Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on ROKS Cheonan sinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524045335/http://www.seoprise.com/board/view.php?table=seoprise_12&uid=154146 to http://www.seoprise.com/board/view.php?table=seoprise_12&uid=154146
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103061225/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/on_re_as/as_korea_ship_sinks to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/on_re_as/as_korea_ship_sinks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on ROKS Cheonan sinking. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150328224643/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXd_gvnsSEQo&pos=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ROKS Cheonan sinking. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/05/ap_enterprise_sub_attack_came_near_drill/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309130908/http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf to http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.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) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Cumings
Bruce Cumings is not a neutral source, he is a hard left academic who has, over the years, turned himself into an apologist for the North Korean regime. I will rewrite this section or remove it, unless there are really principled objections.Theonemacduff (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Bruce Cumings is a well-regarded scholar on Korea. We shouldn't remove sources because we disagree with them. The sources we use do not need to be "neutral".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't really a question of "disagreeing" with Cumings; he's simply not a neutral source. He is an apologist for the regime, and the tactic he uses is always the same, a version of whataboutism. Note that the two incidents he cites have no detail, just a list of deaths, as if to create an equivalence between whatever happened to cause North Korean deaths, and an unprovoked attack by stealth which caused South Korean deaths. If Cumings is to be used, it would be better to provide more detail on the supposed "context" he is attempting to create. Were those other deaths the result of unprovoked attacks by South Korean forces on North Koreans? As reported, Cumings' idea seems to be, the war is still on, so anything is fair game. That ignores the fact that there is an armistice in place which has terms and protocols for dealing with violations.Theonemacduff (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, whataboutism. Cold War era "argument" to discredit or to be more correct deny any validity of counter-argument as it to those who challenge the narrative. Going back to times of McCarthy and red scare where vast majority of opressed by him and his followers were innocents. You should not talk about facts, specially about armistice when South Korea and the US continuously violate it yet call out North Korea when they do it. Lets ignore when the US placed nukes in South Korea, the latter allowed it and it wasn't just North Korea doing cross border raids, espionage and sabotage. 77.217.151.132 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said, sources don't have to be neutral: WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Cumings is a well-regarded expert, and what he says is notable. Equally, a comment from the North Korean government would be notable. I don't see anything wrong with providing context. With regard to the armistice, it did not provide for maritime boundaries, which is part of the problem here.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)