Talk:Korean conflict

Creation of page

As discussed at the Korean War page and other pages, I have created this page as part of an attempt to rationalise the various pages relating to the Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Other incidents

As part of the rationalisation process, I have been dismantling the "Post-division of Korea incidents" section of the Division of Korea page. Incidents relating to the land or sea border between North and South have been moved to the List of border incidents involving North Korea. As far as I am aware, I have mentioned all incidents that have their own page in this new "Korean conflict" article. The following list are what remains. These incidents are not mentioned on this page (and for the most part they are relatively minor). They do not fit on the border incidents page because they are not related to the DMZ or NLL. With one exception, they are unsourced. I have preserved them here for future reference, because I'm not sure what else to do with them.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Other incidents

• June 1969: A North Korean agent reached Huksan Island, resulting in 15 killed.
• August 1975: Two North Korean infiltrators were intercepted at Gochang County, Jeollabuk-do One infiltrator and two South Korean soldiers were killed and another two South Korean soldiers were wounded.
• November 1978: Three North Korean agents killed two South Korean civilians in Hongseong, one civilian in Gongju, Chungcheongnam-do and another civilian at Osan, Gyeonggi-do.
• November 1980: Three North Korean infiltrators and one South Korean civilian were killed at Whenggando, Jeollanam-do. Six others were wounded.
• December 1980: Three North Korean infiltrators and two South Korean soldiers were killed off the southern coast of Gyeongsangnam-do. Two other South Korean soldiers were wounded.
• September 1984: A North Korean infiltrator killed two civilians and wounded another at Daegu before committing suicide.
• October 1995: Two North Korean infiltrators were intercepted at Buyeo County. One was killed, the other captured.

Maritime incidents

• June 1981: A North Korean spy boat was sunk off Seosan, Chungcheongnam-do, with nine agents killed, 91 injured and one captured.
• October 1985: A North Korean spy ship was sunk by the South Korean navy off the coast of Busan.
• May 1996: Five North Korean naval patrol craft entered South Korean waters off the west coast and withdrew after a four-hour confrontation with Southern forces. Another incident in June 1996 saw three North Korean naval patrol craft intruding for three hours in the same area.
• November 1998: A North Korean spy boat entered South Korean waters near Ganghwa Island but escaped upon detection.

Air incidents

• 19 February 2003: A North Korean fighter jet entered South Korean airspace over the Yellow Sea, the first since 1983. Six South Korean fighter planes responded, and the North Korean plane departed after two minutes.
• 17 June 2011: South Korean soldiers mistakenly fired on an Asiana commercial airplane with small-arms fire; they believed it to be a North Korean military aircraft.

Introduction

The introduction was tagged six months ago without a discussion. If there is no explanation, I will remove the tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

What is the source for the information in the Infobox? The list of Belligerents seems highly questionable, as is the statement that the conflict is part of the War on Terror.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is dubious. Actually I think the whole infobox could very well be removed (it is a fairly new addition, anyway). For the moment I will only remove the parts that are most questionable.

I'll remove the lists of "Supported by:" Almost none of the countries in the list are mentioned in the article. If such a list shall be recreated, each country in the list will have to be mentioned (with source) in the article itself, or has to be sourced separately.

The list of "Commanders and leaders" is useless, since it is only a list of the heads of states in the two countries and gives no information whatsoever about the conflict per se. I will not remove this, but I think we should consider removing that part even if the infobox stays.

I'll also remove "Part of Cold War and War on Terror". The connection to War on Terror is extremely flimsy. The connection to Cold war is somewhat more reasonable, but since the conflict started before the Cold War and has continued for so many years after the Cold War, it is too weak.

