![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 66.68.63.196 ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 94.101.220.16 ( talk) 08:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are all Korean Standard Time. clayjar ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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? 90.219.225.84 ( talk) 12:30, 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 211.212.98.131 ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Initially, The Chosun Ilbo reported 200 shells according to the headline of this link: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/11/23/2010112301235.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=top&Dep3=top, "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 hellopik@chosun.com, 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)
What exactly were these? Ground attack? Recon? Air superiority? I think I have only seen the media mention repositioning aircraft. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 18:44, 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)
Here is the link to the video sourced by the local government CCTV fed through Yonhap CDN server: http://yonhapnews.hvod.nefficient.co.kr/yna/201011/MYH20101124000100038_WMV700Kbps.wmv. clayjar ( talk) 19:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The text doesn't mention the houses damaged, the burning hills or the firefighters and equipment brought over by boat. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the section reads:
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)
"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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( T• C• G) 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. -- Plasma Twa 2 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The symbols on the map in the infobox should be explained. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 98.185.246.165 ( talk) 08:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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: http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?article943 "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."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/a-line-in-the-sea-divides-the-two-koreas/ "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)
A few more sources: http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/182nd_issue/2002071305.htm (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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
= http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101124_dispatch_importance_koreas_northern_limit_line - 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. = http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_sangview.asp?menu=c10400&no=386165&rel_no=1 - 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)
Demogorgonite ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo ( talk) 12:02, 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". http://shindonga.donga.com/docs/magazine/shin/2006/05/16/200605160500006/image/200605160500006_3.jpg 660gd4qo ( talk) 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Demogorgonite ( talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
Accordingly, They "respected" this line. 660gd4qo ( talk) 12:49, 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]
You can not agree this fact? 660gd4qo ( talk) 14:00, 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)
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)
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 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)
Artillery rockets of 122mm was used in the shelling by North Korea. Not exactly sure if this is counted as 'shells'. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/11/26/2010112600744.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/25/korea-shelling-i-felt-something-fly-over-my-head-and-then-the-mountain-just-caught-on-fire-115875-22738792/ LionFlyer 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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 99.48.75.121 ( talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the distance between the islands? Probably belongs in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 ( talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
To use official military terminology wouldn't "Bombardment of Yeonpyeong" be more appropriate than "shelling"?-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 03:28, 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. 97.81.126.252 ( talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, Yonhap just provided me with another public domain photo related to this event: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shelling_of_yeonpyong_b.jpg. 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)
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)
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. 99.41.50.90 ( talk) 07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors, please note yesterday's story about sK asking for US nukes (possibly) for added deterence/protection. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/South-Korea-Could-Seek-Deployment-of-US-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons-109819069.html 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)
@S. Rich, check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/23/carroll.cirincione.korea/index.html?hpt=T1. I think the keyword here is "hype" in response to your first message in this section. clayjar ( talk) 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 98.244.55.118 ( talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Many foreign govt. officials (with International voices) pointed out Chinese foreign policy. 660gd4qo ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the nuclear domino effect claim from Korea govt. official.
660gd4qo ( talk) 17:47, 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]
- ^ Praveen Swami (23 November 2010). "Why North Korean strike will not trigger World War Three". The Telegraph.
- ^ US warship's arrival sends message to China on Korea November 25, 2010. Hindustan Times
- ^ North Korea threatens more attacks on South 25 Nov 2010. The Telegraph
- ^ Only China can tame North Korea Nov 26, 2010. Dereck Burney. Globe and Mail
__ meco ( talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg was restored in the infobox here. Its removal from the infobox was accompanied by a straightforward edit summary:
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:
In this narrow context, somewhat more flexibility is needed. The image was removed a second time,
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)
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 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)
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)
I agree with Mztourist. We should create a separate category for "Korean Border Conflicts" akin to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea&action=edit. 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)
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)
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 conclusions Mztourist ( talk) 01:22, 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)
www.korea-dpr.com/users/uk/US%20started%20Korean%20War.pdf I can't check it as that site is blocked here in Korea, or you can order your own copy from Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/US-imperialists-started-Korean-war/dp/B0000CP2AZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290586426&sr=1-1 While Wikipedia adheres to neutrality, I think NK's claim of victory stretches credibility. Mztourist ( talk) 08:19, 24 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)
This article will answer your question - [42] the war never ended. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:42, 26 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).
