Talk:2013 Korean crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename article

I think the title of this page should be "Korean Crisis of 2013" in order to further distinguish it from previous incidents on the peninsula. At the moment the title of "Korean Crisis" on its own does not provide sufficient info.

• Support We have North Korean nuclear crisis that currently redirects to an article about their WMD, and as the current crisis had a nuclear dimension to it, this may be worth considering. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support I don't mind "of 2013". But I feel that the bulk of the present crisis is a continuation of the buildup of tensions (such as Yeonpyeong attack and Cheonan sinking), and of the conflict over nuclear weapons, which has been ongoing for several years. So while key events like UN Security Council Resolution 2094 and the annulment of the armistice fit this year, the overall situation dates back further. Abstractematics (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support "2013 Korean Crisis" is much better, and would get strong support fromme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sje46 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I was thinking on proposing exactly the same change. "Korean Crisis of 2013" seems to be the best title for now. It is always possible to change the name again later. Dentren | ^Talk 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Semi-support: I recommend renaming it to 2013 Korean crisis, as it involves both Koreas, not just the north. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support "2013 Korean crisis", both Koreas are involved. —SPESH531Other 21:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above and WP:NPOV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as "2013 Korean Crisis" per NPOV (no "North") and naming conventions (year first). Ansh666 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Shouldn't this be 2013 North Korea crisis? This isn't the first nor the last.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well according to CNN, this is the North Korea crisis. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 08:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, most Google search results come up for "Korean crisis". Jmj713 (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You can't decide the title by what result name comes up. It's unofficial. But with North Korea crisis, the name is coming from an official source, CNN. You understand what I'm saying right? JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 09:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Of course there's no official name, but the BBC has "Korean crisis": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22020105 And Google search results outweigh in its favor, it seems. Jmj713 (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Of course it needs a date designation of some kind. There's been dozens of "crisis" like this in the past 60 years. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it is a bit POV for the title to be "North Korea Crisis (2013)". There are two sides to this crisis, so I propose that the page be moved back to "2013 Korean Crisis" as it was previously. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not often we see the North Korea's the victim POV card being pulled... NPOV's a stretch. I'm mildly sympathetic to Philpill's point... although when a "crisis" is entirely manufactured by one side what else do you call it? Practically this is a decent placeholder name until hindsight lets us pick a better name. This also applies to worries about a particular year being the designator (although it's not an issue in this instance since the events are contained within 2013). Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• 2013 Korea(n) Crisis has my preference. We don't call the Taiwan Strait Crises "China Crises" either, despite the PRC being the main aggressor. The most neutral thing to do is to refer to the location, which is the Korean peninsula or simply Korea. --NFSreloaded (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: On 6 April, JCRules performed a cut-and-paste move from 2013 Korean crisis to "the page true title" [sic]. I've undone this action. —David Levy 22:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Crisis implies an imminent conflict and seems a bit too elevated and media driven. To me the verb-age 'brinksmanship' seems more accurate to this date considering the deliberate engagement rather than dismissal by South Korea, Japan, and the US. I'd call it 2013 Brinksmanship on the Korean Peninsula. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:4241:9D3A:BB5B:FF38:2E59 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• North Korea Crisis (2013), 2013 North Korea Crisis, or simply North Korea Crisis. Why was this renamed to 2013 Korean crisis? The event is usually referred to as the North Korea crisis. Soffredo (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are a few sources which refer to it as the Korean Crisis ([1] [2] [3]). So your statement is not really true. Plus it breaks NPOV for the page to be called "2013 North Korean crisis" as that name implies that North Korea exclusively is responsible for the recent tensions, which is not exactly true. The page should be moved back to "2013 Korean Crisis". --Philpill691 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Again, late to the conversation, whoops. It seems that within the US some sources are calling it "North Korea(n) Crisis" (CNN domestic writers, TIME, etc.), while others in and out of the States (CNN International, Washington Post, BBC, news.co.au, RT, etc.) drop the "North" so it's only "Korean Crisis". Considering that as a belligerent, the US would like to put all of the blame on NK, while others are staying neutral in the conflict (even if they are US allies), shouldn't NPOV dictate dropping "North" and staying with 2013 Korean Crisis? I will admit I'm still a bit shaky on NPOV, but this is the best interpretation I can come up with in this case. (Note, I'm from the States myself.) Ansh666 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Dropping watermelons to pick up sesame seeds.98.249.6.212 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • So? Ansh666 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I say that the consensus