The even more recent addition of navboxes at the bottom is just as dubious. I will remove them, two of them per the same rationale as already mentioned and the third because the Korean conflict is not part of the Korean war, it is the other way round. If there was a navbox for "Korean conflict", that could very well be in the "Korean War" article, but not the opposite way. Anyway, all three navboxes are covered by WP:Bidirectional. --T*U (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole thing should be removed. It serves no useful purpose.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And now we are told that China supported the DPRK up to 2014. There is no mention of this watershed moment in the article. This is just a vehicle for lazy editors to put their own idiosyncratic interpretation on the conflict without having to provide sourced text for the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. As it stands it is simply confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Goldfish memory

If the Korean War is the Forgotten War, then the ongoing Korean conflict is a case of goldfish memory. The current "crisis" is (so far) just another uptick in tension, such as have occurred periodically since 1953. In fact, this article was created to provide historical context for these kinds of episodes. During a similar "crisis" in 2013, an article was created called 2013 Korean crisis. However, despite all the sabre-rattling and sensationalism, nothing significant happened, and tensions dissipated over time, and the article ended up being merged to "2013 in Korea". In this article, the 2013 "crisis" is dealt with in two sentences. Unless something exceptional happens, that's the kind of coverage I think we should give the current "crisis" here.

The following things happen routinely: the deployment of US warships and warplanes to the area, North Korean missile and nuke tests, reports that Chinese troops are massing on the North Korean border (unsubstantiated and probably false), fiery North Korean rhetoric (actually all the time), and US talk about military options (actually all the time)... And the list could go on. What Trump has done (so far) is nothing more than what Obama did. So far no one has died, no fire has been exchanged, no lasting decisions have been made, no new strategy has been unveiled. This article covers 70 years, and we should be wary of recentism. When the goldfish has swum on, with the benefit of hindsight, the portion of the article covering recent years (including sentences that I have added) should be trimmed. In the meantime, we should all bear in mind this is a historical article, not a newspaper.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What's new is Japan holding its first ever civilian missile drills.

What's new is the Chinese foreign minister saying that conflict could break out at any moment.

What's new is Air China cutting its Beijing-Pyongyang route and China refusing coal shipments.

In the aggregate this is substantial enough for a subsection -it seems to be more than an uptick in tension in the grand scheme of things. And besides, the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc in 1989, nearly three decades ago. Given the Trump administration especially, I put it to you that we've moved beyond the post-Cold War era. kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's really nothing new unless you have goldfish memory, as the media does. We should avoid writing text on the expectation that something is about to happen. We should write about what has happened, if that is notable. The politics of the conflict hasn't changed since the 1990s. The US wavers between 3 options: the negotiations (like the Sunshine Policy, the Agreed Framework), military strikes, and doing nothing ("Strategic Patience"). Nothing has changed. For all the breathless commentary, the conflict today is much tamer than in the past, as this article shows. With regard to section headings, I think we should wait to see what happens before we give it a name. But I don't intend to edit war about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If and only if there is military action then it'll certainly deserve its own subsection and its own article. The PRC has certainly changed the lay of the land already, and I'm seeing reports now that neither Air China nor Aeroflot are flying into, out of, or across the DPRK. In any case these are early days. Either the balloon goes up or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, there was still considerable diplomatic and military activity worth noting. We can pare down later if necessary. kencf0618 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. On specific points:

• Troops massing on the border: the source cited says, "Both China and the US have pushed back on the claims of troops massing, however". This kind of claim pops up regularly, probably based on someone spotting routine troop movements in Manchuria and thinking they are linked to the Korean "crisis". I don't think this should be included in the article without confirmation that it is true.
• Air China is not actually suspending all flights.[1]

The media loves to drum up a sense of crisis, but we have to zero in on what has actually happened, and often that is basically nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia is citation-driven, whatever your original research regarding "the media." In any case the PLA is shifting some serious assets around, as are we. Take note. kencf0618 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not original research. I gave sources, one of which was the one you are using!!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

