a reader to determine the outcome of an engagement without having to read the entire article to find out the results of an action.XavierGreen (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep - I totally get the fact that it's a useful summary. I'm just not entirely comfortable with the 'game' aspect of the presentation when people have just died yesterday. I'm challenging whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history practice should apply to current events.M62902 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that calling this incident "inconclusive" is premature at best. A battle that happened years ago may be inconclusive because nothing substantial actually happened as a result of it, but I'm not sure if anyone can make that call for this incident just yet, particularly since we still don't know about DPRK casualties, damage, etc. It may be that this incident will indeed prove inconclusive, but we could give it a little bit more time before stating so. Perhaps it's appropriate to change the wording to "undetermined" or something along those lines. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Crab wars?

I just removed this because there is no such war. Any connection to the fishing of crab is long since passed. Furthermore Wikipedia seems to be the primary source of designation of this incident as part of the 'Crab wars'. I would like to see any none Wikipedia influenced characterization of this war as part of the 'crab wars'. --Andrewrutherford (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"South Korean Air Force"

The article has a mention of the "South Korean Air Force" launching jets, and I was curious if that is the preferred Wikipedia way of referring to the Republic of Korea Air Force (to avoid confusion between the ROKAF and the Korean Peoples' Air Force used by the North Koreans). I can see arguments either way, between ease of understanding for those unfamiliar with the names of everything, and using the preferred English-language names of the groups involved.Raguleader (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most (nearly all, from my experience) of the articles about Korea refer to them as north and south, even when RoK/DPRK would be more appropriate. Most English speaking countries use north and south, so I think the wording is justified. --Gary13579 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The article being linked to with that phrase is actually called Republic of Korea Air Force, with a redirect from South Korean Air Force, so to answer your question, I guess the former is the "official" Wikipedia title. In practice however, people use what they are familiar with, and there's no reason I'm aware of not to. Gary is right in saying that most people would just say North or South.
-- Joren (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


I've added a self-created map of the shelling incident. Some help would be appreciated in checking that the place names are correctly spelled and that the right Korean characters have been used. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you got the vector version or some other format or source code which can be easily modified and translated to other languages for this map? thx --Tomchen1989 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No vector version, I'm afraid, it's all bitmaps. I tried to compensate for this by avoiding English text in the map. But I could upload a layered .PSD version that would allow you to convert it, assuming you've got Photoshop or something similar that could read .PSD format. Would that help? Prioryman (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
plz upload a language neutral PNG without any English and Korean on it. That'd be fine to modify. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. I'll do it myself later, using the OpenStreetMaps just as you did. The OpenStreetMaps can export a .svg format map. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons in international reaction section

Should we put back the flag icons? They significantly enhance the international reactions section, and make it much easier to follow in my opinion. As it is now, it just looks to me like a wall of text. WP:ICON was the stated reason for the removal of the flags as "pointless decoration" ([3]), however MOS:FLAGS does not prohibit or discourage their use in situations such as international reaction sections. There is also some precedent for their use, for example: Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, and International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election. Ks0stm (TCG) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, place back in. CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a table for the reaction section? It might make it look better. --PlasmaTwa2 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Map of the shelling of Yeonpyeong shows no detail

The symbols on the map in the infobox should be explained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Attacked island

As far as I know, Yeonpyeong Island is not a single island, but actually a group of islands. The shelled island, Daeyeonpyeong, is the largest of them all. I edited the introduction yesterday to reflect that fact ("...when North Korean artillery began shelling the South Korean island of Daeyeonpyeong,[2] one of several islands collectively referred to as Yeonpyeong Island.[3]"), but that bit is now gone. I want to know if what I added was somehow incorrect, because the introduction now seems to imply that a) Yeonpyeong Island is a single island, or b) North Korea attacked all the islands of Yeonpyeong Island. As a reference, the Korean Wikipedia currently points out explicitly the shelled island as Daeyeonpyeong. Humorahead01 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was Daeyeonpyeong, which is where the Marine base is located, the introduction should be reverted to how you wrote it. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


The caption underneath one of the diagrams says: The disputed maritime border between North and South Korea. North Korea has claimed the territory south of the red line; South Korea controls the territory south of the blue line, the Northern Limit Line. Yeonpyeong is marked at "1" on the map.

This doesn't make sense to me unless North Korea is claiming the territory north of the red line. So, I wanted to check to see if this was a mistake. If not, maybe the caption should be clarified. (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, I've fixed that error. Prioryman (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Obliged. (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

False information about the "North recognizing the NLL until 1990"

This whole thing about "North korea respecting the NLL until 1990" is wrong. That single source is dubious at best. A few other sources say that north korea never agreed to the NLL in the first place. Like this: "North Korea has never agreed to Clark’s northern limit line. At the 346th meeting at Panmumjom held on December 1, 1973, North Korea told the US delegates that access to the five islands required North Korean permission and that any unauthorized access to the islands may lead to grave consequences." "just two miles from the so-called Northern Limit Line, a maritime border the North has never recognized, and only eight miles from the North Korean coast."

There are others. Hell, even the DPRK states that it never recognized the NLL. The statement that the north recognized the NLL up until 1990 from Mainichi Japan is ridiculous and rather baseless. Demogorgonite (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DPRK's claim is "made up" story later. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Where are the sources? Official DPRK publications published well before 1990 has statements saying that the North never recognized the NLL.

A few more sources: (official north korean statement) "He also dismissed the southerners' argument that the North has given a tacit recognition to the existence of "NLL" for forty years, saying: "That is not true. Though the North's 'violations' of 'NLL' may be regarded as 'provocative acts' by the South, such moves, seen from the North, have been repeated demonstrations based on its own stand, which defies such 'a maritime demarcation line.'"

In fact, Seoul had not long claimed "NLL" to be an established "maritime demarcation line." At a National Assembly session meeting in July 1996, for example, the then defense minister of South Korea, Lee Yang Ho, answered the question raised by a National Assemblyman regarding "NLL" by saying, "Crossing 'NLL' by North Korean naval vessels has nothing to do with a violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement." In the wake of a June 15, 1999 skirmish in the West Sea, however, Seoul suddenly started to claim that "NLL" is a "maritime demarcation."

"NLL" is said to have been secretly drawn by the U.S. in 1958. Pyongyang's stand on "NLL" has remained unchanged ever since it came to be exposed later. In a statement on July 8, a spokesman for the Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People's Army claimed as follows:

"First, the 'Northern Limit Line' is a brigandish line drawn by the U.S. and the South Korean military in the inviolable territorial waters of the DPRK side without any discussion with it. And the U.S. has not informed it of this till now." Demogorgonite (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"The NLL was unilaterally drawn by the US after the Korean War, though it was never recognised by Pyongyang and was never included in the Armistice Agreement of 1953, which ended the Korean War. The North Korean government has been vocal against the NLL and demanded ofted that it be redrawn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demogorgonite (talkcontribs) 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Foom DPRK propaganda site? It is not reliable. Please provide any Relaible 3rd party evidence. In addition, The NLL line drawed by 16 members of U.N forces. Neither Korea nor U.S only. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The only north korean official source I've used was one of the sites, the other two are third party. Demogorgonite (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. 1 source is north korea propaganda site. They made up NLL story later. invalid. Not trusted claim.
  2. is blog-like source. blog-like source is invalid source in wikipedia.
  3. I don't think '' is relaibe source. The NLL line drawed by 16 members of U.N forces. Neither Korea nor U.S only. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 :: The only north korean official source I've used was one of the sites, the other two are third party. Demogorgonite (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think '' is relaibe source. See the WP:RS. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC) - Pyongyang has never recognized the NLL - it was designated by the United Nations after the Korean War - and this is one way to push a settlement up the negotiating agenda.

= - The North Koreans never recognized the NLL, and by the late 1950s they were already complaining about it. They were suggesting the creation of what they called the MDL — the military demarcation line. = - The line was unilaterally set by the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations force, and has never been legally recognized by North Korea.

I hope these settles the question. The NLL was never recognized or respected by north korea. Demogorgonite (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Almost half a century after the end of the Korean War, the two Koreas remain technically at war because their conflict ended in an armed truce, not a peace agreement. The North has never recognised the NLL."

Demogorgonite (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"The NLL has served as an effective means of preventing military tension between North and South Korean military forces for 46 years. It serves as a practical demarcation line, which has contributed to the separation of forces." from United Nations Command

660gd4qo (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point? This does not prove or state that north korea ever recognized the NLL in the first place "up until the 1990". Demogorgonite (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Since the end of the Korean war in June 1953, the North has never recognized the Northern Limit Line (NLL) which the United States designated at the time as the sea boundary between the two sides and which the South accepts. "Demogorgonite (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DPRK's claim is made up story later. (since 1990s) Here is the one example, According to 1959 DPRK state published official almanac, north korea recognized the NLL as "limit line". 660gd4qo (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

South Korea discloses official North document recognizing sea border line
The National Intelligence Service (NIS) made public Thursday [30th September] a North Korean book revealing that the communist country has recognized the Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the West Sea [Yellow Sea] as the Military Demarcation Line since the late 1950s. The book is an annual published by the official (North) Korean Central News Agency [KCNA] on 30th November 1959, and the Military Demarcation Line it shows along Paengnyong island and four other...
"North Korea recognized the NLL in 1984 when the naval ships of the two sides met in the West Sea for the deliveryof the North's flood relief goods to the ... ..."
I don't see how this helps your point. The north allowed ships to pass for humanitarian aid. For once. In 1984. Nowhere does this prove that the north "recognized" the NLL up until the 1990. Demogorgonite (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
… Monitoring International Reports: South Korea discloses...
BBC Archive - Sep 30, 1999,0F99F9541CB50D7F.html
I am sorry, but you are in error. That map cause a lot of controversy when it was released, but the truth is that both the NLL and the Northern line map was printed on the same book. This book did NOT prove that the north recognized the NLL. This was highly politicized and biased when it was first released in south Korea, the 60s. Good thing I can read korea. I suggest you read this article that debunks your "map"
Quick google translation of the fault of the map - "Issued August 27 Weekly Chosun (Korea 1969), the title of the article at all "," North Korea, NLL officially recognized in the 1959 edition of History of Korea Central Yearbook "> the sweet," Korea Central Yearbook 1959 edition of South Hwanghae Province on the map on page 254 When a line matches the NLL and it was marked by the military demarcation line, "said" North Korea has recognized the NLL, the crucial evidence, "he has often claimed. But the real 'joseonjungangnyeongam' 59 edition of the map published on page 254 ([Figure 2]) confirmed that such a claim becomes colorless. This map actually Byeongnyeong, Daecheongdo, on the upper portion Yeonpyeongdo 'MDL' lines marked with a symbol, but never actually seen that you can not match the NLL. Because the south west of the allegations in the NLL as a likelihood that the line continues to Byeongnyeong is not at all."

