Talk:South Korea–United States relations

Removed Section

I removed a recently-added section (below) about Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre from South Korea-United States relations because it is not relevant to the "Historical background" section of the article. As well, the event has had little impact--as of early May, 2007--on ROK-USA relations. Americans, including Korean-Americans, have typically viewed Seung-Hui Cho as an individual hello :) who acted on his own accord (see National Association of Korean Americans). Seung-Hui Cho's actions were not carried out on behalf of the South Korean government or South Korean people. Many Korean-Americans said they did not feel responsible for Seung-Hui Cho's actions--especially after Tae-Shik Lee, the South Korean ambassador to the USA, publically spoke about his personal feeling of "agony" and his "apology" on behalf of South Korea and all Koreans for Seung-Hui Cho's actions (see this Washington Post article and this bilingual Korean-English article from Naver News in South Korea).

Johngoranson 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with the removal of below text Vedek Wren (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed Text

On April 16, 2007, a South Korean gunman kills 32 people in the Virginia Tech massacre in Virginia, United States. Although South Korea is extremely upset over the fact that the shootings have been carried out by a Korean, President Roh Mu-hyun has said that he feels sorry for the shooting.

The shootings are not expected to strain relations of South Korea and the US but there have been worries that there might be revengeful acts carried out against Korean communities in the US.

New president!

Lee Myung-bak advocates a stronger alliance with the USA! Contralya (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

US Embassy in Seoul

I have a picture of the US Embassy in Seoul, would it be a helpful addition to this article? Vedek Wren (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WilliamWater

First off, The Original Research and Content forking are not acceptable in wikipedia.

• Wikipedia:Content forking

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

This questionable editor newbie account, WilliamWater is cleary throw away account for this topic. Picking up every single bad image of Korea-US relations, and making heavy POV article. Full of Its edit is heavy POV, forking and Anti-Korea POV editing.

The United States, and the Soviet Union vying for the Korean colony upon Japan's loss of the war.

>> History description is heavily POV, original research, also no source. Also, The United States and Soviet Union never saw Korea as "colony".(Is it possible under the UN?) What is the colony? Just WW2 allied force located there, it is not a automatically become "colony".

the United States occupied the southern half of Korea and the Soviet Union the northern half.

>> History description is heavily POV, original research, also no source. Also, The United States and Soviet Union never "occupied" Korea. This is POV word and original research.

"Not until the 1980s did the South Korean economy start to boom, and the U.S.-Korean relationship switch to being primarily economic. However, 30,000 American troops remain in South Korea today, their presence is controversial, for reasons of race, environmental damage, and historical role in atrocities. Trade issues such as a dispute over tainted beef are current."

>> The Original Research and POV. the U.S.-Korean relationship NOT switch to being primarily economic. Also, American troops remain in Japan, too. their presence is controversial? (POV), environmental damage?(POV), historical role in atrocities?(POV) Trade issues such as a dispute over tainted beef are current(POV -unlie taiwan Korea permit US beef. Trade issue is no more exist. also, Japan and Taiwan also have same trade issue with US.)

• "After World War II, the United States occupied the southern half of Korea"

>> Again, They never "occupied" South Korea. This description is heavily POV, original research

• The U.S. divided Korea

>> When US divided Korea? The Original Research and heavy POV.

• When the Soviet-supported government of Korea in Pyongyang decided to invade the American-supported government in Seoul, the United States quickly moved to save the southern half of the peninsula.

>> POV and wrong. UN force fought against to communist force.

• Modern South Korea section. "Japanese occupation, Racism, Beef controvercy"

>> The only desribe NEGATIVE relation. heavy POV and content forking. Again, A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative viewpoints.