PS With regard to the media, I was making a comment, not suggesting an edit to the article. Have a look at Media coverage of North Korea if you want sources. The following articles suggest that war is not imminent:[2][3][4]. And here's another source about troops NOT massing at the border:[5].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(And another article, by Andrei Lankov, arguing that war was not imminent.[6])--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've folded in several of these citations. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I think the main problem is length. This article now has more about events of 2017 than about the Korean War. We cannot have a blow-by-blow, day-by-day narrative in an article of this scope. Either it has to be merged into 2017 in North Korea or something like it, or (if it's notable enough) it needs its own article. In fact, most incidents mentioned in this article have their own articles, and there's hardly a sentence without a link to an article that gives more information. We simply can't go into details. I'm not saying anything has to happen right away, but the situation is unsustainable...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

For this situation to have its own subsection here seems like a good placeholder solution, awaiting developments. Gotten too big for the goldfish bowl. Today alone we've had the Vinson fiasco, a Chinese scholar unusually being allowed to critique the PRC's DPRK policy, and consideration of intercepting a DPRK missile. (Of course I'm speaking as an WP:Inclusionist...) kencf0618 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Vinson Fiasco indicates to me how far away from war we are... A sandbox seems a better placeholder solution...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've set up a stand-alone article: 2017 Korean Crisis. We'll see how this goes... kencf0618 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hope for the sake of humanity, that the article is a flop!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Or rather, that the article is not necessary, à la the 2013 crisis. That said, whether or not the balloon goes up, we are Wikipedians, and we shall document the circumstances and events accordingly. kencf0618 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Srich32977 has folded that article back into this one, on the grounds that it was recentism. I agree, but I think the subsection "April 2017 events" is recentism too. The balloon hasn't gone up — the North Koreans are playing volleyball at the nuclear test site — but this subsection is ballooning. At this rate, it will soon be bigger than the rest of the article combined. Does anyone else want to weigh in?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Even with the BLAR, this article is a manageable 63k. It can be pared down in a week or so when the CRISES subsides. And it will. Witness how the US took care of it. VP Pence visited the DMZ and looked through the big binoculars, just as many, many dignitaries have done so in the past. And the US is not going to take uni-lateral action because the sK government is in a stage of transition. We will soon be able to enact WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't the overall length, but the length of the subsection. If 2013 is any guide, this could go on for months. Having written this article from a historical perspective, I would struggle to put together a sentence on the current episode. I'd vote for summary execution. In the meantime, if people come to this article — and apparently thousands are dropping by — they either think these are momentous events, or they think we're idiots. It's as if the Warren Beatty article was dominated by the Oscars gaffe.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The past is prologue, but the future is nonetheless unwritten. Serious military assets are being shifted around, and God knows what's actually happening diplomatically, but that said I grant you that this subsection falls between two stools. I'm all for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if and when the dust settles and as events warrant. kencf0618 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Carl Vinson has now left the vicinity.[7]--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well.. now North Korea wants to nuke Guam, basically. Are we really that sure that a subsection isn't necessary? MickeyCheeky (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, things have changed. But the previous section/subsection is now obsolete. Carl Vinson has paled into insignificance. And that's the problem. Reacting to heated rhetoric and feverish speculation leads to a bloated chunk of text which soon becomes redundant. The "crisis" has moved on. Let's be clear: North Korea is proposing a missile test with missiles falling in international waters near Guam. While this is inflammatory, it is not an attack on Guam. It may never happen; it may happen and end up being a storm in a teacup. Or it could be the trigger for nuclear war. But it is better to wait and see. We cannot and should not document every North Korean denunciation or every Trump tweet. We need to wait till something concrete happens. This is a historical article, and a chronicle of events as they happen belongs in 2017 in North Korea, not here. History is something you see in the rearview mirror. Yesterday's newspapers end up in the bin. But given the amount of events and the length of the section despite massive trimming, hell, yeah, let's have a new section!--Jack Upland (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And now it appears that the Guam missile test is not going to happen...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the section from "The Trump era" to "Current situation" as there is nothing so far to suggest that the election of Trump is epoch-making for Korea. He is in fact dealing with the same issue — North Korea's nuclear weapons — that Clinton did.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Update for future historians: 2017–18 North Korea crisis has been created, a reincarnation of the earlier article, and a recent attempt to merge it to 2017 in North Korea has failed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

war on terror

The War on terror article notes "President Barack Obama announced on 23 May 2013 that Global War on Terror is over"