Demogorgonite (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On the so called map you posted:
"[그림2] 1959년판 조선중앙년감 254p 황해남도 부분 지도 냉전수구세력의 주장처럼 북이 NLL을 인정했다고 볼 근거는 전혀 없다. 이 정도 자료를 '결정적 자료'라고 주장한다면 93년 국방부가 펴낸 군사정전위원회 편람에서 'NLL은 해상경계선이 아니다'고 확실하게 규정한 것에 대해서는 무엇이라 이야기할 지 궁금하다.

출처 : NLL 실체 외면하고 억지주장 늘어놓는 수구신문 - 오마이뉴스"

I read that article. that OhmyNews is not the reliable source. the OhmyNews is a online newspaper website with the motto "Every Citizen is a Reporter". (everybody can upload anything. no fact checking. POV problem) even article cleary state "This line is 경계선 (boundary line) when under U.N control.(정전협정에서 유엔군사령관의 통제하에 두게 된 서해5도와 북측 지역을 구분하기 위한 '경계선'으로 보는 게 더욱 타당할 것이다". Even heavy North Korea POV article, this article "recgnized" that Line was existed in North Korea published almanac. 660gd4qo (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Even DPRK claims that they never recognized it, They "respected" this line. Repsect is not mean recognized.

  1. never intrude this line
  2. never regard as their actual border

Accordingly, They "respected" this line. 660gd4qo (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, your reasons for saying that Ohmynews is not a reliable source is quite a fallacy. You have made it clear that you have ignored all of my previous, reliable sources, and you that you have no willingness to see pass your err. Since you seem to adhere vehemently to one unsourced info amidst dozens of contradicting evidence regarding the fact that the north never recognized the NLL, this fact should be officially disputed on the article. Demogorgonite (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Ohmynews is actually Blog. Eveybody can be a newspaper writer. Everybody publishing own POV. Nobody checking its fact. And, "Repsect" is not "recognize".
According to dictionary,
Respect - "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly. "[4] 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There are more disputations against the original map claims. Also, the BBC, Chosun Ilbo, and many other more "prominent" newspapers I have listed have stated that the north never recognized the NLL. Demogorgonite (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"The North Korea made no issue of the sea NLL until 1973, when it began violating the limit and disputing its validity"[5]

  1. The reuters source cleary confimred that "made no issue of the sea NLL until 1973".
  2. DPRK claims that they never recognized NLL line. However, there is no single evidence that they never recognized NLL line before 1973. All evidences are "made up story" after mid-1990s. Even They drawed new sea line since 1999. Even Pro-DPRK country, PRC state owned newspaper Peoples daily admit it. "The DPRK finally declared its own version of an "Inter-Korean MDL in the Yellow Sea," in October 1999. "[6]

You can not agree this fact? 660gd4qo (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are now changing your original argument! I can agree that the north was "on the fence" about the NLL UPTO the 1973, when it disputed the NLL after that. But the original statement of "started to dispute the nll in the 1990s" is highly incorrect. We should change this into 1973, when it first started to reject and dispute the NLL. 1990 does not make sense. Have we come to a consensus? Demogorgonite (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
DPRK's first claim of NLL line was 1973. However, they actually agreed NLL line for 20 years. And they respect line for 50 years. They drawed their own new sea line since 1999. Old NLL line drawed By UN. Not south Korea. Which side claim is made up story? UN vs. DPRK? Which is the liar? 660gd4qo (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, North Korea's first DISPUTE was in 1973, not claim. And ever since 1973, the north disputed the NLL. They did not respect it for 50 years. It also does not matter if they drew their own NLL (it was actually NOT called "NLL") in 1999, since we are talking about the original NLL line drawn up by the UN, which the DPRK first disputed on 1973. So, it does NOT make sense to use the "1990" year. Clearly, anyone with even an elementary grasp of English and logic can see this. Demogorgonite (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The currently edit is not describe that DPRK first start its dispute since 1990s. At hte same time, The North Korea made no issue of the sea NLL until 1973. 660gd4qo (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Good, I am glad you agree with me. I believe the latest edit is the best. Demogorgonite (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
[7] Current edit is Good. I agree it. Now settle this version. 660gd4qo (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of good academic papers on the NLL are here: [8] [9] An extremely simplified description of the crux of the issue is that UNCLOS III (negotiated 1973 to 1994) and ICJ cases created a North Korean Exclusive Economic Zone (eg fishing zone) beyond the islands, but continuing to implement the NLL as if it were a firm sea-border prevents North Korean access to it. Compounding this the NLL was defined when 3 mile territorial waters were the norm, now 12 miles is internationally agreed and the NLL denies North Korea this in areas. Really the North and the South should negotiate the UNCLOS borders, but for various political and technical reasons (read the papers) neither of them want to do this (it is much more complicated than simply drawing median lines). Rwendland (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Breen talking to the BBC

In the audio clip in this BBC article Michael Breen, says that the NKs first shot into the water after SK had started the exercise and that SK then started firing at NK, before NK shot at Yeonpyeong. Does anyone know of any other sources that say that this was the order of events? This certainly puts a different spin on things if it is true, but this one interview probably isn't sufficient to use as a source unless others agree. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the source given here states that island of Yeonpyeong and Bangnyeong were taking part in live-fire exercise, which probably involved shooting their artillery and somewhat. And since the waters around these islands are believed by north korea to be their waters, any live-fire exercise taking place can theoretically be argued that it "landed in north korean waters". Hope this helps. Demogorgonite (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It was normal regular training. South Korea exercise was anuualy fire training. It was regular situation. However, N.Korea suddenly fired at south korea island. also, south korea soldiers fired at south west direction when regular exercise.(not north korea direction. the completely opposite direction of n.korea) 660gd4qo (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where Breen gets his "facts" from. He starts by saying the NLL was drawn up by the South Koreans, it wasn't, it was drawn up by the UN. If he can't get this easily verified fact right, how reliable is anything else he says? Mztourist (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's why I posted here to see if what he said was true! SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What I was asking for is any sources that say NK first shot at water, and then SK fired at NK before NK hit the island? SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

South Korean defence minister resigns

Just read it on the BBC. "Mr Kim had been urged to step down by legislators from both governing and opposition parties over his handling of the shelling." I take it that this Kim Tae-young fits the list of commanders on the infobox since it was his responsibility? Would like to make sure before making any edits. Wolcott (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This should be in Aftermath - political. Apparently he tendered his resignation after the naval incident earlier in the year, but it is just now as a result of the article subject being accepted. (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New source

This one's from Newsweek.

Takashi Yokota (November 25, 2010). "North Korea Strike May Have Been Premeditated". Newsweek. Retrieved 2010-11-25. 

Dawnseeker2000 00:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of Artillery Rockets

Artillery rockets of 122mm was used in the shelling by North Korea. Not exactly sure if this is counted as 'shells'. LionFlyer 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A mix of 122mm rockets and 76mm artillery according to some reports [10] Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

White phosporus?

A number of news articles have now called the shells used "highly flammable." Anyone know whether they were incendiaries, whether white phosphorus based or otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its been claimed that the rockets were some kind of fuel-air incendiary[11] and [12], but the military's analysis isn't yet complete.Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Islands "were retained jurisdiction of the United Nations"

The phrasing doesn't make any sense to me. Shouldn't it either be the islands "retained jurisdiction of the United Nations", or the islands "were retained in the jurisdiction of the United Nations"? Or something else along those lines? --DavidConrad (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"retained jurisdiction" appears to be a term of art in the legal community which suggests the phrasing could be correct. (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


So far, we have the U.S. forces commander visiting the island, two apparent subsequent North Korean artillery exercises in the area, the upcoming "no live fire" exercise by South Korea and the U.S. (including an aircraft carrier), the street protest by south Korean veterans, the South Korean marine leader vowing 1000-fold revenge and a desire to bomb the Presidential palace in the North. None of which has made it into this article. (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give sources for each of those things? If you can show us reliable references for them, then we can add it in. SilverserenC 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It is all front page English language stuff (BBC, CNN, AP). Not hard at all to find. Rmhermen (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


What is the distance between the islands? Probably belongs in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

8 miles. [1] (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Shelling?

The Yonhap news agency is reporting a new round of explosions on the island. CNN reported shortly before that North Korea deployed surface to air missles to their borders in response to the war games.[13] --Kuzwa (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[14] now it's reports that NK has been spotted firing artillery. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably a live fire exercise. Yonhap now says no shells fell on the island. [15] (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


To use official military terminology wouldn't "Bombardment of Yeonpyeong" be more appropriate than "shelling"?--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better term. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine by me, and by wiki milhistory conventions as well. I was wondering when you were gona get involved in the discussion on this page $1LENCE D00600D :).XavierGreen (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Please also note: Bombardement de Yeonpyeong (french), Bombardement von Yeonpyeong (german), Bombardeo de Yeonpyeong (spanish), Bombardomento di Yeonpyeong (italian), Bombardeamento de Yeonpyeon (portuguese), Bombardementet av Yeonpyeong (norwegian), Bombardamentul insulei Yeonpyeong (romanian) and Yeonpyeong bombardımanı (turkish). --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Under China's reaction, it says they did not condem North Korea's actions. Looking at all the other ones, im saying that kinda borders on the NPOV rules, as it implies China was supposed to condem North Korea. (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It draws distinction with most other countries reaction. With the current wording no judgement is implied to me. (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats exactly what im trying to say, it seems a little biased towards China with saying " but [China] did not explicitly condemn North Korea's actions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can cite a source that notes this distinction, the contrast is WP:SYN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The source already attributed ([2])says "But China did not condemn North Korea's actions." And the lead to the article in bold highlights a difference in response between China and western leaders. I don't have a problem with striking explicitly which was probably an attempt to avoid WP:COPYPASTE. More importantly I think the article needs to be WP:CLAIM scrubbed. (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Copyrighted image