enough, that '2013 North Korean crisis' violates WP:NPOV and '2013 Korean crisis' is a better alternative, to return to '2013 Korean crisis', the state it was at before it was changed clearly against consensus to '2013 North Korean crisis'. The arguments for keeping the current state or a similar state is that some, but not all, news sources use '2013 North Korean crisis' or similar names to describe this event, and that North Korea 'did everything'. Also note that several translations of this article use the term 'Korean peninsula crisis' or something similar. Travuersa (talk) (edits) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I say keep it as "North Korea Crisis." Why? Where is it happening? North Korea. The name has nothing to do with fault, rather the location it's taking place. I suppose one could argue that it's also affecting nations OTHER than North Korea, but then it looks like we're going to have to call it the North Korea-South Korea-USA-China-Japan Crisis, and then we can argue about the order of the names too. After this, let's go to the Cuban Missile Crisis page and argue NPOV on that too, because it was known as the October Crisis in Cuba and the Caribbean Crisis in Russia. Until North Korea launches a missile that leaves North Korea, the entirety of the crisis is in fact stemming from that country, their fault or not. This also completely follows with other above logic used to argue against it, including the "Taiwan Straits Crisis." Even if the USA is the aggressor here, it's still happening in North Korea. 2001:468:C80:4341:ED26:3FE9:2F3B:418E (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As for this hogwash that it's US bias in calling it the "North Korea Crisis," I guess it was conveniently ignored exactly all the other nations that are too: US [4] (oh, and Reuters [5]), New Zealand [6], UK via BBC [7], Independent [8], AND Telegraph [9], India [10], Israel [11], Australia [12], oh and look at this, both China [13], AND KOREA [14]. So how exactly is it non-official or US biased? As some of these sites are ones that have also been used to claim "Korea Crisis" or "Korean crisis" as the norm. Maybe that's just a shortened form of "North Korean Crisis?" Either way, clearly it's notable, so if you don't want to move it back, it should at least be noted that it's "also known as the North Korea[n] Crisis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:4341:ED26:3FE9:2F3B:418E (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, screw this. I'm going to let someone else deal with the hostile IP here. (and besides, just look at the votes above. do you really think you're going to change the consensus this way?) Ansh666 21:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Now I'm somehow hostile because I provide counter points with sources? I haven't updated, vandalized nor changed the page, and I'm not interested in registering a user account, as, you know, this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." But don't get fed up just because I don't accept your, in my opinion, clearly lopsided reasoning. I'm not interested in changing any consensus because the opinions of Wikipedia editors don't exactly amount to much in my world. In the end, evidence is evidence, and I've supplied more that there are plethoric references to this event as the North Korea crisis, in fact, I've provided more evidence than the contrary side. Have a nice day.2001:468:C80:4341:ED26:3FE9:2F3B:418E (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Nah, check your tone. Try to be nicer about it, or you might get into real trouble someday. You have a nice day too! Ansh666 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | By the way, since I just saw this, I'd suggesting stopping while you're ahead. Doubt anyone wants to continue this, though. Ansh666 00:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "The place is North Korea." I say, if anything, the place is the Korean Peninsula. There is hardly a place involved because it's all diplomatic jabbering. Sure, missile sites have been placed, but some of those sites are in Japan. Some are in Guam, Some are in Korea. So it's a diplomatic situation, predominantly among the Koreans, hence "2013 Korean Crisis." Travuersa (talk) (edits) 10:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Cuban missile crisis." I've always understood that the name of the crisis was suppose to be "The Crisis about the Missiles which belong to Cuba," and not "The Crisis in Cuba about Missiles," so it may or may not be a 'location' name. Travuersa (talk) (edits) 10:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan Straits Crisis as an example." The Taiwan Straits Crisis, as far as I can tell, did involve physical locations being taken and invaded. So that would be more like the Falklands War. Seeing this, there is probably a legitimate reason to not call it a 'crisis', but a violation of WP:NPOV takes precedence. If you want to create a renaming section for that idea, feel free, but the primary purpose of this one is to remove the WP:NPOV violation. Travuersa (talk) (edits) 10:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• In retrospect- as I suggested earlier, was this a 'crisis' or theater 'brinksmanship'? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Being that it was mots commonly referred to as the "Korean crisis"/"North Korean crisis" I'm going to go with crisis. — -dainomite   03:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree - even if this was just brinkmanship, it was mostly referred to in and out of media as a "crisis", so the title should stay. Ansh666 04:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the overview section of this page calls the 12 December 2012 rocket launch to be the beginning of increased tensions, an assertion which I agree with. However, the infobox contradicts that, saying it started in January 2013, as does the title of this article, "2013 Korean crisis". Should we rename it "2012-2013 Korean crisis" and fix the date in the infobox? I wanted to ask you guys before making any changes. Blee395 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that it was close enough to 2013 (and most media coverage, at least in California, started after 2013) that making it 2012-2013 would be unwieldy and an unlikely search term. Just my thoughts. Ansh666 17:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