The term "War on Terror" should not be applied to Obama-era foreign policy without a reliable source declaring it. -- Callinus (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:War on Terror#North Korea conflict and Obama era rejection of 'war on terror' label -- Callinus (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article apply "War on Terror" to Obama's foreign policy? And many people would say the "War on Terror" continues. (Some equally say it never existed.) However, I think the use of "War on Terror" here is misleading. The citation (now removed) in the problematic infobox (see above) referred to an article that speculates about a potential alliance between North Korea and ISIS, but doesn't mention the "War on Terror". The body of the article does not discuss the War on Terror, nor does it suggest a link between North Korea and Islamic terrorism as far as I can see. The only linkage is the term Axis of Evil. While the Axis of Evil term referred to the War on Terror, this connection and the concept of the "axis" itself was dismissed by many scholars and commentators. I defend the reference to the "Axis of Evil" here because many scholars have seen it as a turning point in American policy about North Korea. However, all it requires is a passing reference, as there has been little or no evidence to substantiate the rhetoric, and the American government itself has not pursued the allegation. At the moment, we have no source which says the Korean conflict is part of the War on Terror, and having surveyed a lot of scholarship in editing this article I don't believe this opinion is shared by the leading scholars in the field.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of World War III?

Last I checked, the Third World War is still a hypothetical conflict that has not happened in real life. So why does this article's information bar say the Korea conflict is part of a "World War III?" Did I miss something in the news? If no such actual war is happening, then that should not be included as we aren't supposed to be speculating such things here.

A comparable situation

I have removed this from the lead:

A comparable situation to that with North and South Korea also existed with the United States and the Soviet Union in 1945-91, with West and East Germany in 1949-72, with North and South Vietnam in 1955-75, and with North and South Yemen in 1967-90, and also still exists today with the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, and with Taiwan and Mainland China, and has more recently started existing with the Syrian government and Syrian opposition, but has never existed with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Island, or with Sudan and South Sudan.

This paragraph in some form has been tagged for needing a citation since August. It doesn't reflect anything in the rest of the article. While some of it is largely true, some of it is questionable, and some of it is irrelevant. It seems to be degenerating into an ever-increasingly series of comparisons with a diminishing relevance to the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

State of the Union

Why should Zack Beauchamp's views on Trump's State of the Union Address be considered notable? I'm sure that there are zillions of experts who have dissected every layer of the speech. Yes, Trump attacked North Korea, but really so what? That's rather routine. All it indicates is that the conflict continues, which we know. It could be a prelude to war, but so could a lot of things, including silence. Unless something else happens, this isn't notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Current situation

The "Current situation" section will soon eclipse all other sections, even though it only started last year. This is a historical article beginning in 1945. Significant events should be summarised. We do not need and cannot accommodate a blow-by-blow accounts of recent events. The article 2017–18 North Korea crisis should be used instead. It is futile to add copious information because sooner or later someone will trim down this section, and that could well be me!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it should be cut down considerably. Most of it is just news headlines that caught peoples attention. Trivial events can be added to 2017 in North Korea. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

We now have a whole paragraph about the US government denying that it was planning a "bloody nose" attack. Like the information about the State of the Union address, this is a copy of what is on the 2017–18 North Korea crisis page. In a long term perspective this is not very notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed, particularly given the current diplomatic detente.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Belligerents

If the belligerents are listed in the infobox, the USA should be among them, as it has been military part of the conflict since its beginning. There has been a continuous US military presence in South Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Belatedly added in.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of Korean Courts.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.]KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.]In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of the Government of the Republic of Korea.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.]KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.]In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

End?