The current image is obviously copyrighted. Unless I'm missing something, I'm going to go ahead and remove the reference and nominate the image for deletion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. __meco (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a map of the island or something we could put there instead?XavierGreen (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just made an e-mail request to use one of Yonhap News Agency's photos of Yeonpyeong on fire under GNU FDL. Crossing my fingers. clayjar (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I had made a request to use the photo from this page: and got a reply from Yonhap News' photo department today. Here is the e-mail reply (in Korean): "말씀하신 사진은 일반 여행객이 제공한 사진입니다. 사용하셔도 무방할 것 같습니다." Here is the translation: "The photo was provided to us by a regular tourist. You can go ahead and use the photo without any issues." He is implying that the photo is in public domain. I will get the one w/o watermark and put on this page. clayjar (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice, good job on acquiring it. You might want to place that permission in the image's infobox to prevent any copyright dispute. Add a caption in the infobox for this article too. Cheers. Wolcott (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and added more info there. However, I don't think a caption was needed there because it was already linked in the bottom of the page. Let me know if that suffices, because I'm not quite sure how to "add a caption in the infobox for this article" on Wikimedia Commons page. And would it be possible to have that nice SVG illustration back? Someone removed it after the photo went up, but I thought SVG illustration with demarcation lines was very helpful IMHO. clayjar (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to this article but I see a caption already exists. The SVG illustration has been moved below. I think only one image is needed for the infobox. Wolcott (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Yonhap just provided me with another public domain photo related to this event: This is something completely new and I haven't seen on any of the outlets yet, so Wikipedia is the first to obtain this photo outside of Yonhap News. For details of the exchange and verifications, just ask. I have no idea who to contact at OTRS for this supposed "review process." No one is answering at IRC channel (#wikimedia-otrs, #wikimedia-commons) yet. As far as I can tell from reading everything about obtaining permissions from all Wikipedia articles there should be no disputes on these two photos. clayjar (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Very nice, again good job getting it. Though I'm sure a military photo would fit this article because the two photos look similar only that it was taken from another spot. The review process is a real pain IMO. Hopefully this image will help you better, look under Permissions in the infobox. Wolcott (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
1. A tourist provides the photo to Yonhap anonymously, 2. Yonhap releases the photo to me to use on Wikipedia, 3. I upload the photos to Wikimedia, 4. Wikimedia OTRS deletes photos during review process. What do you do with photos that are provided this way? I don't exactly understand why the photos would get deleted, someone educate me on this. Thanks. clayjar (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweden conducting foreign policy per blog?

Could we please try and find a more official outlet for Sweden's reaction than the blog of Carl Bildt? Surely it's not just the person but also the medium? Or will the next be White House tweets? __meco (talk)

Haha, yeah I agree with you, it does seem somewhat informal, but I wouldn't be surprised if 'New Media' becomes an accepted channel of official statements and the like in the not-too-distant future! I couldn't find anything though. DeathBySoliloquy (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation Please

Can someone translate "Jindotgae Hana," as in "Alert Jindotgae Hana?" I don't know why someone would use the Korean transliteration. Also, whoever added it might want to create a stub on Korean military alert conditions for a better frame of reference. (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's code, Jindotgae is a Korean Jindo Dog, Hana means one. Effectively it means DEFCON One. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a little more complex than that, because Korea also has DEFCON. As I understand it, Jindotgae is used for localized alert levels, while DEFCON is nationwide. -- Visviva (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Much Ado

