Talk:South Korea–United States relations

message: I removed a recently-added section (below) about Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre from South Korea-United States relations because it is not relevant to the "Historical background" section of the article. As well, the event has had little impact--as of early May, 2007--on ROK-USA relations. Americans, including Korean-Americans, have typically viewed Seung-Hui Cho as an individual hello :)  who acted on his own accord (see National Association of Korean Americans). Seung-Hui Cho's actions were not carried out on behalf of the South Korean government or South Korean people. Many Korean-Americans said they did not feel responsible for Seung-Hui Cho's actions--especially after Tae-Shik Lee, the South Korean ambassador to the USA, publically spoke about his personal feeling of "agony" and his "apology" on behalf of South Korea and all Koreans for Seung-Hui Cho's actions (see this Washington Post article and this bilingual Korean-English article from Naver News in South Korea).
Johngoranson 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Section

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

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

message: Quite big headed & ignorance man. NYT is not a proven academic source. Newspaper source is just secondary source. It is not a primitive source.
You have quite solution of this dispute
# Ask to Any korean
# Find any Korean dictionary
# Find any Korean book, newspaper, and all of Korean language publishing.
twigi is hybrid, not a animal. Hybrid and Animal are completely difference things. 
The NYT article was not 100% wrong. original meaning of twigi is "hybrid". Yes, like NYT mentioned, one of the meaning of twigi is "hybrid animal". But, twigi is also meaning "hybrid human", "hybrid of any species". NYT writer forget fact that twigi have no meaning of animal.
I already said, Twigi is not refer to "animal", it it "hybrid". NYtimes made shocking gossip. NYtimes is newspaper. Newspaper is not always credibls source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Don't made up new definition.
According to any kind of Korean dictionary, and korean myself. Twigi is "hybrid", not animal itself.
660gd4qo (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually looked at the guideline you're linking to? I suspect not. The New York Times is held to be one of the standards of a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newspaper writer is not a scholar or Korean. every single newspaper gossips are credible sources? And dictioncary (academic source) is widely regarded as standards of a reliable source than newspaper. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Most of us are aware of that, and the NYT is assumed to have done that level of checking (as a RD) - it is also reporting a Korean National by the way, it may even be her translation  --Snowded TALK  22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already point out newspaper translated wrongly. If Russia newspaper translate "hybrid" as animal. Do you think this russia newspaper is 100% proven fact, it is more reliable than most englsih dictionaries? Even russia newspaper's new definition is more credible than Americans common knowledge? I point out newpaper writer is not a god. foreign newspaper(NYT) wrongly translate korean language. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twigi 

message: Please summarise the reasons (with evidence) for the two tags placed on the article.  If no valid reasons are given then they will be removed.  --Snowded TALK  19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not ok.  Spamming the article with tags like this makes it unreadable.  The article, before and after recent edits, is POVish.- Sinneed 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

text:  Further, since "South Korea" has only existed since the split with "North Korea" (and NK still says there is no such entitty), the 19th century bit is specious.  I am unwilling to revert this, as it was little more accurate before, but it is presently a mess.- Sinneed 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the 19th century bit is specious. Oh, i agree.660gd4qo (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Its not enough just to list four opinions - you have to say what aspects of what are POV, OR etc.   For example you made one change (the animal point) saying that the material was not in the source.  Checking the sources its there in clear language.  You are simply not credible unless you are specific and pay attention to sources.   I'm not wild about the article as it stands, but your mass edits have just made it worse.  After you were blocked I recommend you find a mentor to help you.  I repeat that suggestion.  --Snowded TALK  19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but, You know nothing this content topic. provide any evidence.660gd4qo (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea who much I (or any other editor) knows about a topic.  You are required to follow process. If you tag an article then you have to list your arguments and evidence for those tags.  --Snowded TALK  20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Now, what unsourced facts are in dispute? --NeilN talk to me 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: many. WilliamWater is basically heavy POV user. some description is still POV and inaccurate. collecting every single POV news as references are also POV. but, the newspaper sometimes made up their story. and gossip is not always credible source. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NYT is held to be a reliable source so that one is not gossip.  Any more?  If not (and you need to be specific) the tags are not valid --Snowded TALK  22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: A POV tag is not a fact tag.  And I find WilliamWater's edits no more POVish than yours. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV tag still needed. Article still have POV forking problem. collecting every single bad news of Korea as references. POV problem. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not being specific.  You are just making statements as to your opinion.  Examples and arguments please or it goes --Snowded TALK  22:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no more opinions.  We need counter-examples with sources. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Stop attacking other editors.  Please list what you think is POV with reasons - if you are not prepared to do that then I am removing the tag. --Snowded TALK  22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pardon me. You think You did not attack me? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: And his(WilliamWater) POV edit is problem, not me. I will provide several FACT/evidences which his/her POV edit is wrong. wait.660gd4qo (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just worked to stop you edit warring, if you want to regard that as an attack fine.  Now list those reasons  or the tag goes.  I'll happily wait, but you need to stop edit warring in the meantime --Snowded TALK  22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: And more. --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Thanks. But, I tired today. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  I already mentioned he picking up every single insane POV sources. that is the POV source problem. You really think US "occupied" Korea at that times? Other source (US govt. site. Korea govt. site. School textbook, etc. encyclopedia) does not say so.  Same logic, Japan was occupied by US at that times? btw,  I'm not a jobless man. i must go to sleep. see you next times. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Every single insane POV sources" to describe the NY Times is exactly something a POV-pusher would say. And it doesn't matter what you or I think. Reliable sources describe it as an occupation. --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. if I find another word of this from NYT newspaper, then that word become "invalid", right? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. --NeilN talk to me 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