660gd4qo (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are pretty much a single purpose editor yourself. Wikipedia works from sources not opinions. You are best proposing changes here and showing your sources rather than returning to the edit warring which won you your previous block --Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't personal attack. I want discuss topic. Also, My account created long before this edit. Not single purpose editor as your claim. I have a right reason to point out, POV, original research, hoax edits. even i violated 3rr before. 3RR is not relation with my content topic.660gd4qo (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Address the content issues not other editors. Outline your changes here and indicate why you think they are valid. I gave you the warning as you came straight back from a block and carried on with your previous behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You just ruined my edit. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost 99% of its content are high POV and questionable.660gd4qo (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove original research parts

I removed these Original Research (based on own POV) descriptions.660gd4qo (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Not until the 1980s did the South Korean economy start to boom, and the U.S.-Korean relationship switch to being primarily economic. However, 30,000 American troops remain in South Korea today, their presence is controversial, for reasons of race, environmental damage, and historical role in atrocities. Trade issues such as a dispute over tainted beef are current." (No references, POV, Original Research)

• Since "South Korea" has only existed since the split with "North Korea", the 19th century relation is is no relation this topic.

• From 1948 to 1988, South Korea was controlled by right-wing military dictatorships with only brief respites of democracy. The Korean people expected the United States support democracy movements in the country, but it valued stability more and so kept good relations with the dictatorships. (No references, POV, Original Research) : It was not right-wing. In addition, military dictatorship only existed in 1970s~1988. kept good relations with the dictatorships? (POV. Original Research)

• When the Soviet-supported government of Korea in Pyongyang decided to invade the American-supported government in Seoul, the United States quickly moved to save the southern half of the peninsula. However, Communist revolutionaries had support in South Korea. The 7th Calvary Regiment of the United States helped the anticommunist government by killing 400 civilians in the suspected dissident stronghold village of No Gun Ri, thereby ensuring ideological conformity.(No references, POV, Original Research) : 1. American-supported government? POV and Original research. And the UN force move to South Korea, Not only US force.(US force was one of them). US force killing 400 civilians? Did US force entering Korean war for only killing civilians? POV and Original Research.

• with United States troops occupying the southern part and Soviet troops occupying the northern part. (POV. Original Research) : This is not true. After ww2, US and allied force temporary moved to South korea. And goverened south korea for 4 years. But, It is not a "occupying". It is not goverened by one country. After the UN rule, It is impossible occupying other country.

Korea was partitioned after WWII (as was Germany) and it was a military occupation and government. --Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"occpuying" word is not a suitable word for this. 1. The "occpuying" word sound like a "conquering". 2 . South Korea govt. and people accepted WW2 allied force govt. 660gd4qo (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• A focal point of tensions between the United States and South Korea is Korean racism.(POV and Original Research. Even if it was true, it was not widely regarded as fact)

It's neither - source --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• this created "a mix of envy and loathing" of white Americans.[13] : a mix of envy and loathing? can't find one single word "enny" or "loathing" from reference.

• NYTimes wrong report. The "twigi" is NOT animal. According to Korean dictionary, twigi(튀기)= 혼혈 [混血, race mixture][1] (in Korean)

• Korean-English Dictionary[2] (in English)

튀기(twigi) : a half-breed; a half-blood; a hybrid; a cross; a crossbreed

We put in what reliable sources state, "Their children were shunned as “twigi,” a term once reserved for animal hybrids, said Bae Gee-cheol, 53, whose mother was expelled from her family after she gave birth to him following her rape by an American soldier." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. It is not a animal. This word mean, half-breed of "all species" (not only animal but also human). At least, One thing is clear, It is not direct meaning of animal.

YOu can change "animal" to "animal hybrid" if you want - but don't delete it. --Snowded ^TALK 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out this is not direct meaning of animal. This word mean, half-breed of "all species" Believe me. I'm a Korean. I know this word mean more than foreign NYTimes newspaper If you still doubt ask to any Korean wikipedian.660gd4qo (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss this here but you need to stop with the wholesale reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Twigi

Quite big headed & ignorance man. NYT is not a proven academic source. Newspaper source is just secondary source. It is not a primitive source. You have quite solution of this dispute

1. Ask to Any korean
2. Find any Korean dictionary
3. Find any Korean book, newspaper, and all of Korean language publishing.

twigi is hybrid, not a animal. Hybrid and Animal are completely difference things. The NYT article was not 100% wrong. original meaning of twigi is "hybrid". Yes, like NYT mentioned, one of the meaning of twigi is "hybrid animal". But, twigi is also meaning "hybrid human", "hybrid of any species". NYT writer forget fact that twigi have no meaning of animal.