Editors, please note yesterday's story about sK asking for US nukes (possibly) for added deterence/protection. Could it be that nK is saying "Don't mess with us!" as a response to the story? Too many people are getting wound up over these WP:RECENT events. ("Oh, wait, another news story has hit the internet. I must edit Wikipedia!") More comment -- the Korean War did end, and the US State Department agrees that the Armistice ended the war. See: US State Department statement regarding "Korea: Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission" and the Armistice Agreement "which ended the Korean War." This stuff about nK withdrawing from the Armistice is nonsense. No WP:RS has the nK government withdrawing. Only an occasional new article from nK alludes to a withdrawal. Mere saber-rattling (except for the poor people who get killed). Besides, the provisions of the Armistice do not have a means for withdrawing. Adding these events to the Korean War is POV. Editors should stop. (I'm almost done with this rant, but another news article has hit my RSS and I must edit WP some more!) Where was I? Oh, yes. Please stop. --S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this calls for a stop to the editing of the article, although I do see your point about previous day's news being found as one of the potential causes. Your proclivity towards a linear logic of such simple cause and effect for North Korean provocations in general would not be warranted though I grant that this could be an isolated case where that logic may apply. As for the continued editing of the article, I think I would have to concur with your exhortation to stop as we already have sufficient information on this incident. clayjar (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The North Korean government stated sometime last year that they would no longer abid the terms of the armistance. If they are not a reliable source on their own foriegn policy than i dont know what is. The Korean war never ended, a fact that can be proven my a host of reliable sources. There has been fighting at various levels from the start of the war to today. As for further additions to the page, the level of response that the US and South Korea takes diplomatically will need to be added once it occurs. And of course any relationship this engagement has to future events will need to be explained in the aftermath section as well.XavierGreen (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Xavier -- please give us the WP:RS that shows the nK government withdrew from the Armistice. Please show us where the State Department is wrong when it says the Armistice ended the Korean War.--S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
[[16]] Here is one of dozens of sources that state that the North Korean government stated it would no longer be bound to the armistace. If you reread my comments above i never stated that they withdrew, only that they dont abide by it any longer. As for the war not ending there are tons of sources that state it hasnt ended, for example [[17]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Per the Washington Post: "North Korea announced Wednesday that it is no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that halted the Korean War" [[18]] Also, your link to the state department is a proposal to transform the armistice into a peace agreement, a proposal which never was finalized. Per your own link: "If Pyongyang hopes its attempts to destroy the mechanism set up by the armistice agreement will lead us to enter into bilateral talks on a peace treaty, it is badly mistaken." In other words, the armistice is not a peace treaty even though it has kept the peace for 40 years as of the time of that publication. (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see the text I have quoted above in the Hasn't the Korean War ended section. North Korea regards the Korean War as over and that they won. Mztourist (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that's NK's POV, surely you don't regard that as definitive? Still, I'm taking issue with the argument of the original poster, where his easily dismissed claims should be challenged. He was asserting that NK didn't claim to withdraw from the armistice (NK did make this claim, verifiable both through reliable western news outlets and the unreliable KCNA). Moreover, the state department doesn't have the authority to declare a war as over so its pronouncements on such matters is just diplomatic speech. As long as all parties are bound by the armistice, all matters regarding its violation relate to the original conflict. While I wouldn't call this a continuation of the original Korean War, if I were writing a book on the Korean War, incidents such as these may justifiably be included. To the degree that this is a violation of the armistice, causing loss of life, this is more than much ado which was the claim of the original poster. (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) NK POV? Are you serious? NK started the Korean War and they say its over, how can that be POV? So on that basis the US POV is the war is continuing? If the only belligerent on one side of a war says its over what does that mean? The Korean War ended in 1953, the Korean conflict is ongoing.Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You're arguing semantics and missing the point. Is this a breach of the armistice? Yes. Why is there an armistice? Because of the Korean War. QED, this is related to the Korean War via one degree of separation. I am not sure what your point is, that the Korean War is over? Fine. But even accepting that doesn't invalidate anything I've said. I'm only responding to the original poster who said that this is "much ado [about nothing]", that NK never claimed to withdraw from the armistice, and that "Adding these events to the Korean War is POV". It is more than nothing, NK did claim to withdraw, and any disinterested historian could relate this to the Korean War. Is any of this really up for dispute? (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, its not semantics, its facts. The US and NK both say the Korean War is over and no evidence has been produced to show the SK Government think the Korean War is continuing. Yes the NK Government have said they will no longer abide by the armistice, but in fact they continue to largely abide by its terms (military hotline, JSA meetings, etc), they haven't started hostilities (any more than when they purported to be abiding by the Armistice) and they (implausibly) deny sinking the Cheonan and justify the shelling of Yeonpyeongdo as self defence. The Korean War ended with the armistice which is the de facto peace treaty and all actions since then are part of an ongoing Korean Conflict, not a 60 year long Korean War. In relation to SRich's much ado comment, I believe he was simply making the point that a lot of authors are being too influenced by recent events and making this into a much bigger page than is actually justified. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It is semantics as saying this is part of the Korean War or not doesn't affect or change anything. It might color the language we are using, but semantics tends to do that. What you're doing is making a judgement of history and the history of this situation is less than settled. Future historians might conclude that hostilities resumed after the naval skirmish of 2011 followed by the invasions of 2013, the UN intervention of 2018, and the Winter War of 2027, but the Korean War finally concluded in 2029 when Princess Oke of South Korea (the only survivor from the coup d'etat in 2022) took the last boat out of Pusan leaving the entire peninsula a fiefdom of Kim Sung Jong. Hence, the period of 1950 through 2029 was the Korean War punctuated by a long but overtly hostile cease-fire between 1953 and 2011, much as the Hundred Years War had its moments of peace. That's why I'm not arguing whether this is part of the war or not, but have only been saying that this is related to the Korean War, whatever that relation may ultimately be deemed to be. You seem very much to be advocating a particular point of view here, that there is a Korean Conflict (capitalized, no less, as though there were an entry on that) that is distinctive from the Korean War. And now you're calling it a de facto peace treaty? Neither the DPRK, the ROK, the US nor China acknowledge that, else why would the DPRK continually seek a peace treaty? I hear your arguments, but you're long past arguing matters encyclopedic. (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC) so its semantics that the parties say the Korean War is over and the absence of a formal peace treaty is the only conclusive evidence? Ignoring your fantasy future of Korea as irrelevant, the facts are that NK and the US say the Korean War is over and SK doesn't say it is continuing. The facts on the ground are that NK and SK have taken steps that are unheard of between parties who are supposedly at war with each other. The enmity and hostilities between NK and SK, including the Korean War, are attributable to and part of the Division of Korea, which can be referred to as the Korean conflict (big or small "c"). Claiming that a war which ended 57 years ago is ongoing is untenable, history has judged the Korean War, it ended in July 1953. Seizing on the technicality that no peace treaty has yet been signed and harking back to the Hundred Years War is to turn completely ignore how modern conflicts start (usually hostile action, rather than declarations of war) and end (often by a ceasefire when one side acheives its tactical aims). Arguably no peace treaty is even required in Korea because the action was conducted under UN Security Council Resolution 83 [19] and the aims of that resolution were acheived by the UN military action that roughly restored the inter-Korean border and the Armistice. NK and SK signed a non-aggression treaty in 1991 [20]. The reasons why the DPRK wants or claims to want a peace treaty are complex, the Kims fear US power and want to ensure the survival of their dynasty. NK propaganda claims that SK is a US colony, the SK government are puppets of the US and are blocking reunification. SK fears another NK invasion and doesn't want US forces to leave while the NK military poses such a threat. Reunification is the holy grail of NK and, with racial purity, the only remaining claim to legitimacy the Kims have. NK claims that if the US forces left SK there would be reunification, supposedly under the Kims, but they must know that this is unlikely as SK has twice the population of NK and an economy that is 30 times larger. So for all their claims to want a peace treaty, the Kims may not actually want it at all as it will almost certainly lead to the end of their dynasty. Mztourist (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That sure is a lot of interpretation to assert that you're not advocating a point of view. For starters, what the Kims want is speculative. For another, if one side declares the Korean War armistice invalid, what are you left with? Some people conclude that this returns the parties back to the original state of war. Yes, that's a POV, but so is what you are saying. That's what I'm trying to point out to you, that the definition of war varies among many different people. For your view to be consistent, there has to be an objective definition of the word "war". For some, the conflict between the US and Vietnam was a "police action", for others it was a "war". For some, the Cold War was actually a hot war and for others, it was not a war at all. Can we even declare war on on Want? Britain did. I'm afraid, you're making a big deal over semantics that has no chance at resolution until you recognize that's all this is. And then, once you do, you'll find that 4 people are still dead, the Korean War armistice was still breached, KJI is still in control of the DPRK, and South Koreans will still hate imported U.S. beef. In other words, what you're arguing doesn't really change anything at all. I'm done. (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I'm pushing interpretations or a POV, you asked why the DPRK wants a peace treaty and I gave you some likely reasons. All I hope to acheive out of all this discussion is to present the facts so that authors can see that this and other incidents are part of the Division of Korea and not part of the Korean War. I hope you and Princess Oke are very happy together. Mztourist (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Korean Conflict is not a recognized historical term distinct from the Korean War. Only wikipedia makes any distinction between the Korean Conflcit and the Korean War--Google routes Korean Conflct to the Korean War page and the U.S. National Archives uses the terms "Korean War" and "Korean Conflict" synonomously [[21]]. At best, you're going to have to come up with another sourced and cited name for what has been going since the 1950s rather than your arbitrary and self-imposed distinction. But since you failed to see the implications before: if the US and North Korea signed a peace treaty tomorrow, make no mistake that the dates within the Korean War article would indicate that. You have no idea what the future will bring that will shed light on current affairs, so it's futile to try to close the history books on these matters. And finally, snideness is something I would expect from the DPRK's fifth column. It doesn't become you. I've been polite, I'd encourage you to do the same. (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The name is the Division of Korea and its been going on since 1945. Like the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Korean Conflict is probably a better name for it. The reason why Korean Conflict was used for the Korean War was because it was a "police action" under UN auspices, rather than a classic "war", I acknowledge that some sources say they are synonymous, but others do not. The Six-Day War ended with a ceasefire, but no-one claims that the War of Attrition or the Yom Kippur War were a restart or continuation of the Six-Day War, they are separate wars; the history books are closed on when the Six-Day War ended so why treat Korea differently? Similarly there are numerous other modern "wars" where a peace treaty was only signed years after the hostilities ceased e.g. Sino-Vietnamese War, Sino-Indian War, Yom-Kippur War (Egypt and Israel), but no-one argues that the end date of those wars is when the peace treaty was signed, so why do you feel the Korean War should be treated differently? With regard to your (and others) earlier comparisons of the Hundred Years' War, to quote from the introduction to that page, it was "a series of separate wars lasting from 1337 to 1453" and "the term "Hundred Years' War" was a later term invented by historians to describe the series of events". So the comparison with Korea is inaccurate and you and others presume to impose the shorthand term Korean War to describe inter-Korean relations since 1950 (or 1945). I am not trying to close the history books on the Division of Korea which has yet to play out, just the Korean War which ended in July 1953; subsequent events are not part of the Korean War. I apologise for my humour. Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I do understand the case you are making, and I'll start considering it the way you're presenting it rather than as your POV just to dial back my rhetoric. The Korean War isn't being treated different than other wars, there is no "war" template under which all wars fall with clear declarations, assault, counter-assault, and peace treaty resolutions. We can only understand each situation on its own terms. We cannot interpret the Korean War in the same way as, say, the Six-Day War. The cease-fire obtained at the end of that Six-Day War was an Arabian capitulation; Israel seized the land and demanded the Arabians to sign the cease-fire or else. The armistice by comparison resulted from a stalemate. The Six-Day War cease-fire was obtained directly between Israel and its neighbors; South Korea didn't even sign the Korean Armistice (with effects to this day as it permits North Korea to not recognize the legitimacy of the South Korean government). There's more differences, but to say that either cease-fire is a model for how wars are presented in either wikipedia or history, such an approach oversimplifies the complex circumstances of both.
Further, the situation on the Korean peninsula is messier and less clear cut than most conflicts in the world. To impose a clear-cut presentation ends up being less informative than leaving things a bit looser and open-ended. For example, if we look at the armistice agreement itself, I see both a semantic and an interpretive challenge to your approach: " the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, with its great toil of suffering and bloodshed on both sides, and with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved..." [[22]] Speaking historically, the signatories to the armistice are explicitly agreeing that the conflict is unresolved until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, whether that's an explicit peace treaty, reunification, an established long-term peace, or some other understanding. I can't see how anyone can argue that any peace has ever been achieved. So, the interpretive challenge is in saying that the armistice settled the matters of 1950-1953 if the signatories themselves wouldn't see it that way. The semantic challenge to your presentation is the designation "Korean conflict". The signatories at the time would not have distinguished a "Korean Conflict" superior to the war they were fighting at the time. If "Korean conflict" becomes the accepted term to reference the current ongoing tensions and as a thing different than what everyone was taking part in during 1953, we make it easy to misread the armistice itself. While we have some advantages in perspective 60 years later than they do and that gives us some leeway to recast the language and the situation in terms better suited to a modern audience, I can't see any Korean Conflict except in terms that also includes the Korean War. There was no Korean Conflict before June 1950 when the Korean War began since nothing before that time was concerned with reunification--all the uprisings were about home rule and local policies. I think we both agree that this conflict continues until this very day. And I think we both see this as a different phase of the conflict than the period of 1950-1953. But the difference is quantity not quality. Instead of daily fighting, there's a biannual exchange of fire. Meanwhile, both Seoul and Pyongyang continue to see themselves as the only legitimate government of a unified Korea. Except for the people involved, the situation is relatively unchanged since December 1953 when people even then did not consider the Korean War completely resolved.
But the deepest challenge to your presentation is that it goes against reputable modern assessments which indicates that the war/conflict is still on-going. [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] In June 2010, the Assistant Secretary of State for the US, P J Crowley indicated that the US and North Korea are "still in a state of conflict", take your pick from any of these sources: [[26]] and note that he's saying "still", as in this is part of a long historical event. And finally, both Wikipedia articles on South Korea and North Korea indicate both governments still are "technically at war" with each other, just search those pages for that. So, to say that the Korean War is over needs to be reconciled against the NY Times, the BBC, the current US State Department, Wikipedia and the Korean Armistice itself. I don't think your presentation can. (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There must be consistency in how modern wars are deemed to have started and ended. The circumstances surrounding the Six-Day War ceasefire as compared to the Korean War ceasefire are irrelevant, what is relevant is that when the War of Attrition began in July of 1967 or June of 1968 it wasn't seen as the continuation of the the Six Day War and nor was the Yom Kippur War, so why is the Korean War treated differently? There were no major events in Korea from 1953 until the start of the Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969), 13 years passed, the Chinese and almost all of the UN left so how can it still be the same war? South Korea didn't need to sign the Armistice as operational control of the SK forces had been given to the UN Command. It is unlikely that a peace treaty will ever be signed as the issue of reunification would need to be addressed and NK's and SK's positions are too far apart to ever be reconciled. The parties however signed the nonaggression agreement that I mentioned earlier and there has been relative peace despite the occasional flare-up. You are wrong when you say there was no Korean conflict before the Korean War began, there was an ideological conflict from the time of the partition of Korea 1945 and then from 1948 there were border clashes between the two Koreas which continued until the NK invasion. You still seem to ignore or misunderstand what I am saying about the Korean conflict, there has been a Korean conflict since 1945 (or perhaps 1948), the Korean War (1950-1953) was the hot phase of the conflict, while everything since then has been lower-intensity. If things kick off again between NK, SK and the US it will be called Second Korean War or whatever becomes popular, but it will be a separate and distinct war from the one that ended in July 1953, not least because many of the participants from the 1950-1953 war are unlikely to be involved again. I don't regard the endless recycling of the same soundbite by popular media as being "reputable modern assessments" as you claim. The Slate article [27] is the only story I have seen that actually challenges the lazy soundbite and analyses the issue. I certainly agree with PJ Crowley's assessment, NK and the US are still in a state of conflict, but he doesn't say, "we are still fighting the Korean War", which is what this whole discussion is about (not whether or not there is conflict between the Koreas) and I don't think his statement in any way contradicts the State Department's position. The Wikipedia pages on NK and SK are both based on the same CNN article which just circles back to the lazy soundbite and so adds nothing. I really don't understand how you can ignore the facts that none of NK, SK or the US says the Korean War is continuing, that NK and SK have signed a nonaggression treaty and established links that are unprecedented between parties that are supposedly at war and still argue that the Korean War is continuing and that this event is a part of that war. Mztourist (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
"There must be consistency in how modern wars are deemed to have started and ended." I'm going to stop you right there because it's so problematic.
1) No, there doesn't need to be consistency and I see no Wikipedia rule demanding this. You have to make the case that consistency is either useful or informative when talking about how wars develop and end. I rather suspect that treating all wars the same is neither informative, nor encyclopedic, nor useful (except for certain propoganda purposes).
2) Why only modern wars? Why not impose consistent standards for all wars? Is there something special about the way that 20th century people have killed one another that makes their wars qualitatively different? Does the War of the Golden Stool belong in a different class of wars because it's in a different century than the Hut Tax War of 1898? Any modernity criteria has to be both justified and defined.
3) It's arbitrary to demand consistency of an inconsistent term like "war" as evidenced by the usage in Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Want. Else, can you tell me who will sign the cease fire/peace treaty in the Global War on Terror?
•In conclusion, your basic starting criteria is pointless, uninformative, contrary to the principles of encyclopedias, useless, lacking in imagination, arbitrary, unjustified, imprecise, unnecessary, and impossible. To quote someone smarter than both of us: "A foolish adherence to consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I, for one, do not shy away from the challenge of treating unique things uniquely.
•Moving on to other problems in your presentation, It is unlikely that a peace treaty will ever be signed as the issue of reunification would need to be addressed and NK's and SK's positions are too far apart to ever be reconciled. Apart from the concerns addressed later about speculation, that sounds like an argument in support of the proposition that the Korean War has not ended.
"I don't regard the endless recycling of the same soundbite by popular media as being "reputable modern assessments" as you claim. I don't mean to be harsh, but how you regard them is not at issue. Please cite where these sources are discredited. You can't disregard cited assessments just because they are inconvenient to you. Besides, I can find many[[28]], many[[29]] more[[30]] from an orgy[[31]] of international[[32]] sources[[33]].
•What the U.S. and North Korea say about the state of war, apart from official jointly signed documents, doesn't count for nearly as much as you make it out to be. We've all read tabloid reports about two celebrities and their publicists who deny any problem in their relationship and then a week later file for divorce. International relations are much the same, with diplomats trying to put spin on the situation to play more to their own self-interest. This is why the armistice and violations of the armistice still matter because that's the current state of affairs: a cessation of hostilities until a peace is achieved. Anyway, how much credence do you really want to give diplomats and government mouthpieces? If you give it anything but minimal authority, I'm ready to start counting how many times North Korea has resumed the war within the records of the KCNA. I'll even create the Wikipedia articles and establish the credibility of North Korean official pronouncements on the matter when the articles get speedily deleted.
•I'll also note in passing that you didn't address what the armistice actually says in your last comment; if you want to say that the armistice is a de facto peace treaty when it specifically declares that it is not, this is a damning argument against your presentation.
Many of the participants from the 1950-1953 war are unlikely to be involved again and later If things kick off again between NK, SK and the US it will be called Second Korean War... Care to cite the as-yet-unwritten history books from the future that you base these on? I'll repeat what I said before: later historians will know more about our future than we do about their past. Trying to outguess them has no place in an encyclopedia. (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I am finding your discussion tedious. You are playing with semantics (your original accusation), picking and choosing points and drawing spurious comparisons and endlessly reciting the same lazy piece of reporting to try to ignore the factual situation that exists in Korea which is inconsistent with the continuation of the Korean War. The US and NK both say the Korean War is over, I don't expect the next SK Defence White Paper to say the war is continuing, all this supersedes whatever is said in the Armistice or in the media. In any event the matter has been decided elsewhere on Wikipedia that the incidents post July 1953 are not part of the Korean War. Mztourist (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thats not entirely true, it was decided that there are two "Korean Wars" one of which for simplicity will be called the Korean Conflict (1946 - present) which scholars also sometimes call the "Korean War". These post armistace engagements will be considered to be a part of that "Korean War" rather than linking it directy to the 1950 - 53 "Korean War".XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Partially disagree. While I agree that POV and speculation need to be avoided (for example, the entire "Cause" section as currently written seems like a classic case of weasel words), it feels premature to declare that the article now has "sufficient information." As I write this, the incident is less than 24 hours old and it is quite likely that more facts are going to come to light. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I second OSS' view on the Cause section. And XavierGreen, while I agree that both North and South Korea are technically still at war, I do not think it wise to show a hint of indifference between the time periods between the actual war in 1950s and thereafter for the purpose of clarity in communication. If you insist on the extension of Korean War reaching into the present what then would you call the time period between 25 June 1950 to 27 July 1953? And as for the quote you have taken from a book, the sentence suggests, from its context, a stronger metaphorical usage than as a propositional statement, albeit technically true. Try finding a better quote next time for a stronger argument. clayjar (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@S. Rich, check out this article: I think the keyword here is "hype" in response to your first message in this section. clayjar (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