organization of article

Article should be organized this way:

Background: briefly summarize NK/SK relations, development of nukes, Kim Jong Un's ascension to power.

Timeline of Events: Broken down by month.

Response: with sections for the governments of United States, South Korea, and China, as well as the South Korean populace (who seem pretty ho-hum about it)

Motivation: A section on the oft-wondered motivation behind the current crisis...why are they doing this, etc.

Just an idea, thanks. --Sje46 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect problem

Korean crisis redirects to this article, but Korean Crisis redirects to Seikanron. Soffredo (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed now. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fix the references

The setup of the references are out of place. I suggest that you go to "Cite" when editing and just insert the information. The organization should be named at "Publisher" not "Work". Also, please use DD/MM/YYYY format, spell the month out. Example: 09 September 2014. Thank you. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox?

Seeing that no shots have been fired and no combat has taken place or anything why are the countries listed as Belligerents? I find this NPOV when it comes to countries such as China as they have not stated that they were at war with North Korea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't work. More appropriate infobox please. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, this is a perfectly valid infoxbox for this type of event, which does involve the military of the involved countries. A similar event was the Cuban missile crisis. Jmj713 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

See: WP:OTHERSTUFF, for the Cuban missile crisis, 1 aircraft was shot down 1 aircraft was damaged and 1 pilot was killed. Although it is small its still considered combat this is not, no shots have been fired its been a war of words nor have countruies such as China or the United States have declared themselves belligerents here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rough on this issue and am open for discussion about a possible infobox that can be used as yes it is very helpful to the article. I just don't think a military conflict one is the right way to go at this time though as it has been just a war of words and no sources are calling this a battle. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it should be reinstated. The Korean War itself is still technically ongoing, first of all. Secondly, North Korea has said it's now in a "state of war" with South Korea. There are numerous military personnel and equipment involved already, which the infobox can list. The infobox gives a clean quick view of who's involved, etc. I would think this infobox fits well with the current article. Maybe another could be used, I don't know, but it fits anyway. Jmj713 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

