Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United Nations Security Council Resolution 82


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 82

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

This is an article on international relations which chiefly concerns the Korean War. Let me know if anything is missing, as once again no other articles of this type have been promoted before. — Ed! (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Request to close I'd like to take another look at this article and make a few more fixes and expansions to it before bringing it to ACR again. — Ed! (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments It's great to see a good quality article on this kind of topic. I don't think that this is at A-class level yet though, and I have the following comments:
 * The first sentence of the article "United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 was a measure drafted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950." is a bit weak - the key feature of the resolution was that it was adopted, not that it was drafted.
 * Switched words. — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "the democratic Republic of Korea under Syngman Rhee" - I don't think that Rhee's government qualifies as being called "democratic" in any meaningful sense
 * Reworded to reflect the situation a little better. — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 'United Nations' is linked twice in the 'Division of Korea' section, and should be abbreviated to UN after its first appearance
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When was General Assembly Resolution 112 passed?
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "North Korea sent a letter to the UN denying the legality of its activities" - should this be "denying the illegality of its activities"?
 * No, the North Koreans were saying that the UN was illegal. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The attack was particularly to Truman" - what's meant by this? - I think that there might be some words missing
 * Added a word. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth expanding upon the Soviet Union's attitude to the UN and its security council at this time as this was rather important and involved more than just "procedural disagreements"
 * "US President Harry S. Truman ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to connect with US Army General of the Army Douglas Macarthur, who was in charge of US forces in the Far East." - what's meant by 'connect'? Was MacArthur not talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It seems a bit colloquial when applied to a military chain of command.
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should briefly explain what Security Council Resolution 88 involved.
 * Do you mean 83? If so, fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea" - which UN-member countries other than the US sent troops into Korea within days of the UN authorising this? I thought it took several months for non-US ground troops to arrive. Various British Commonwealth countries had warships off Korea shortly after the war began, and the Australian No. 77 Squadron RAAF flew sorties out of Japan, but these weren't "troops".
 * Changed to "Within days, ships and aircraft from several nations, as well as the first major formations of US troops, were moving into South Korea" to reflect this better. The first major British ground unit was the 27th Commonwealth Brigade but they weren't on the ground in Korea until about September. Major formations of US troops were there within a week. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's Colum Lynch, and why do his views need a full paragraph? Have any other foreign relations writers or historians discussed the significance and results of this resolution? The wording of the paragraph on Lynch's views is also uncomfortably close to what's in his article at times.
 * To my great frustration, I can't find any subsequent analysis of the resolution other than "it was a victory for the US" and what Lynch wrote. I've been looking for anything else I can find breaking down the merits of the resolution in hindsight. As for the wording, as complicated as the issue is, I'm having trouble wording coherent alternatives. — Ed! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made spot checks of Appleman 1998, and turned up a fair few problems I'm afraid:
 * References 1b and 1c don't support what's cited to them - it appears that you need to cite a broader page range of Appleman 1998, as page 2 (of the online version, at least) doesn't support all that material.
 * Hmm. I put those there without looking because the GA reviewer wanted the cites repeated every sentence. Ganged page numbers to 5 and 4, respectively. — Ed! (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 doesn't support what's cited to it
 * Changed it to page 5. — Ed! (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The online version of Appleman doesn't match up with what's cited to page 36 in references 10a and 10b (this appears to discuss only the US response to the start of the war)
 * Changed it to page 35. — Ed! (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Appleman, p. 37 states only that the resolution was "amended", and so doesn't support the statement that it received only "minor amendments". The reference also doesn't state how long the discussion took, so doesn't support the statement that "The UNSC debated the resolution briefly"
 * Made the wording vage to satisfy the source. — Ed! (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Appleman p. 38 doesn't directly support the statement that "North Korea virtually ignored the resolution, and none of its military forces were slowed or halted; its government gave no response" - the relevant page on the online version is focused on the US mobilisation and further UNSC actions, and mentions the North Koreans only in passing. It doesn't mention whether the North Koreans did or did not respond to the resolution. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm taking that statement out until I can find the reference that makes that assertion. — Ed! (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In addition to what Nick says, which I endorse. Unlike Nick, I have a hard copy of Appleman. It matches the online copy.
 * The newly-formed United Nations recognized the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country Firstly, the UN was formed back in 1945. Secondly, it did not recognise the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country, but only of the part where elections were held (ie South Korea). Not surprisingly, your source does not back up your assertion.
 * I see. Re-reading the source material, I think I just misunderstood the sentence, "The General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 December 1948 recognized the lawful nature of the government of the Republic of Korea and recommended that the occupying powers withdraw their forces from Korea "as early as practicable." Removed that sentence. — Ed! (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * the UN stated in General Assembly Resolution 195 on December 12, 1948, that the nation was to be established under the South Korean government as soon as possible No, the UN very definitely did not do that. The Republic of Korea was recognised only as the legitimate government of South Korea.
 * Fixed to "one government" per the above misunderstanding. — Ed! (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * just as similar incidents had brought on the second world war Capitalise "second world war".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union's delegate had boycotted all UN meetings because of procedural disagreements earlier in the year. Soviet diplomat Yakov Malik had been personally ordered not to attend the UNSC meetings It is not made clear that Malik was the Soviet ambassador to the UN.
 * Clarified. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He authorized MacArthur to send ammunition and supplies to the Seoul-Kimpo area escorted by US military units This fails to inform the reader that said ammunition and supplies were in fact already en route. Also, they were bound for Pusan, not Seoul-Kimpo. You have misread Appleman, p. 38
 * Fixed and clarified. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With the ineffectiveness of the warning What warning? UNSCR 82? On North Korea?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 I know the reader can click, but you should say what this was about.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea True, at least the part about the US troops; but very misleading. Truman had ordered them in before UNSCR 83 was adopted. This would later be held up as an important precedent for US action without UN approval.
 * Reworded this per above. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (I note in passing that Colum Lynch (the Washington Post's UN correspondent) gets it wrong; UNSCR 82 did not cause the Soviets to return and start vetoing.)
 * I think he's not referring just to UNSCR 82 but 83, 84 and the other resolutions related to Korea which aligned the UN against Soviet interests. — Ed! (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote from Truman may lead the reader into the impression that the UNSC endorsed his reasoning, but it did not.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You pass over the legality of Truman's actions.


 * Some other things I qwould like to see in the article: At the moment it seems rather America-centric. I would like more about the reaction of countries to the resolution, particularly the Britain and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.