message: Do we have a better source on this?
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/war-games-to-check-china/211331.html
The unprecedented, large-scale US-ROK joint military exercise ‘Invincible Spirit’, where elements of Japan’s Self-Defence Forces participated, has seen the deployment of firepower on such a massive scale for the first time in 34 years in the region.
Hcobb (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invincible Spirit 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/rok/2010/rok-101123-rianovosti02.htm
South Korea will not seek the return of U.S. tactical nuclear missiles over fears that the move could scupper international efforts to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear program, South Korean deputy defense minister Chang Kwang-il said on Tuesday.
:So I reverted myself. Hcobb (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea is not going nuclear 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704211009/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/rok_040209.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/rok_040209.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114212950/http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/339 to http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/339
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122043401/http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/bilateral/military/eng_military4.asp to http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/bilateral/military/eng_military4.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528004923/https://seoul.usembassy.gov/113_061209.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/113_061209.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123070720/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvalsUS_Mar11_rpt.pdf to http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvalsUS_Mar11_rpt.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: I've noticed a small problem with the placement of the citations in the first paragraph of the "Historical background" section. 
I added the paragraph, taken from a reliable public-domain source, here: . The citation given covers the entire paragraph. However, soon after,  added a couple of "citation needed" templates: .  provided a citation, but the problem now is that the original citation looks like it only covers the last sentence, rather than the whole paragraph. Since I don't have access to the cited book and don't know what it says, I'm not sure how best to deal with it. I'd rather avoid breaking up the paragraph if possible, maybe by using a WP:CITEBUNDLE. --IamNotU (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you can do to correct would be great  I'm a bit remote at present. As you can see, the page is still suffering the after effects of some silly sockpuppetry and POV activities. Nickm57 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I could just put it back the way it was before, but I hesitate to delete the citation you added. If you could give me an idea of what it actually says, I could probably move it to the end of the paragraph with a note about what it covers. No rush, it's only a minor issue, but it would be good if it didn't appear that most of the paragraph was unsourced, when it is. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah - the Martin Gilbert ref. I see. Nickm57 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  So P782-3 of Gilbert covers the emerging post-war tensions, on P.783 the liberation from Japan and division of Korea by "the victors". Also, the breakdown in US-USSR talks on Korean reunification in May 1946 because of their disagreement on what constituted a "democratic government". So yes, the citation can easily be put at the end of the para.Nickm57 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , I ended up splitting the paragraph into pre- and post-war, and moved the citations accordingly... --IamNotU (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation placement in "Historical background" 

message: *China signs defence agreement with South Korea as US angers Seoul with demand for $5bn troop payment telegraph.co.uk 18 November 2019 Julian Ryall
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/us-breaks-off-talks-with-south-korea-over-costs-of-military-alliance/2019/11/19/949773d8-0a9b-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html
*U.S. breaks off defense cost talks, as South Korea balks at $5 billion demand reuters.com 18 November 2019 Joyce Lee, Sangmi Cha, Hyonhee Shin
X1\ (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  add negotiations?