* I have re-instated the infobox following Spanish Wikipedia's lead. If Cuban missile crisis can have a military conflict infobox when there were no shots fired, then by that rationale, so can this crisis. Julius Know (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Again WP:OTHERSTUFF, Article X has it so that means that this one should too is your only argument as well as Wikipedia x has it so this one should too (The spanish Wikipedia has all sorts of articles that the english encyclopedia does not), where are the sources saying that the countries are Belligerents or that the countries are at war? I feel that it is NPOV to declare this battle-like when nothing has happened. Oh and shots were fired during the Cuban Missle Crisis, an aircraft being shot down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • No, you are wrong and in any case, wait and see if they move to war. --209.188.41.250 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

****Well, ok, there may have been one shot in the Cuban missile crisis, but there is a long history of the occasional shot here and there with North Korea. We really need an "international crisis" infobox for articles like this to get it completely articulately correct. Spain has one. Julius Know (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • We cant assume the countries are going to goto war and we shouldn't say that countries such as Japan and the United States are at war when they aren't now, Wikipedia goes by sources per WP:V not what we think may or may not be true. (WP:OR). Again im sorry to point out but you are going on about what other things have, lets focus on this article, yes there has been a long history of border incidents, who is the one calling them part of the Korean War and which ones are not? If its someone on Wikipedia then this isn't good as it has no backing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems only one person really is against having an infobox. In this case the consensus seems to be in favor of having one. The editor has already reverted the addition of the infobox numerous times. I do believe this is against the rules. I think the infobox should be reinstated. Moreover, the infobox does nothing like suggest the countries are at war. It provides information on who is involved, and since the militaries are involved here, it's perfectly fine to have the infobox. Jmj713 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

*****I am not assuming they are going to war, just that they are engaged in a "military conflict" - even if this is just a war of words with a few military exercises. It's still a conflict of words with military involvement. There is no wording in the infobox that is entirely incorrect, all parties listed are being belligerent even if it's all sounds and no action. Equally, who is calling the one U2 plane shot down around the time of the Cuban missile crisis part of the Cuban missile crisis? I am sure that would still have the infobox if that plane hadn't been shot down. On that basis I am putting the infobox back and taking it to 3RR. Julius Know (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a couple days late to this conversation, but I was a bit taken back when I saw the "war" infobox. I can understand why it's there, though. Ansh666 20:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't really under what all the fuss is about. The military conflict infobox makes sense, although no combat has occurred, militaries are heavily involved. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Should dates be bolded?

I don't think that it is necessary to have the dates written in bold. It disturbs me because bold text usually refers to the name of the topic-at-hand. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 23:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be bolded, and the offending paragraphs should be revamped according to Wikipedia:Proseline. Not it. Travuersa (talk) (edits) 00:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done-Ansh666 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If a war were to occur

If a war were to occur, would this article be moved into a new one, or stay separate to acting as a "leading-up" event? Soffredo (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be a standalone article with a "leading-up" section on the war article that summarizes this article... and the lead-up to the "war" should it occur. That's just my two cents though. — -dainomite   21:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it would be merged into the new article about the war, as a subsection? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a war article would have such a large "lead-up" section as this entire article, as 77,000 bytes. Especially with sections of the article like the timeline and international reactions. A summary of this article would be sufficient I think. — -dainomite   22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality writing in reactions

A lot of the text in the "International Reactions" section is poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect, and/or nonsequitur, example from Russia: '[...]also noted that "in principle negatively see any measure of parties in one way or another increase tension. course, judge the situation by bellicose statements-which, incidentally, are not only from Pyongyang, but by the specific measures that either party can perform. then take a position".' There is a lot of unintelligible text and some without references.