It is way too soon to say the conflict has ended:

• The previous two summits made similar declarations.
• The US-NK summit has not yet occurred.
• There are still US troops in the South.
• There is no peace treaty — not that one is necessary.
• Korea remains divided along the DMZ, with both governments claiming to be the legitimate government of all of Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Jack Upland. The article shouldn't claim that such a thing has happened in the infobox or anywhere else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, why is the start date 15 August 1945, Japanese surrender?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

should also add that even if NK and SK agree to peace, the United States is still a listed belligerent and would need to agree to peace as well. Hopefully this will all happen soon, but not yet. 24.194.174.156 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that signing a peace treaty would necessarily end the conflict. The conflict existed before the Korean War. The conflict has continued decades after the armistice. There is no guarantee that a treaty would end it. The conflict, as this article says, is based on the division of Korea. If that division continues, it is likely that the conflict will continue. My preference would be to simply state what has happened and let the readers make up their minds. Saying the "Korean conflict" is over, because a peace treaty is signed, would really be a prediction. I think we should avoid that, if we go down that path, we need some strong sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

China?

Another problem with the infobox: China is now listed as belligerent. Chinese troops left Korea in the 1950s, whereas US troops stayed. Unlike the US, China has not been involved in any clashes or military incident in or around Korea. China currently has good relations with the South, and has been supporting UN sanctions against the North. Apart from having a defence treaty with the North, I can't see how it is classed as a belligerent...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Change it to "China (until 1958)" so that it's consistent with the Soviet entry, perhaps, Jack Upland? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the Soviet entry says "until 1991" which is when the USSR collapsed. The USSR gave North Korea some covert military support, such as fighter pilots, in the Korean War, but after that I don't believe it was involved in the conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

CIA

I've taken this from the article:

CIA sent agents into North Korea from 1950's to 1970's in attempt to create resistance network in the country and in same period South Korea sent over 7000 "North Korea demolition agents" and targeted Chinese and Soviet military advisers with explosives in attempt to worsen relationship of North Korea with their allies.

It is badly written, and the sources don't seem to support it. If it was improved, it could be reinserted.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• @talk The Korean source supports and was translated by South Korean military enthusiast from Korean to English[[8]]! In 1950's the CIA attempted to create resistance networks in North Korea until 1970's when such operations of sending agents ended, In same time period South Korea sent over 7000 "North Korea demolition agents" to the north, there were attempts to worsen North Korean relations with China and the Soviet Union by targeting its advisers with explosives in the country.

• @User:Jack Upland the information was inserted by a sock IP of User:Chernobog95, a user that has been blocked indefinitely for block evasion via other IPs in the past and whom I have had plenty of hostile confrontations with in the past. The user is from Croatia, according to their geolocation [9], which explains the poor grammar. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-Topic

You have labeled user from Britain as being me. [10] [11] Actually the information was inserted by you. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirliator (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Actually @talk "Removing edits of Sock Ip of Chernobog95" Either he meant the IP of British user or IP I have, the wording implies explicitly former as being me too. Information I asserted that he removed is what the Brit reverted/undo'ed his removal. I meant it for you, not the other one, as Kirliator mentions above, and to prevent further accusations and harassment, I’m closing this argument, as it is off-topic with the actual content of the section. Stay on topic people SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)  Resolved

• • • • • • @User:SamaranEmerald Why did you remove it yet again when another user disputed your removal? You can use me as excuse yet doesn't justify ignoring dispute from another user.