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. 98.244.55.118 ( talk) 20:26, 2 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)
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)
How far away are the islands from each other? -- Alfred Klose ( talk) 01:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
All 3 sources cited in the "casualties" section point out that 5 have died, thus attaining a Hero medal. Shouldn't the casualty numbers be fixed to 5? 180.170.116.10 ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 66.68.63.196 ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 94.101.220.16 ( talk) 08:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are all Korean Standard Time. clayjar ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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? 90.219.225.84 ( talk) 12:30, 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 211.212.98.131 ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Initially, The Chosun Ilbo reported 200 shells according to the headline of this link: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/11/23/2010112301235.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=top&Dep3=top, "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 hellopik@chosun.com, 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)
What exactly were these? Ground attack? Recon? Air superiority? I think I have only seen the media mention repositioning aircraft. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 18:44, 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)
Here is the link to the video sourced by the local government CCTV fed through Yonhap CDN server: http://yonhapnews.hvod.nefficient.co.kr/yna/201011/MYH20101124000100038_WMV700Kbps.wmv. clayjar ( talk) 19:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The text doesn't mention the houses damaged, the burning hills or the firefighters and equipment brought over by boat. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the section reads:
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)
"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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( T• C• G) 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. -- Plasma Twa 2 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The symbols on the map in the infobox should be explained. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 98.185.246.165 ( talk) 08:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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: http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?article943 "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."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/a-line-in-the-sea-divides-the-two-koreas/ "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)
A few more sources: http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/182nd_issue/2002071305.htm (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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
= http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101124_dispatch_importance_koreas_northern_limit_line - 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. = http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_sangview.asp?menu=c10400&no=386165&rel_no=1 - 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)
Demogorgonite ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo ( talk) 12:02, 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". http://shindonga.donga.com/docs/magazine/shin/2006/05/16/200605160500006/image/200605160500006_3.jpg 660gd4qo ( talk) 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Demogorgonite ( talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
Accordingly, They "respected" this line. 660gd4qo ( talk) 12:49, 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]
You can not agree this fact? 660gd4qo ( talk) 14:00, 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)
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)
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 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)
Artillery rockets of 122mm was used in the shelling by North Korea. Not exactly sure if this is counted as 'shells'. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/11/26/2010112600744.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/25/korea-shelling-i-felt-something-fly-over-my-head-and-then-the-mountain-just-caught-on-fire-115875-22738792/ LionFlyer 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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 99.48.75.121 ( talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the distance between the islands? Probably belongs in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 ( talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
To use official military terminology wouldn't "Bombardment of Yeonpyeong" be more appropriate than "shelling"?-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 03:28, 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. 97.81.126.252 ( talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, Yonhap just provided me with another public domain photo related to this event: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shelling_of_yeonpyong_b.jpg. 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)
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)
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. 99.41.50.90 ( talk) 07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors, please note yesterday's story about sK asking for US nukes (possibly) for added deterence/protection. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/South-Korea-Could-Seek-Deployment-of-US-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons-109819069.html 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)
@S. Rich, check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/23/carroll.cirincione.korea/index.html?hpt=T1. I think the keyword here is "hype" in response to your first message in this section. clayjar ( talk) 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 98.244.55.118 ( talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Many foreign govt. officials (with International voices) pointed out Chinese foreign policy. 660gd4qo ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the nuclear domino effect claim from Korea govt. official.
660gd4qo ( talk) 17:47, 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]
- ^ Praveen Swami (23 November 2010). "Why North Korean strike will not trigger World War Three". The Telegraph.
- ^ US warship's arrival sends message to China on Korea November 25, 2010. Hindustan Times
- ^ North Korea threatens more attacks on South 25 Nov 2010. The Telegraph
- ^ Only China can tame North Korea Nov 26, 2010. Dereck Burney. Globe and Mail
__ meco ( talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg was restored in the infobox here. Its removal from the infobox was accompanied by a straightforward edit summary:
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:
In this narrow context, somewhat more flexibility is needed. The image was removed a second time,
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)
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 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)
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)
I agree with Mztourist. We should create a separate category for "Korean Border Conflicts" akin to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea&action=edit. 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)
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)
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 conclusions Mztourist ( talk) 01:22, 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)
www.korea-dpr.com/users/uk/US%20started%20Korean%20War.pdf I can't check it as that site is blocked here in Korea, or you can order your own copy from Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/US-imperialists-started-Korean-war/dp/B0000CP2AZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290586426&sr=1-1 While Wikipedia adheres to neutrality, I think NK's claim of victory stretches credibility. Mztourist ( talk) 08:19, 24 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)
This article will answer your question - [42] the war never ended. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:42, 26 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).
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. 98.244.55.118 ( talk) 20:26, 2 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)
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)
How far away are the islands from each other? -- Alfred Klose ( talk) 01:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
All 3 sources cited in the "casualties" section point out that 5 have died, thus attaining a Hero medal. Shouldn't the casualty numbers be fixed to 5? 180.170.116.10 ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)