• I removed the text from the page some time ago for the very same reason, but people added it back on. It's quite frustrating. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Probably due to a direct machine-translation or it was written by somebody who does not speak English natively. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Second Korean War

North Korea announced plans to launch tomorrow. This means war. Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Until actual fighting occurs we cannot assume that the two countries are at war. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You do know that the Second Korean War has already happened, right? Soffredo (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No launch. Besides, see WP:CRYSTAL. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews interview

The external link to the interview at Wikinews has been removed recently. Any chance of getting it back into the article? – Thx. --Aschmidt (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No sense to remove infobox

This is useful, and a bad move to remove so I undid. --209.188.41.250 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Who would remove the infobox? Who would do such a thing? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

From the Venezuelan reaction: President in charge of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro a statement issued by the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs where it was reported that "President Nicolas Maduro, on behalf of the Bolivarian Government and the Venezuelan people, its hope for peace on the Korean peninsula and called wane categorically militaristic statements and actions, that could lead to the two nations to a new war... Not much of that makes sense, and the citation merely says "Telesur". Was it poorly translated from Spanish? I suggest we remove it - we don't need a reaction from every country in the world. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the international section looks like it was very poorly translated. Since most of it is quotes, I don't want to alter them myself as I don't speak Spanish and would mess them up. Can someone please have a look at this? It's been in poor condition for days. --109.151.162.252 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just read this article for the first time and while I don't have the time to sit and make edits at this moment, quite a few of the International reactions are written in broken, possibly poorly-translated English. 66.87.131.63 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it appropriate at this stage to make a separate page for the timeline (loosely based on that of the Syrian Civil War), as events are unravelling fast, and if such a crisis continues (there's no end in sight), the timeline of events will fill up a large portion of the article. I'm not backing it yet; I'm just wondering.Jhlee98 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, but we might need to if the article gets too large.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've revamped the timeline section, what do you think? Ansh666 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AHHHHHH my eyes, they burn! Just curious but what was wrong with the way it was before? Now the TOC is long as heck and there's edit sections all over. I thought it was fine with one heading per month and then a bullet style list with dates in bold. But maybe that's just me. — -dainomite   01:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it looks horrible. It's intended as a temporary fix to the comments above; I noticed this here as well and was wondering about how to further fix it. Ansh666 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hrmmm, can we go back to what it was before and just unbold the dates instead of having 50+ sections for every day? — -dainomite   02:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't do much as far as fixing proseline goes, it would just be a bit more cleverly disguised proseline. I'm really not sure what to do, though. If you want to change it back, go ahead Ansh666 02:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (Note: if it came to a discussion, I'd support keeping it split, since most articles that defy WP:NOTNEWS go for a timeline format.)

Shelling?

The status section in the infobox mentions the shelling of the Korean oceanfront. What does this mean? Does it mean the shelling of the oceanfront as part of the ROK-USA drills? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, since it was ambiguous, and I couldn't find a source (although I didn't really look through every article). Ansh666 01:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines

Is the Philippines really involved in the conflict just because it offered its military base to the United States? Soffredo (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no based on just allowing the U.S. to use their bases. Kyrgyzstan allows the U.S. to use Manas Air Base for support in the War in Afghanistan but Kyrgyzstan isn't listed as a belligerent in the infobox.— -dainomite   04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't really consider it to be a part, at least not directly. At the very least, it does not warrant a spot in the infobox under "beligerents". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Its de escalating somewhat. Suggest "Tensions" to replace crisis

There appears to have been a lessening of tensions in the past 36 hours, probably Chinas non ambivalent role is key to this. I think we shoud rename it to tensions. Irondome (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media is still referring to it as "Crisis", so I don't think we should change it just yet. Ansh666 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ansh in keeping the current title. — -dainomite   20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I as well. It doesn't seem to me to be deëscalating in any meaningful capacity, and multiple events listed in the article occurred in the last few days.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, its de-escalating. I suggest we wait another 72 hours, if no SIGNIFICANT event happens in the next 3 days, apart from verbal BS which all of this "crisis" actually is, we take this article to tension. Yawn. Irondome (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article isn't what one or even many editors think it should be, it's what is most recognizable and what most people would search for. Since the media is still mostly using "Korean Crisis" or "North Korean Crisis", we should stick with that for the time being. If the media shifts its tone and what it names the event, then maybe we can consider changing the title. For now, though, it should stay. Ansh666 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed for now. Advise we should be highly vigilant for any media ref to any lessening in tension, and insert it accordingly into mainspace. I think there is massive Chinese back channel pressure ongoing. As a sidenote, I think we as Eds on WP should be more aware of the actual influence we have, albeit subconsciously, on the probably millions who have glanced at this, many in the region. Just a feeling, but I think WPs output and concurrent events on conflict or potential conflict situations maybe should be looked at in the future. A Zeitgeist thing? Brought to you by a beer too many and a nagging thought. Irondome (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Julius Know struck as sock puppet edits