I already said, Twigi is not refer to "animal", it it "hybrid". NYtimes made shocking gossip. NYtimes is newspaper. Newspaper is not always credibls source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Don't made up new definition. According to any kind of Korean dictionary[3], and korean myself. Twigi is "hybrid", not animal itself.

660gd4qo (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the guideline you're linking to? I suspect not. The New York Times is held to be one of the standards of a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper writer is not a scholar or Korean. every single newspaper gossips are credible sources? And dictioncary (academic source) is widely regarded as standards of a reliable source than newspaper. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources (2nd reliable) include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Most of us are aware of that, and the NYT is assumed to have done that level of checking (as a RD) - it is also reporting a Korean National by the way, it may even be her translation --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I already point out newspaper translated wrongly. If Russia newspaper translate "hybrid" as animal. Do you think this russia newspaper is 100% proven fact, it is more reliable than most englsih dictionaries? Even russia newspaper's new definition is more credible than Americans common knowledge? I point out newpaper writer is not a god. foreign newspaper(NYT) wrongly translate korean language. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, Again, I tired. The Twigi is not direct meaning of animal. It is hybrid of "all species"(human, animal, etc) NO korean say, "I catch a animal" as "i catch a twigi". (nonsense word) ............enough already. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

twigi have NO meaning of animal. 660gd4qo (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Please summarise the reasons (with evidence) for the two tags placed on the article. If no valid reasons are given then they will be removed. --Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. POV
2. Unverfified source
3. Original Research
4. Hoax (not many, but little) 660gd4qo (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo, this indiscrimate mass tagging is not helpful. Please desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not ok. Spamming the article with tags like this makes it unreadable. The article, before and after recent edits, is POVish.- Sinneed 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your tags as they were disruptive. I'm amenable to adding some back in judiciously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, since "South Korea" has only existed since the split with "North Korea" (and NK still says there is no such entitty), the 19th century bit is specious. I am unwilling to revert this, as it was little more accurate before, but it is presently a mess.- Sinneed 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

the 19th century bit is specious. Oh, i agree.660gd4qo (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not enough just to list four opinions - you have to say what aspects of what are POV, OR etc. For example you made one change (the animal point) saying that the material was not in the source. Checking the sources its there in clear language. You are simply not credible unless you are specific and pay attention to sources. I'm not wild about the article as it stands, but your mass edits have just made it worse. After you were blocked I recommend you find a mentor to help you. I repeat that suggestion. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but, You know nothing this content topic. provide any evidence.660gd4qo (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea who much I (or any other editor) knows about a topic. You are required to follow process. If you tag an article then you have to list your arguments and evidence for those tags. --Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag

Now, what unsourced facts are in dispute? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

many. WilliamWater is basically heavy POV user. some description is still POV and inaccurate. collecting every single POV news as references are also POV. but, the newspaper sometimes made up their story. and gossip is not always credible source. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

NYT is held to be a reliable source so that one is not gossip. Any more? If not (and you need to be specific) the tags are not valid --Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A POV tag is not a fact tag. And I find WilliamWater's edits no more POVish than yours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV tag still needed. Article still have POV forking problem. collecting every single bad news of Korea as references. POV problem. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not being specific. You are just making statements as to your opinion. Examples and arguments please or it goes --Snowded ^TALK 22:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no more opinions. We need counter-examples with sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if you see the WilliamWater edit, this newbie account is serious heavy POV pushing troll. Really serious POV forking edits.

