Talk:Flight of Refugees Across Wrecked Bridge in Korea

Aftermath section
It looks like an editor has added inline notes to this section. To those notes, I'll add that this article is about a photograph and photographer -- not about the diplomatic status between the nK and sK. In fact, the war ended when the United Nations Command (Korea) signed the armistice with the KPA & Chinese PLA. The UNC had authority over the ROK army, and thus ROKA was and is obligated to comply with the armistice. (The armistice ended the war.) Also, the article is inaccurate in that it refers to a news article that is inaccurate. E.g., does this 2010 BBC article say the US is "technically" at war with nK or the PLA? Both articles (WP & BBC) are poorly worded. This political/diplomatic/historical POV stuff should be edited out of this article about photography.--S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The content you are talking about is an explanation why South Korea celebrates the start of the war and not the end (there never was an end to the war). And we need this content to explain why Desfor was at the anniversary so that we can include how he feels about the photograph.  As for whether BBC is accurate, if you can find a link that says the Korean war was ended because the parties signed a peace treaty then you can change the article.  As it stands now this issue falls under Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -- Esemono (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite so -- I'm seeking verifiability, and WP has some info on the Korean War, which has been verified. But I'm really asking what does "technically" at war mean? How do we "verify" such a term? The sources we cite must be reliable and if an article about a photographer goes "out side the lines" and discusses subjects other than the main focus of the article, is that article reliable? Do we take this article and use it in the Korean War article? I think not. Indeed, the information in this section of the article goes beyond the reasons why Koreans commemorate the beginning of the war (which is not the topic of the article) and into the diplomatic or not-so-diplomatic end of the war. So besides the inline notes, I've added by two bits to the discussion. I'm hoping for suggestions on how to edit this portion of the article to remove this poorly referenced stuff and give the reader information useful and pertinent to the topic. (Also, wars end in a variety of means. Armistice is one of them.  In the US, "Armistice Day" was celebrated for years as the end of WWI.)  Thanks for your thoughts.--S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)