• I translated it into Korean and it says nothing about what the IP said. Kirliator (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• • @talk "One veteran, who asked to remain anonymous, said "We've directly targeted Chinese and Soviet advisors with explosives." Nature of these operations were to worsen the relationship between North Korea and its allies by putting North Korea in a precarious position. He also said "these operations were mostly carried out in retaliation against North Korean provocations." [https://imgur.com/a/SFSuB#uWZpMqHg

It's always good to get information about attacks on the North, rather than just attacks by the North. I have added a sentence from the Onishi article. The "Legacy of Ashes" article barely mentions Korea, and appears to refer to the Korean War rather than the later period. I'm not comfortable about using the Korean source because I can't read Korean (despite the rumours that I am a North Korean military officer) and I can't assess if it is a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Imgur source isn’t reliable either since the site is meant as a photo-sharing blog site and is not scholarly, in addition the anonymous source mentioned is questionable as it technically could be anyone who stated that. Kirliator (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@User:Jack Upland Kirlator is SamaranEmerald, both socket puppets of Hornetzilla78 as is PythonDan too! He lied to you about the Korean source not containing information about south korean "North Korea Demolition Agents", translation was done by reddit user from SK who was military conscript Mojave955. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have incorporated this information in the paragraph which begins, "In 1976, in now-declassified minutes..." This paragraph deals with various raids by SK forces into NK.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Demolition Agents

South Korea ceased sending "North Korea Demolition Agents" to raid the North in the early 2000s.

Can we have a more precise date? Sorry, I can't read Korean. Early 2000s could mean anything up to the present day.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Belligerents again

The current teams of "supporters" in the infobox are:

• United States, Japan, Canada, United Kingdom, and France
• China, Soviet Union (until 1991), and Russia.

I think we need clearer criteria here. Any country that participated in the Korean War could be termed a belligerent, but I would doubt that makes them a belligerent in the wider Korean conflict. Japan clearly has had some conflict with North Korea over the years. The US has always had a military presence in the South, so this is qualitatively different from most of the others. I would question the usefulness of listing Canada, the UK, and France, particularly as they are not mentioned in the article (apart from a brief mention of Canada). I don't believe that Russia has taken a side in the conflict. I think the nature of the conflict makes it difficult to sum up like this. I think there are two options: remove "Belligerents" from the infobox, or remove any listed belligerents if there isn't a justification of their significance (including being mentioned in the article).--Jack Upland (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed Russia, Canada, United Kingdom, and France, as there is no mention of them in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Now Iran is included!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There being no response, and seeing the list of supporters has ballooned further, I have removed the belligerents altogether.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This was re-added as "International support" with no citations. There was no indication what criteria was used to determine whether a country was on the list or not. I have removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless the editors who are adding this information respond on the Talk page, I will revert to a list that consists of the belligerents mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: please go ahead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now done this. As far as I can see, the two lists reflect the supporters mentioned in this article. This is fairly arbitrary (for example, the inclusion of Canada), but I think this is the best way to go about it. At the same time, I have added some material about NK's foreign relations during the Cold War. I believe that the inclusion of East Germany is warranted as they had an agreement for military co-operation. These lists should be parallel to the mentions in the article itself and as such should be treated as fluid. That is, if a country is deemed not very relevant to the conflict, it should be removed both from the text and the infobox. Similarly, if a country is added to the text, it should also be mentioned in the infobox (if it supports either side).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: What would you think of removing the "supporters" sections from the infobox, and putting as "belligerents" the countries that participated militarily in the Korean War? I'm suggesting this for two reasons: (1) "support" is not well-defined (does it mean during the War or just during a minor dispute many years later or perhaps material aid to N or S Korea?); (2) there's been a lot of questionable editing of the support list, especially by Flamingoboomer9000 (currently blocked for 48 hours) and their sock FlamingoBrefan2033, with unsourced additions of many countries such as Togo, Laos, Somalia, etc. that are not referred to in the article. NightHeron (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Korean War. Many countries participated in 1950-1953, but have had very little to do with the subsequent conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Then maybe the "belligerents" lists should also go. The term belligerent normally refers to armed conflict, not peacetime rivalry. As far as I'm aware, the term belligerent was not even used for the US/USSR in the Cold War, because there was never direct armed conflict between the two countries.