International reactions separate page

Given that the international reactions take up nearly half the page, wouldn't it be a good idea to create a separate page for them – International reactions to the Shelling of Yeonpyeong – as we did with all of these incidents? Ericoides (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree There are already too many stub pages of inter-Korean incidents. Creating further pages off those stubs is pointless. We should be looking to consolidate and rationalize the various Korean pages instead. Mztourist (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is pretty large already, so it will hardly be a stub. At present the response section is disproportionately large vis-a-vis the rest of the page, per WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Creating further pages off those stubs". Ericoides (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think too much is being made of this incident already and it will all blow over in a few days. If you take out international reaction the main page becomes a stub and the international reaction page becomes a stub also. Lets wait and see what happens in a few more days to see if creating a new related page is justified. Mztourist (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is no hurry, but you seem to have a strange idea as to what a stub is: our page says, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text." The present article is 37k at the moment and will doubtless grow. Halve that and you get 18.5k for two articles. To paraphrase John Cleese, "stubs don't enter into it". As to the import of the event, again I agree with you: it is too early to tell, and you are quite entitled to your own viewpoint, but most analysts agree that it is the most serious event in the region since the Korean War. Something that "has a global impact on the financial markets" is no mere bagatelle. You have not responded to the argument regarding the disproportionate size of the response section, which is the main reason for proposing a separate page (and the one rightly used when all the other reaction pages were created). Your point, "We should be looking to consolidate and rationalize the various Korean pages instead" is a red herring with no bearing on the matter. Ericoides (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I am in South Korea, there is no panic here and the expectation is that things will blow over soon just like they did after Cheonan. The financial markets will settle as they fluctuate for the slightest reason and the exchange rate is almost back to where it was before this incident. This certainly isn't "the most serious event in the region since the Korean War", wherever did you get that from? Having a page listing every country that has bothered to make a comment on this incident is overkill as far as I can see. Consolidation isn't a red herring, there are too many Korean incident pages already without creating more. Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, "This is one of the worst clashes since the Korean War ended, analysts say", acc. to the BBC, for starters. Also see [34]. Your point about comment overkill is a good one; perhaps we should wait and then trim it down. Re the other point, it really is a red herring; Wikipedia has no size limits and working on one page has no effect on all of the others, which may in any case be too short. Ericoides (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that lazy journalists haven't bothered reading up on their recent Korean history, the Blue House Raid, Pueblo Incident and the Axe murder incident were all far more serious than this. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about cutting the reactions section a little then? Ericoides (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No objection from me, though no doubt other Wikipedians will disagree. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont think its nessesary to splice off the section, the article has g-class potential as it is now. To seperate the section from the article would reduce its viability.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion, why don't we have a page with the reactions to the various conflicts these two countries have into a single page? I originally started Reactions to the 2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking, but perhaps something along the lines of, say International reactions to the Korean conflicts, have them listed all on a single page? I would not be opposed to a merging of the pages for just the reactions. --Hourick (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree I feel that it having it's own page would be helpful as it impacted alot of things. It is the 28th now and people are still talking about it as tensions remain high it was also the largest attack on South Korea since the war ended back in the 1950's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps someone can point the way to do it and do a merge and such. I know there was a general reaction to the way I did it last time, but since I don't have administrative powers or the wiki-know how, perhaps a kind soul can do this. I have a feeling we are going to have this discussion after the NEXT conflict between these two.--Hourick (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Countries out side of the 6 (N/S Korea, China, US, Russia, Japan) + UN should just be cut. If Latvians want to know how their government reacted, they can Google it themselves. No offense, but it really isn't important how precisely minor nations (in this dispute) shade their concern. Just say that nations around the world expressed concern ranging from mild to condemnation, and then put 50 references. (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia does these kinds of things. --PlasmaTwa2 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Mztourist; separate pages ptobably not the best option at this time. --Tenmei (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Domino Effect section

Is it just me, or does the last sentence of this section (the assertion that China's policy towards DPRK is destabilising the region) sound overly judgemental? The section might have merit, but that last sentence sounds a bit off. Is op-ed even a viable source to use here? JBG (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff source to an oped definitely shouldn't be presented in the editorial voice of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk)
I'm very critical towards this entire section. Firstly, as Nil Einne points out, an oped isn't even appropriate as a reliable source in most instances, and certainly not as the basis of an entire section. The section title is also inappropriate, and I'm not referring to the camel case; this is original synthesis. __meco (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood which part is being sourced to an op-ed although I'm not saying it's okay. However a greater concern is "Some claim this Chinese policy is increasing instability and insecurity in Asia.[46]" doesn't seem to be supported by the given ref, unless I missed it. If someone else concurs, feel free to remove it Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
"According to an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph..." That sentence (the one quoted by Nil Einne) has been changed since I first queried; the new phrasing is an improvement but the underlying issues remain, I feel. JBG (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This section does seem a pretty wild turn for this article. I don't see the need to report minority opinion; I'd support deleting the entire section. This Telegraph source is even poorly informed claiming "Both countries ... are, for all practical purposes, a screwdriver's twist away from actually building one." South Korea does not have uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing plant (unlike Japan), so would certainly need a major R&D effort before being able to make a nuclear weapon. Rwendland (talk)
"The threat North Korea’s provocations pose to instability in Northeast Asia and to nuclear proliferation on a global scale should command greater concern. China alone provides or facilitates virtually all of the foreign goods needed to sustain a meagre life for most North Koreans, along with luxuries for those who rule. If China genuinely wants to demonstrate that it can play a role as a responsible global power, commensurate with its rising economic strength, it should do more.[35]"
Anybody can compress this? This mean is almost same as "this Chinese policy is increasing instability and insecurity in Asia.". 660gd4qo (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this about another editor's hard work, but right now this whole section feels like a WP:CRYSTAL BALL combined with a WP:EDITORIAL, with a couple WP:WEASEL WORDS thrown in for flavor. Quite the recipe (and quite the WP:SYNTHESIS). It may well convey the Telegraph's opinion accurately, but it is just that, an opinion, and I don't get why it's notable unless the Telegraph's opinion is making enough waves to change the debate over Chinese policy. Now, if it were an involved government official saying these things, that would be WP:NOTABLE.
My two cents (may be suffering from inflation :) )
-- Joren (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, if it were an involved government official saying these things, that would be WP:NOTABLE. OK. Then I will show you foreign government officials saying these things. Just Wait. 660gd4qo (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please do! That would make this section much better, and we could stop relying on the Telegraph so much. You could phrase it something like "Foreign minister/govt. official so-and-so has accused China of destabilizing the region through its North Korea policy". That way we know who is saying what, and it will make it sound much more neutral and verifiable. I appreciate your hard work finding sources; thank you,
-- Joren (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that would be wonderful. The sentence talking about the possibility of nuclear proliferation may need some work; what evidence is there of a nuclear taboo in RSK? And can the predicative statement be turned around? It may make more sense to say that "observers have commented that RSK may begin to develop its own nuclear capabilities" or words to that effect, as opposed to taking the Telegraph op-ed as read? What do people think? JBG (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I also support deletion; I'm trying to find news & facts here, not speculation, and a lot of other people are going to be doing the same. GrimmC (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel phoned Seoul Wednesday to condemn this week's North Korean bombardment of a South Korean island and called for China and Russia to restrain Pyongyang. [36]
  • China should use its influence over North Korea to defuse the crisis sparked by the North's shelling of a Southern island, US officials say. State department spokesman PJ Crowley said Beijing's role was pivotal and urged Beijing to be clear on the issue. "China does have influence with North Korea and we would hope and expect that China will use that influence," said Mr Crowley. "First to reduce tensions that have arisen as a result of North Korean provocations and then secondly [to] continue to encourage North Korea to take affirmative steps to denuclearise." Japanese officials have also encouraged China to take the lead with Pyongyang.[37]
  • U.S. called on China Wednesday to use its political clout to rein in North Korea as American officials confronted the limits of their influence over one of the world's most unpredictable, and least understood, nuclear powers.Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an appearance on ABC's "The View," that China's role was "critical" to keeping North Korea from undertaking provocative acts such as Tuesday's shelling of a South Korean island, which left four people dead, including two civilians."We would hope and expect that China will use that influence first to reduce tensions that have arisen as a result of North Korean provocations, and then secondly, continue to encourage North Korea to take affirmative steps to denuclearize," Crowley said.[38]
  • The United States expects China to wield its influence over North Korea, said a senior State Department official, after an exchange of artillery fire between North and South Korea on Tuesday. “We don't want to understate or overstate that [influence that China has]. It is not that China can dictate a particular action to North Korea, but it is that China, together with the U.S. and other countries, have to send a clear, direct, unified message that it is North Korea that has to change.” [39]