• Before WilliamWater edit[4]
• After WilliamWater edit [5]

I guess WilliamWater is throwaway account, He/She is a probably nationalistic mainland Chinese who dislike Korea and America. He edited several tibet independence activist article.[6] 660gd4qo (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors. Please list what you think is POV with reasons - if you are not prepared to do that then I am removing the tag. --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. You think You did not attack me? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And his(WilliamWater) POV edit is problem, not me. I will provide several FACT/evidences which his/her POV edit is wrong. wait.660gd4qo (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just worked to stop you edit warring, if you want to regard that as an attack fine. Now list those reasons or the tag goes. I'll happily wait, but you need to stop edit warring in the meantime --Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Describing relationship tensions (with sources) in an article about relations is not POV pushing so you might as well drop that notion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I point out a number of inaccurated edits. (eg. twigi is not animal. US occupied Korea? ...etc.) It is hard to says WilliamWater version based on fact. by the same way, You can make US as dictator country by Russian newspaper. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And others disagree with your interpretations. Please point out inaccuracies with the current version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source describing the U.S. occupation of Korea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. But, I tired today. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned he picking up every single insane POV sources. that is the POV source problem. You really think US "occupied" Korea at that times? Other source (US govt. site. Korea govt. site. School textbook, etc. encyclopedia) does not say so. Same logic, Japan was occupied by US at that times? btw, I'm not a jobless man. i must go to sleep. see you next times. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Every single insane POV sources" to describe the NY Times is exactly something a POV-pusher would say. And it doesn't matter what you or I think. Reliable sources describe it as an occupation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. if I find another word of this from NYT newspaper, then that word become "invalid", right? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave the POV tag alone until 660gd4qo gets back from his block to discuss it (with examples I hope, not opinion and not conjecture about another editor's motives) but I think the fact tag should go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and someone needs to revert the change to the NYT quotation - I am at the limit of reverts! --Snowded ^TALK 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo, I am more sympathetic to your POV than you think. You noticed that I also edited articles on Tibet. Those articles suffer from severe systemic bias not least because the anti-Chinese Tibetan community in India, by virtue of their location, speak English, and most Chinese (and Tibetans in China) don't. However, I don't speak Korean, so I am limited to English language sources, which is not as bad for this article since it is about South Korea-United States relations. If you have excellent Korean language sources that you would like to contribute, there are guidelines for it.

I don't think the issue of mixed-race people in Korea is unimportant. It's given the proper weight in U.S.-Vietnam related articles. About the specific epithet for them, your understanding of the language is original research. Korean-American relations before the division are worth mentioning: I cite Sino-American relations and Indo-American relations as examples of partitioned states whose full diplomatic histories did not disappear with regime change. Now I never thought that I would have to find citations for the most basic and uncontroversial facts of history, such as the postwar occupation of Korea. I will find them and re-add them at my leisure. WilliamWater (talk) Splittist (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Since the advocates of the neutrality tag have not explained why they consider the article to be POV, and the discussion now appears to be cold, I will now remove the tag. If anyone wants to replace it, please first explain what neutrality issues remain. TFD (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Invincible Spirit

Do we have a better source on this?

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/war-games-to-check-china/211331.html The unprecedented, large-scale US-ROK joint military exercise ‘Invincible Spirit’, where elements of Japan’s Self-Defence Forces participated, has seen the deployment of firepower on such a massive scale for the first time in 34 years in the region.

Hcobb (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

South Korea is not going nuclear

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/rok/2010/rok-101123-rianovosti02.htm South Korea will not seek the return of U.S. tactical nuclear missiles over fears that the move could scupper international efforts to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear program, South Korean deputy defense minister Chang Kwang-il said on Tuesday.

So I reverted myself. Hcobb (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic Relations

The only thing in the content page's 'Economic relations' section is a link to another article. How about deleting the section and moving the link to 'See Also'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on South Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704211009/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/rok_040209.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/rok_040209.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114212950/http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/339 to http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122043401/http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/bilateral/military/eng_military4.asp to http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/bilateral/military/eng_military4.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528004923/https://seoul.usembassy.gov/113_061209.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/113_061209.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123070720/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvalsUS_Mar11_rpt.pdf to http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvalsUS_Mar11_rpt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidents of US abuse