If you think the "support" lists should remain, could you give me a definition of what "support" includes and doesn't include? For example, Vietnam is listed as supporting N Korea, which I believe is nominally correct. However, it has far more extensive commercial ties with S Korea than with N Korea, and actually quite good relations with S Korea. Both Vietnam and S Korea have worries about China, so the bond between them is not just commercial. My fear is that the division of countries into supporters of N vs S Korea is full of inaccuracies and is too simplistic. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have never supported these lists (see section "Infobox" above). I don't think they add anything. I don't think there's much problem with the term "belligerents". There has been armed conflict, and not just 1950-53. But that's not the point. I don't think it is very hard to find a criteria for the "support" list. China also has far more extensive ties with South Korea. Russia's position is not easy to define. Yugoslavia's position was complex (see below). I don't think having a close relationship with North Korea (as Seychelles does and Yugoslavia did) necessarily means an involvement in the Korean conflict. Also, I don't think a verbal position really qualifies a country for the list. I think these issues are best explained in prose. I really don't think we should have a list of countries that are not mentioned in the article and which have a very remote involvement in the conflict. This is pointless, and it only serves to create arguments and confuse readers. Therefore I would support removing all lists of belligerents and supporters. I don't understand the enthusiasm for adding these lists, and it is annoying that none of these editors bother to make their case on the Talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I very much agree with your points. I'll remove those lists, and we'll see whether or not we get any pushback. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Cold War doesn't have an infobox, for much the same reasons.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Supporters" was getting out of control again. I have removed the majority per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Some of the remainder might also need to be removed per the comments above, I'll leave that decision to someone else. FDW777 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, since people don't seem to understand, a list of supporters that isn't covered in the main body of the article doesn't belong in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. FDW777 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be a consensus to keep these entries to a minimum IAW MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox should be supported by the body of the article. We don't write the article in the infobox. It doesn't supplant the article. The extensive list that would be added is both unsourced and not supported by the article. Unsourced material can be removed at any time per WP:VER - not withstanding the other issues identified. There appears support that the infobox does not report belligerents in the Korean War but subsequent. I don't disagree though perhaps we should somehow make this clear to the reader though but this doesn't appear to be the present issue. Consequently, I have revered the recent edit to reinstate the list to the infobox. Unsigned: 10:04, 26 February 2022‎ Cinderella157

• Further to that per Template:Infobox military conflict, When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. So even if the lengthy list was covered in the article body, there's no guarantee it would also be included in the infobox too. FDW777 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Why did you remove Australia in the infobox of this conflict. I do hope a debate will be opened on either Australia should be added or not. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I've explained already. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and Template:Infobox military conflict. FDW777 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      • That doesn't really answer my question as the article mentions "Western allies" (which includes Australia) and there are a lot of sources that Australia still continues to support South Korea till this day with the ongoing Operation Argo and with a lot of evidence that Australia is still providing military support to South Korea. That is up to you if you do not wish to respond but I will be starting a separate discussion considering that Australia had strong relations with South Korea. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

The infobox claim that among others, North Korea was supported by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I can not see justification for this claim based on literature. I'm referring to Chul-Min Kim (2009) The View and Understanding of Yugoslavia on the Korean War: An Analysis through Illustrations. International Area Studies Review. I don't know if you maybe have access to other sources, but the above mentioned one explicitly state: p. 48 "Soviet Union and most of East European countries were willing to agree with the argument of North Korea. However, Yugoslavia, from the beginning of the Korean war, tried to take an objective view of the war.", p. 50 "According to other Yugoslavian literature, [•••] attack on South Korea by North Korea was similar to the attack on Yugoslavia by the German Army and the attack on Hawaii by the Japanese army in the Second World War", p. 50 "Actually Yugoslavia was not aligned to any of the blocs in the Korean War, so it was possible for Yugoslavian experts to analyze this matter on an objective basis." There are other similar statements, but I will avoid to cite too excessively here. I think the furthest we can go here is to state that the country was explicitly neutral and critical towards both superpowers.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