Many foreign govt. officials (with International voices) pointed out Chinese foreign policy. 660gd4qo (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all good, and certainly grounds for including a small section on China's involvement/lack thereof in this. But as for a section talking of nuclear proliferation, if you take out the Telegraph op-ed then there's not an awful lot to go on. It may make more sense to add the Telegraph commentary to the 'political impact' section and repurpose the current nuclear proliferation section to one discussing world reaction to China's stance? I'm not seeing any firm ground for a dedicated subsection on the proliferation topic... JBG (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(EC) The best thing to do then would be to mention that several countries have criticised Chinese foreign policy or asked them to do more rather then the poor attempt to summarise the other ref. However your suggestion that other countries have criticised Chinese foreign policy doesn't seem to be supported by the quotes you've provided anyway. They only ask for the Chinese to do more or say China has a critical role or stuff like that. (I don't think this is really surprising, this is international public diplomacy were talking about.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the nuclear domino effect claim from Korea govt. official.

  • S.Korea warns of global nuclear 'domino effect'. South Korea's point man on North Korea warned on Thursday of a global "nuclear domino effect" unless the communist state scraps its atomic weapons. Unification Minister Hyun In-Taek was speaking days before senior US officials travel to South Korea, Japan and China for talks on the issue. North Korea's atomic armament meant "major changes" in the region's security environment as well as the international order, Hyun, whose ministry handles cross-border relations, told a forum. "It will produce nuclear domino effects across the globe," he said. [40]

660gd4qo (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but what does an article dated 09 September 2010 have to do with the Shelling of Yeonpyeong? Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Hmm, surely that should be seen within the broader context of Korean relations/unification, as opposed to this event specifically? It was written some months ago, after all, and the shelling only happened on Tuesday. I agree that it's noteworthy - and thank you for finding the citation - but I don't know how much bearing this has on this event... JBG (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. if many users think entire section is worthless, remove it. 660gd4qo (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I have taken the section out of the article. We can continue discussing what to make of its conent here though. Here is the section

Potential nuclear proliferation

According to an opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph, North Korea's aggression may inspire South Korea and Japan to reconsider their long-held taboo on possessing nuclear weapons such increasing nuclear proliferation.[1] If the United States refuses to support their security (with nuclear weapons if necessary), Japan and South Korea may begin to doubt its commitment to their defense and proceed to develop their own nuclear capabilities. In February 2010, the U.S. Joint Forces Command admitted that South Korea and Japan "could quickly build nuclear devices if they chose to do so". China supports North Korea indirectly. China will not change its pro-DPRK policy of almost complete support for Kim Jong Il’s government. One senior Chinese official said, "North Korea is our East Germany. Do you remember what happened when East Germany collapsed? The Soviet Union fell."[2] Many International voices state that this Chinese policy is increasing instability and insecurity in Asia, urge China to reconsider seriously to its policy.[3][4]

  1. ^ Praveen Swami (23 November 2010). "Why North Korean strike will not trigger World War Three". The Telegraph. 
  2. ^ US warship's arrival sends message to China on Korea November 25, 2010. Hindustan Times
  3. ^ North Korea threatens more attacks on South 25 Nov 2010. The Telegraph
  4. ^ Only China can tame North Korea ‎Nov 26, 2010. Dereck Burney. Globe and Mail

__meco (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not edit conflict. I think entire section is OK, but someone dislike it. I am not care if many users oppose its section and remove it.660gd4qo (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A lot of read flag claim without much solid citation..
  • China will not change its pro-DPRK policy of almost complete support for Kim Jong Il’s government. Pro-North Korean Policy, more or less correct, but "complete support" of Kim Jong Il's government? On what basis is an editorial opinion can be considered as facts? Especially there are other editorials that claimed Chinese increasing found North Korea as a liability?
  • One senior Chinese official said, "North Korea is our East Germany. Do you remember what happened when East Germany collapsed? The Soviet Union fell." Where is the context? Which official? MacArthur and Curtis LeMay calling for nuking Russia and China 24/7, maybe we should judge American Cold War policy base on their comments too?
It is factually correct that Chinese high tolerance for North Korean generated tension is destabilizing Asian, but actually stating that China use North Korea to destabilize the entire Asia, as this section tried to synthesize by using the opinions of few journalists? Jim101 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This whole discussion is making it seem as though this will start WWIII. It's an isolated incident and even if the North declared war they probably wouldn't last very long. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough the recent release US diplomatic cables suggest China isn't actually that tolerant but just doesn't have as much influence as some people like to believe... Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Smoke rising after artillery barrage

File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg was restored in the infobox here. Its removal from the infobox was accompanied by a straightforward edit summary:

  • diff 21:34, 5 December 2010 Fut.Perf. (65,353 bytes) (remove non-free image, commercial news agency photograph)

IMO, this needs discussion. Fut.Perf.'s reasoning may be impeccable; but, if this image is flawed, it needs to be explained. There is a possibility that this image may be retained if an appropriate justification is presented. If not, this needs to be explained and understood so that future uploaded images will not be similarly flawed.

At this point, I don't understand; and Fut.Perf. has not explained at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4#:File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg. In summary, Fut.Perf. viewpoint seems to be something like:

"I'm correct, I know I'm correct and I have no interest in helping others understand what the problem is because my only interest is in the fact that I am correct."

In this narrow context, somewhat more flexibility is needed. The image was removed a second time,

  • diff 22:03, 5 December 2010 Fut.Perf. m (65,353 bytes) (rv, no, commercial photographs get removed, period.)

This needs discussion, period.

When discussion is sought in a Wikipedia venue, it is needed, period.

Think again: Anything other than "yes" will not work out well.

When a request for discussion and explanation is presented, it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, there is no pathway towards consensus better collaborative editing. Do you see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise -- The image of smoke rising over the island was a iconic feature of many news reports in November 2010. This is one such photo. For me, the image of smoke rising is indistinguishable from my impressions of an island I have not personally visited. These factors are explained when the file was uploaded:
The image is placed in that section of the article discussing the shelling of this island preparations, which is a subject of public interest. The significance of the image is to help the reader (a) to identify this military incident and its aftermath, (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the incident, and (c) to illustrate the incident and its aftermath in a way that words alone could not convey.
Because this image involves an zone of military conflict from which civilians were evacuated, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary
If there is something wrong or insufficient, what is it? Why?
These factors are significant and relevant:
  • This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image of the smoke rising above the silhouette of Yeonpyeong Island after the North Korean artillery barrage in November 2010.
  • The image of the smoke plus the silhouette itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role). --Tenmei (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't the korean War ended?

