Talk:Ten Point Programme for Reunification of the Country

Latest comment: 5 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
WikiProject Korea (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

I have a feeling that the US will allow Reunification if they are certain that they'll be allowed to build bases on the northern half of Korea after Reunification occurs. Then again, I'm just speculating. To know for sure, call the US Embassy in Seoul at (011) (82-2) 397-4114. (If not calling from the US, use your country's International Access Code.)

Of course the US will agree with anyone who willingly let them occupy their country. I am sure North Korea would approve the Letterman Show if they could have a military base in New York City. (No offence, I am proving my point by a joke). --Bjornar 15:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

challenge the neutrality of this articleEdit

i challenge the neutrality of this article.

since when does the US practicing for a north korean invasion constitute provokation?

why shouldn't the US think that north korea wants to invade? they have done so before.

i think chemically armed artillery within range of Seoul would be enough provokation to practice for a full-scale invasion.

this article also implicates that the US is purposely downplaying the existence of this plan.

not to mention, north korean policies should not be taken at face value, they are too often cancelled or "pulled out of." (referring to six party talks.)

I agree. I've added NPOV warning template. I do not know enough on the programme to rewrite the article myself. However, we must take care that we don't make the article to Western in its POV either. Edit with care! --HymylyTC 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. The article itself only mention the 10-point programme which is vital to the understanding of the North Korean official policy on reunification. Therefore, wether you agree with the north korean view or not is irrelevant, since the article is about a specific policy. --Bjornar 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one who made the initial challenge. Although my memory is hazy, I believe the article has gone drastic editing and no longer carries the North Korean sympathetic undertones it once did. If I remember correctly it went into greater detail about the plan and seemed to accuse the US of downplaying its existence. But once again, it seems as someone drastically changed it.Hot.pork 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ten Point Programme for Reunification of the Country. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]