However, later, Kim Il Sung became close to Tito, as is now mentioned in the article, so I have included Yugoslavia as one of the supporters. As I said above, I think this list is fluid, and I would be happy to see this removed if the consensus is that it is inappropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the best way is to introduce the third line for explicitly neutral states where we have sources that certain country expressed its position. I know that there were meetings between the two sides, and that official receptions in the North Korea were particularly ceremonial, but as far as I know Tito was generally proposing some informal intermediary role for Yugoslavia. Both countries were part of the Non-Aligned Movement so there might have been some further support/interaction, but as NAM is quite fluid grouping which explicitly was not an bloc (for example there was even Iran–Iraq War) we would actually need some more specific sources. For example, this RTS video report (unfortunately not in English) shows certainly the most spectacular welcome, yet commentator at the same time explains how Tito presented North Korean side with the message he received from Jimmy Carter before his trip. In a way, engagement is not necessarily support/approval, particularly for a country which developed quite intense Cold War period relations all around the world and insisted on what it called as the active neutrality (non-alignement). Now again, of course I may be wrong and you may have access to some other sources.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Australia as a supporter of South Korea

I had decided to start a separate discussion on either we should add Australia or not. Considering that there are a lot of sources about Australia supporting South Korea though military means from the 1950s till this day, I think this is a good time to debate on whether we should add Australia or not. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read and understand MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't provide any thoughts about whether we should add Australia or not. We can add info about Australia's involvement in the conflict. There are incidents such as the Pong Su incident. As I stated before, there are hundreds of articles that proves that Australia supported South Korea. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We have had several discussions above about whether we should include long lists of supporters and the consensus is not to. I don't see any evidence to support Australia being included here. Please note there is a separate article on the Korean War. The Pong Su incident was a drug importation case, so I don't think that fits here. Operation Argos which I think you are referring to above is part of an international effort to enforce UN sanctions involving "Australia, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States". There is nothing to say that Australia is key to this "international effort".Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I did provide thoughts. The status of Australia is not a "key fact" that already appears in the article. Australia dooesn't even get mentioned in the entire article, the closest it gets is the claim while South Korea was backed by the United States and its Western allies refers to Australia. Even if that sentence was amended to include Australia, a one-word mention is still not a "key fact". Also, I previously referred to Template:Infobox military conflict which says When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. FDW777 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

South Korean leader

Yoon hasn't been inaugurated yet, so I'm not sure that he should be listed as ROK's leader before May 10th. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo as a supporter of South Korea

Kosovo as a supporter of South Korea 2600:1702:360:9A0:68A6:59E5:2DE9:2674 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Philippines as a supporter of South Korea

Philippines as a supporter of South Korea Jonathan555568 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Date range?

Is the beginning date for the conflict determined by some kind of academic consensus? I'd personally argue the conflict started even earlier than 1948; maybe even 1945. Just months after Liberation, there were state-sponsored covert militant efforts to undermine each others' governments. Assassination attempts, funding militant groups, infiltrations, etc. toobigtokale (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for this. I would say 1945.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I’m not sure there’s a specific source that I can point to (most that I’ve seen don’t separate out a specific entity specifically called the ‘Korean conflict’), but I’ll keep an eye out and return once I find one. toobigtokale (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

“He called for physical symbols such as the Arch of Reunification, which he called an "eye-sore".” 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes to unification policy

Having four paragraphs essentially about one speech is excessive. Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it so importarted for the United States to rememember the Korean conflict 2603:6011:8701:9D90:D1D4:137:1B0:C70 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Trash balloons

As noted on my other discussion on talk:List of border incidents involving North and South Korea, can someone please add the fact that North Korea has started sending balloons carrying literal garbage across the border to its southern neighbor? Can that be mentioned either here or in the aforementioned list (or both)? Please? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added something to Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I had absolutely ZERO idea that article even existed. Otherwise, there would have been a talk page entry there. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Korean War III

October 2024. Create a page about the Third Phase of Korean War Since Q4 2024 Korean War III. 178.214.251.29 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)