How is this "part of the Korean war?" Didn't that end like a long time ago?Subtle revenge (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The war never actually ended, the level of intensity just died down after the armistace.XavierGreen (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Korean War ended with the armistice in 1953, subsequent events are not part of the Korean War, the "part of the Korean War" tag has been removed. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The armistice is a truce, right? The war has never officially been concluded. That's what the consensus seems to be everywhere in the world.Sukiari (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
North Korea has said in the past that they do not consider themselves bound by the armistice. And they periodically commit acts of war against South Korea and make threats against Japan and the United States. So the war is on-going. The reason that the intensity has died down is that North Korea is afraid to launch an all-out attack because they know that the South is more powerful and that Red China would not support it, combined with an unwillingness of the allies to retaliate in a major way because they do not want the burden of another hot war. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How many wars since WWII have ended in anything more than an armistice or ceasefire? Did Syria and Israel sign a peace treaty at the end of the Six-Day War? No. Have they kept fighting? Yes periodically. So following the logic set out above the Six-Day War is still going between Israel and Syria then. For some reason the media always love to point out that the Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty, but its the same for numerous conflicts all over the world. The Korean War ended with the signing of the armistice on 27 July 1953. Mztourist (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what has been said, if another full scale war should break it's obvious the new war will be considered just that, a new war, perhaps the second Korean war or whatever (although some apparently consider Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969) the second Korean war). Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mztourist. We should create a separate category for "Korean Border Conflicts" akin to this page, The general use of "Korean War" specifically refers to the time period from 25 June 1950 to 27 July 1953, and it shouldn't be used to refer to these border conflicts. clayjar (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting those hairs MIGHTY thin. Sukiari (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia, we can't just go making up new wars if it is not in text. The fact of the matter is, the Korean War is still ongoing and thousands of news sources over the years can attest to that. An armistice is basically a ceasefire, but no peace has ever been declared; that being said this is still part of the Korean War...-Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the citation (again): US State Department statement regarding "Korea: Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission" and the Armistice Agreement "which ended the Korean War." If the State Department says the Armistice ended the Korean War, then editors should admit that the Korean War has ended. Saying otherwise, and alluding to thousands of news stories, is letting news media lead readers around by the nose because the media tends to sensationalize each event for their readers. Moreover, a few years ago the nK & sK leaders met and issued joint statements about the situation between the two sides, and they sought to set up a scenario where they could reunite. In the perspective of history, and with inevitable fall of communism, their goal of reunification will come about soon enough. (Indeed, the Koreans were united, briefly, in the Olympics.) Moreover, perhaps the Koreans don't want a peace treaty because that sort of (very much Western) concept would interfere with their eventual reconciliation and uniting. E.g., how can a united nation accept a Peace Treaty with itself? Indeed, such a Peace Treaty might only serve to postpone and complicate the reunification. (And then, without a formal peace treaty, do the parties remain "technically" at war until the moment of reunification occurs? And what if Korea reunifies and never says "this is a Peace Treaty", or what if the nK government simply dissolves so that no Peace Treaty can be signed? Then how does the "technically at war" crowd determine when the war ended?) So, for us (mainly) Western editors to demand a Peace Treaty in order to "super-officially" end the war, especially in our encyclopedia, is to impose cultural values and POV into the articles. And our so doing our POV contaminates the articles --why? It happens simply because we editors say these various post-war incidents are all part of that great big Korean War which we want to continue. Again, State Department says the war ended and so should we.--S. Rich (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The state department espouses a US POV, both South Korean and North Korean governmentss espouse the view that the war is still ongoing. Reunification would end the war through debellation, through the extinction of one of the belligerent polities. The state department does not determine any policy other than US policy, it has no say in the foriegn relations of other polities. I can show you state department documents which contradict official us policy and other us government documents that are completely false in their assertions on a wide variety of issues. No source should ever be regarded as 100% reliable, especially sources that espouse political adgendas.XavierGreen (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Xavier please give sources to support your statement that the SK Government says that the Korean War is still ongoing. I am in SK and despite the shelling being on the news constantly I have heard no such thing. In relation to NK, their rhetoric frequently speaks of SK or US actions as being "acts of war", but if they believe the Korean War is ongoing why would they need to say that as it would be completely self-evident? Again can you please provide sources showing the NK believes the Korean War is ongoing. I have already discussed on your talk page the fact that since WWII most conflicts don't end in a peace treaty or complete destruction of one party and have given the example of Israel, Syria and the Six-Day War to show this. We shouldn't be governed by lazy media reporting that just rolls out a stock soundbite that "the Korean War never ended", every time something happens between NK and SK. regards Mztourist (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to SRich's comments that in addition to the NK and SK Olympic teams march together at the 2000 Sydney Olympics and the 2004 Athens Olympics, NK and SK operate an industrial park at Kaesong (Kaesong Industrial Region) and a tourist resort at Mt Kŭmgangsan (Kŭmgangsan Tourist Region), which has been visited by over 1 million South Koreans by 2005. These facts completely undermine any claim that the Korean War is ongoing. Saying that the war didn't end with the Armistice opens a whole can of worms of other wars that haven't ended in peace treaties. I gave the example of Israel, Syria and the Six-Day War, I am sure we could come up with numerous other examples where to apply the same logic as some authors insist on applying to the Korean War would lead to ridiculous conclusionsMztourist (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The communists and republicans fought together against the japanese during portions of the chinese civil war, just because relations warm between two beligerents does not meant they are at peace with one another or that the conflict between them ends. As for the six-day war, it is just a campaign in the wider Arab-Israeli_conflict. The Syrians and Israelis have been at war with one another in a varying intensity since 1948.XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Xavier, that's the whole point, there has been a Korean Conflict ever since the partition of Korea in 1945. There was a full-on Korean war from 1950-1953 and since then there have been occasional flare-ups, the Korean Conflict is ongoing, but the Korean War is over. Mztourist (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The North did not begin the conflict until 1950. There were two my knowledge two seperate conflicts that the koreans fought previous to the war, the Jeju uprising which partially merged into the Korean War and a low level communist insurgency fought by south korean nationals that was defeated sometime before the war began. The government of North Korea did not begin hostilities until it attacked the south in 1950.XavierGreen (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the above statement after rereading some things, there were several incidents between the two in 1949.XavierGreen (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
For those who believe this war has ended, I cite text directly from the armistice:
The undersigned, the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, on the other hand, in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, with its great toil of suffering and bloodshed on both sides, and with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, do individually, collectively, and mutually agree to accept and to be bound and governed by the conditions and terms of armistice set forth in the following articles and paragraphs, which said conditions and terms are intended to be purely military in character and to pertain solely to the belligerents in Korea.
The key is, "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved"... last I checked no peaceful settlement has occurred, if that were the case then would North Korea sink a South Korean ship, bomb a South Korean island, threaten nuclear war? - I hardly doubt it. You can't replace some state department web page, with an official primary document. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well said indeed.XavierGreen (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, in addition I found this on a navy report that says, "On July 27, 1953, the U.S., China, and North Korea, signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement. However, South Korea refused to sign it, leaving the two Koreas separate and technically still at war to this day". --Marcusmax(speak) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with XavierGreen and MarcusMax. South Korea did not sign the armistice agreement. Furthermore, North Korea stated in May 2009 they will "no longer be bound" by the 1953 armistice (read here). And FYI Mztourist, the term 'Korean Conflict' does refer to the Korean War. But if you want it to be seperate, then I suggest you create the article. Wolcott (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of you seem to be very focussed on the legal niceties of how wars used to end pre WWII and the precise wording of the Armistice agreement, but completely ignore the reality on the ground. Over 1m South Koreans have visited Mt Kumgang, South Koreans commute to work at the Kaesong industrial area, Americans can obtain visas to attend the Arirang Mass Games, does that sounds like a war to you? If so its the strangest one in history.Mztourist (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen you haven't given any sources to back up your claim that the NK and SK Governments regard the war as ongoing. The NK Government does not believe that the Korean War is ongoing, rather their position is that it is over and they won. Here is a quote from the book The US Imperialists started the Korean War, by Ho Jong Ho, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang, 1993, ASIN B0000CP2AZ at page 230: "As the complete failure of the "new offensive" was obvious, the US imperialists had no other choice but to give up the daydream of an "honorable armistice". They turned up at the armistice talks without regard to the prestige of the United States around which the myth of "mightiness" had been crystallized. On July 27, 1953, they fell to their knees before the Korean people and signed the armistice agreement. Thus the Korean war that lasted three years and one month ended in a great victory for the Korean people. The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung said: "In the Korean war, the US imperialists suffered an ignominious defeat for the first time in the history of the United States"." Wolcott I am using Korean Conflict here to refer to the events since the partition of Korea in 1945, if necessary I will create a page. Mztourist (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, please do because the name 'Korean Conflict' simply redirects to the Korean War article. Also, I'd like to see an online source of that book you referred to. If it is true, then perhaps it would be necessary to add "North Korea claims victory" in the result on the Korean War infobox, using that book as a source. Wolcott (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole topic needs to be reviewed and consolidated as there are too many overlapping pages on the North-South dispute. Not sure if the book is available online, you can try this link: I can't check it as that site is blocked here in Korea, or you can order your own copy from Amazon: While Wikipedia adheres to neutrality, I think NK's claim of victory stretches credibility. Mztourist (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To Mztourist: You are assuming that aspects of peaceful relations cannot occur between states which are at war. That is not true. For example, an American citizen, Jane Fonda, visited North Vietnam while it was involved in a hot war with the United States. Negotiations leading to a truce (or not) occur frequently between active belligerents; this requires that the belligerents respect the rights of the negotiating representative of the other side. Mutually beneficial trade, either direct or through intermediaries, often occurs even as war is on-going.
Either a state recognizes the legitimacy of another state and tries to resolve disputes nonviolently, or it attempts to impose its will upon the other state by force. In the first case, there is peace; in the second, there is war. Syria and Israel are at war since Israel holds the Golan Height by force alone, and Syria supports Hezbollah which regularly attacks Israel. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Its arguable whether or not the US and North Vietnam were ever actually at War (taking the strict view that some people like to adopt here). I think most people would agree that there is a big difference between a handful of sympathizers like Jane Fonda visiting North Vietnam and over 1m South Korean tourists visiting Mt Gumgang. North-South relations have veered between open conflict and the Sunshine Policy. Two South Korean presidents have visited Kim Jong-Il in Pyongyang. As detailed above, the North Koreans say the Korean War ended in 1953 (and they won), while no-one has yet provided any evidence that the South Koreans regard the Korean war as continuing. Apart from the two Koreas and the US, the key belligerents have all left Korea, the Chinese "volunteers" left in about 1955 and the UN forces (with the exception of the US) were all gone by the late 1950s Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a few recent examples of direct trade between active belligerents in a war as that would be the only thing comparable to Kaesong. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's one source from Reuters, titled "Koreas seek formal end to Korean War". Here's another from the Associated Press which was posted yesterday in relation to the shelling and I quote, "It was North Korea's way of reminding the world that the war is not over and that ignoring it comes with dire consequences." Wolcott (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wolcott please read the book quote I gave above and there are others I can provide. The North Koreans say the Korean War (or Fatherland Liberation War as they like to call it) is over and they won. The only reason why the North Koreans want a peace treaty now is to try to get more aid and get the US to remove its forces from South Korea. The AP story states "However, neither nation wants another war", if the war is ongoing then surely it should say "this war"?? Please provide statements from the NK and SK Governments that state that they believe the Korean War is continuing. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mztourist, you keep mentioning the special north korean zones. In reality these are increadibly small sections of the country that are set up to gain foriegn revenues. Westerners and South Koreans are not alowed to go outside of the zones. Almost the entire country is kept free from outside influence, especially South Korean influence.XavierGreen (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