An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading with the text "The following describe incidents where South Koreans were raped, molested, or murdered by Americans" yet these are not related to the topic. These include the murder of student Hae Min Lee whilst studying in Maryland in 1999, the killing of South Korean boxer Jee Yong-ju by his South Korean neighbor in 1985, and an accusation of sexual harassment against a US based academic. The murder of Yun Geum-i by a US serviceman in 1992 does not demonstrate any point relevant to the heading. So I am deleting this section.Nickm57 (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous. So according to your 'logic' a US serviceman killing a South Korean has nothing to do with 'Incidents of US abuse'? Nick, I'm starting to find your edits really disturbing and might file a report to ANI if you continue to censor information and make disruptive anti-Korean edits.Jarvis Maximus (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

US Military Comfort Women

An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading and listed abusive and derogatory terms for prostitutes with a variety of links, some to blogs and some to academic texts. None however, justify these as being significant or widespread enough to include here. So I'm deleting these. Nickm57 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what Nickm57 thinks, the info seems fine and well-cited to me. Jarvis Maximus (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing

This article obviously has a very long history of being subject to POV pushing, and sloppy editing. I've tried to clean this up, but it would help to have other well established and constructive editors keep an eye on it. Nickm57 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically you seem to be the one doing the anti-ROK pov pushing by censoring information. I can only warn you to be careful with your accusations and edits as they can come back to haunt you.Jarvis Maximus (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Censorship and anti-Korean pov pushing by Nickm57

See above three sections and comments.

I side with General Lincoln and Alexkyoung's edits; I kept some of nick's edits, but overall there is a disturbing pattern of deletions and strong pro-US and anti-ROK sentiment with nick's disruptive edits; makes one suspect that he is a sockpuppet of User:Likuu or User:Syopsis.Jarvis Maximus (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Then make a report on your suspicions! I will enjoy reading this as I travel through a country where WP is not available! Nickm57 (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring Nick.General Lincoln (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear and missile diplomacy

I have added a section with this heading and introduced THAAD. This also means the later section on opposition to THAAD makes more sense to the reader.Nickm57 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation placement in "Historical background"

I've noticed a small problem with the placement of the citations in the first paragraph of the "Historical background" section.

I added the paragraph, taken from a reliable public-domain source, here: [7]. The citation given covers the entire paragraph. However, soon after, Alexkyoung added a couple of "citation needed" templates: [8]. Nickm57 provided a citation, but the problem now is that the original citation looks like it only covers the last sentence, rather than the whole paragraph. Since I don't have access to the cited book and don't know what it says, I'm not sure how best to deal with it. I'd rather avoid breaking up the paragraph if possible, maybe by using a WP:CITEBUNDLE. --IamNotU (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Anything you can do to correct would be great IamNotU I'm a bit remote at present. As you can see, the page is still suffering the after effects of some silly sockpuppetry and POV activities. Nickm57 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nickm57, I could just put it back the way it was before, but I hesitate to delete the citation you added. If you could give me an idea of what it actually says, I could probably move it to the end of the paragraph with a note about what it covers. No rush, it's only a minor issue, but it would be good if it didn't appear that most of the paragraph was unsourced, when it is. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ah - the Martin Gilbert ref. I see. Nickm57 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So P782-3 of Gilbert covers the emerging post-war tensions, on P.783 the liberation from Japan and division of Korea by "the victors". Also, the breakdown in US-USSR talks on Korean reunification in May 1946 because of their disagreement on what constituted a "democratic government". So yes, the citation can easily be put at the end of the para.Nickm57 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nickm57, I ended up splitting the paragraph into pre- and post-war, and moved the citations accordingly... --IamNotU (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

add negotiations?

• China signs defence agreement with South Korea as US angers Seoul with demand for $5bn troop payment telegraph.co.uk 18 November 2019 Julian Ryall
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/us-breaks-off-talks-with-south-korea-over-costs-of-military-alliance/2019/11/19/949773d8-0a9b-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html
• U.S. breaks off defense cost talks, as South Korea balks at $5 billion demand reuters.com 18 November 2019 Joyce Lee, Sangmi Cha, Hyonhee Shin

X1\ (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

image

can someone make a better image showing south korea and the us across the pacific ocean rather than on opposite sides of the map? STIK2009 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)