XavierGreen the size of the zones is irrelevant, their mere existence when the two countries are supposedly at war is unheard of in the history of war. NK is a totalitarian state with a post-collapse economy, there is a lot they don't want outsiders to see, nothing especially unusual there, the Soviet Bloc was the same. Combined with countless other facts on the ground, it is obvious that the Korean War is over. And you still haven't backed up your claim that the NK and SK Governments both say the Korean War is ongoing. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Its not unheard of at all, its happened previously for example during the Anglo-Swedish_War trade still occured between the two belligerents and the Swedes even allowed the UK to base military forces within their territory. Sometimes war is upheld as a political convience rather than any real belligerent aim between two states.XavierGreen (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
XavierGreen the page itself says that "the war existed on paper only". It was a diplomatic construct to avoid the Continental System, there was no period of active hostilities between England and Sweden immediately before or after. Please provide a more relevant example to back up your argument. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Korean War is not over, and that is an established fact. The so called state department publication is a paragraph long piece from 1995, and seemingly miniscule in comparison to the many other sources that say the war has not ended. Other government documents clearly say the war is not over, and the armistice itself says the war can't be over until a formal peace treaty is signed. This article [41] from the Air Force clearly states, "The armistice was not a peace treaty, thus, technically, the war has not ended.". In addition I posted a similar text from the Navy above; many other editors have also shown reliable sources, and even the armistice itself to prove the war is not over. So unless more substantial evidence other than a paragraph by the state department can be found, there is no need to make a change. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Marcusmax read the quote I provided above, the North Koreans say its over "Thus the Korean war that lasted three years and one month ended in a great victory for the Korean people." If one belligerent says the war is over what does that mean to you? Mztourist (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since Ban Ki-moon himself is quoted in this very article as saying "since the end of the Korean War," that seems to me a pretty strong indication that the War is viewed as having ended long ago. As another editor above indicated, the Korean Conflict may be ongoing, but the Korean War describes a particular series of events in the 1950s, and treaty or no, armistice or whatever, in terms of the view of the historian, it was a certain set of events and circumstances which no longer hold true. Decades or centuries from now (or even today), in history textbooks, the Korean War will continue to appear in the section on the 1950s, and not in the section on the 1950s to 2010s or beyond. LordAmeth (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, if you look at examples like the Hundred Years War.XavierGreen (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
XavierGreen I think you need to accept that wars start and finish a bit differently since the 1450s. As I have said before since WWII numerous wars have ended without peace treaties, but no-one says they're not over. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright name some wars between two soveriegn states that ended without peace agreements or debellation of a belligerent faction. I dont think you will find many.XavierGreen (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Israel and Syria: Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and 1982 Lebanon War, UK and Argentina: Falklands War Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The first three examples from one widely accepted point of view can be considered mere campaigns in a greater Arab-Isreali conflict. The fighting in lebanon especially has continued almost constantly in various levels of intensity to the present day. And there were two peace treaties signed after the Yom Kippur War with jordan and egypt permanently ending hostilities. Though you are correct that there was no peace treaty at the end of the Falkland war, the entire argentine force in the zone of conflict captitulated with the garrison commander of the falklands signing a surrender document.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
XavierGreen what "widely accepted point of view" is that? They're not called "The Six-Day Campaign", "The Yom Kippur Campaign" and the "Lebanon Campaign", they're wars. Peace treaties with other participants is irrelevant, the two sovereign states you asked for are Israel and Syria. No disagreement that the Argentinian commander surrendered, but your whole argument was that wars between sovereign states all end in a peace treaty or debellation, Argentina was hardly debellated and it didn't sign a peace treaty. And I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that the NK and SK governments regard the Korean War as ongoing, despite asking you numerous times to provide this. Mztourist (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Really, there is no "standard" way to start or end a war, so we should not be looking to define one. The Iraq War, for example, is now almost universally called a "War" but never started with a formal declaration, and will never end with a peace treaty. For those of you looking to maintain the highest, strictest standards for defining when a war is over, it would be impossible. Yes, technically the Korean War is not "over" and everyone loves to point out that fact. But suppose the armistice agreement was an actual peace treaty, and history was otherwise the same? North Korea would in 1999 say they were no longer bound by the "peace treaty" and then a few days ago shells the island. Does that mean its the same war re-started? No. Its a different conflict, strategically and logically separate from the actual Korean War that ended in the 1950s. Blazerbryant (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This article will answer your question - [42] the war never ended. CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Read it, doesn't answer anything other than that we should all be grateful we don't live in North Korea. The article actually says at one pint "If the North Koreans were to start an outright war", surely if the Korean War is still going on a different phraseology should have been used? The North Koreans themselves say the Korean War is over and that they won (see above). The US State Department says the Korean War is over. And I have yet to see any credible evidence that the South Korean Government regards the Korean War as ongoing. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the US says it's over - then it must be over, my mistake! Read the first paragraph. CanberraBulldog (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
CanberraBulldog I suggest you read all the preceding discussion, because you obviously haven't. There are numerous articles that reproduce the same lazy soundbite. The North Koreans say its over, the US State Department says its over and there is nothing showing the South Koreans think the Korean War is ongoing. A few authors here are very fixated on the technicality that as there was no peace treaty the war isn't over, but actually there was no formal declaration of war either, so technically there was no war and no peace treaty is required. Of course Australia fought in the Korean War so you could always get in touch with your Defence Ministry and ask them if they think the war is still ongoingMztourist (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Mztourist. South Korea, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Sweden all say North Korea sank the Cheonan. But all it took is for North Korea to deny it for the infobox on the ROKS Cheonan sinking article to remain an incident template rather than a conflict template. Wolcott (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wolcott I really don't follow your point. How does that relate to the Korean War being over or not? With the Cheonan sinking the North Koreans sought to hide behind (implausible) deniability, here they claim that the South Koreans fired first or that its all North Korean territory anyway. Mztourist (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
To Mztourist: You continue to refuse to face the fact that the war never ended because North Korea never abandoned its intention to conquer South Korea by force. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
JRSpriggs that is not in any way a conclusive argument. I have never claimed that the North Koreans have abandoned their aim to achieve reunification (through whatever means) on their terms, indeed its pretty much the only basis for their legitimacy, but that doesn't then mean the Korean War is continuing. If you bothered to read the quote from the North Korean text it is crystal clear that the North Koreans regard the Korean War as over and as a great victory for them. If you read some less biased history of the Korean War you will know that Kim Il Sung was desperate for peace from as early as 1951, because of the destruction being wrought on North Korea, but Mao refused to contemplate it because he wanted to kill more Americans. Mztourist (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Mztourist, all you want is proof that either the NK or SK government said the war is not over, ignoring any quotes from the media. I've to admit I can't find the proof you've been demanding, but here's another source taken from the media yet again, posted about an hour ago. In 1995, South Korea said “North Korea still remains a direct threat to our security,” and that came from the government itself. Is this statement enough for you to take it as "it's not over"? Of course, the president did remove that in 2004, but families of the 46 Cheonan sailors who died are calling for the SK government to "redefine North Korea as the South’s main enemy," again. If you believe the war ended, then perhaps it would help if you go here and tell those Korean War veterans and individuals they're wasting their time. It isn't called the National Campaign to End the Korean War for nothing. Wolcott (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wolcott you can't find statements because they don't exist. Government statements set out the official position, media quotes are analysis , i.e. POV and not necessarily well-researched. Saying that NK remains a threat to SK security is completely self-evident, but that is not the same as saying the Korean War is continuing. The "Main Enemy" designation hasn't been reinstated and even if it were it would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of fact, identifying your potential enemies or strategic threats doesn't mean you are at war with them. If the SK Government thought the Korean War was continuing, the White Paper would presumably say this, as far as I'm aware it doesn't. The opinions of End The Korean War, a US Lobby group are POV and certainly don't outweigh the US State Department's position. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave my final comment with this quote - 'The Korean War stopped for practical purposes in 1953, but technically, it never ended.'[43] the war never ended. CanberraBulldog —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Which makes it as unique as numerous other wars, so merely deserving a footnote in history. The Korean War ended on 27 July 1953, subsequent NK-SK/US incidents are not part of the Korean War. Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Korean War wikipedia page says the war is ongoing. Whether or not that is correct, the debate over whether or not it is ongoing should be on that talk page (and indeed there is a conversation there), not on some random incident's page. It only makes sense to try and keep the wiki consistent across all high profile pages covering the same topic. That said, there are a lot of references for both sides of the argument. The only thing we can agree on is that what was signed in 1953 was an armistice and not a peace treaty, and that South Korea never signed it. It is true that peace treaties are not needed for a war to end, but in all the examples given, the opposing armies marched away from each other and that uniformed soldiers did not kill one another. That has not happened in Korea. Both countries have been staring at each other down the barrels of their guns since 1950 and have exchanged fire. So there is no peace treaty, and there is no de facto peace, so they are still at war. My bottom line, though, is if you want to change this, change it on the Korean War page; that is the correct forum for this argument about the Korean War. (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason why it is being discussed here is because some authors insist on saying that this incident (and all others since 1953) are "part of the Korean War". Your reasoning of "no peace treaty, no de facto peace, so they are still at war" is fundamentally flawed as discussed in great detail above. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Daecheong Second Battle of Yeonpyeong First Battle of Yeonpyeong Battle of Yosu pages also are "part of Korean War." Should we have the same tired arguments on every page? The Korean War article says the war lasted from 1953-Present. There is an active discussion ongoing on the Korean War page about this very topic. The fundamental question we are asking here is if the Korean War is still ongoing, and the current wikipedia stance is yes. That could be wrong, but if you want to change that stance it should be taken on the Korean War page. Finally, as fundamentally flawed as my reasoning may be, I have as yet been unswayed by your arguments. (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The conversation began on this page and has been taken up on the Korean War page, but the discussion has also continued here. I see that your comments above are your first on this debate (unless your IP is a sockpuppet), so if you are able to provide any convincing counter-argument I am more than happy to discuss these here or on the Korean War talk page. Mztourist (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ guys you have way too much time on your hands. I came back here to see if anyone had answered my question and you people have written a small novel debating it. Tl;DR Subtle revenge (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI Subtle revenge, this is an article talk page, not a message board. Go to yahoo answers if you want an answer to your question. (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiding photo with incorrect caption

The caption on the NNSC photo is incorrect. Of the 5 officers shown, one has a brassard reading Military Armistice Commission, one is a US Navy officer, and one is a ROK Army officer. Accordingly, they cannot be members of the NNSC. I've contacted US Navy News Service asking for clarification. Until (or if) they respond, we should not use this photo. (This comment has been added to the WikiCommons page.) --S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)