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Current event template

Please stop adding the Current template to the article. From Template:Current, "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day; occasionally longer." — -dainomite   00:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press Twitter account compromise: related?

I just fixed a few mistakes related to this event as it was mentioned in the article, but later wondered: is it relevant at all in this article? It does not seem to be related to the Korean crisis. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As I interpret it, it 'might' be related, since Exposed's threat about explosions outside the White House and its similarity to the subsequent twitter feed hack led to the stocks dropping. (Then again, I didn't read the sources, just what was in this article.) Looks good to keep to me, although if someone with more knowledge of the events disagrees I wouldn't be too hesitant to get rid of it. Ansh666 01:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The text was further edited and seems both grammatically and technically incorrect: "for a compromised hack of the Associated Press Twitter account". The account was compromised, there was no "crack" (or hack as popular media would say) per say. It's also not the "hack" that was compromised, but one of the various Twitter accounts of AP (the main public one). Because it's an editor which contributes more than I do to this article, I won't revert his change though and will let someone else do it. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Don't worry about minor grammatical changes like that, make them as you see fit. I'm sure Soffredo (or anyone else) won't mind. Ansh666 19:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have fixed it already and it now seems fine, thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other sources besides TMZ that link the AP twitter incident to the North Korea crisis? Xxavyer (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This mentions both, but maintains that the Exposed threat was "a separate prank", then goes on to say "But today sources close to the investigation have told TMZ that both groups are linked and have members working for both operations." I'd guess that they aren't related given that I've actually now read the sources. Ansh666 22:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After further searching (google, exposed bomb threat ap twitter hack), I've turned up articles that claim they are related. However, they're either tabloids or link to TMZ/Daily Mail articles mentioned before, so I wouldn't say it counts for much. Ansh666 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the prank deserves mention in this article. Most news organizations are saying the Syrian Electronic Army is responsible and do not make any mention of North Korea. Xxavyer (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The End of the Crisis

I've stated in the article that May 30th marked the end of the crisis. Some other editors have gone along with this. Does anybody disagree with this decision? Soffredo (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean April?—SPESH531Other 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mean April 30th. Sorry. Soffredo (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not opposing, but did you choose the date arbitrarily or did something happen to end it? I haven't been following much lately, exams and such. Ansh666 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the article, I take that you interpret the end of the drills as marking the end of the crisis. A fair assumption, though if more happens we'll have to remove that, I guess. Ansh666 22:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not jump the gun since we have WP:NODEADLINE. I'd be more comfortable giving this a few days before saying "it's over" just because the annual joint military excersizes between U.S. and ROK forces ended today. However, for the sake of consensus I would agree with the above of having April 30th as a tenative date pending any new notable actions occur to push the date back. — -dainomite   22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. Just because they stop drilling, doesn't mean they aren't still prepared. For all we know they stopped drilling just to fuel military vehicles and arm weapons. And North Korea hasn't said anything about stopping it. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 01:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline is a mess

Do we need a one sentence entry for every single date? Some of the material I feel would be better for wikinews and the timeline should be placed into Prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed your notices. To repeat my edit summary: first, you used the wrong one (definitely not spam!) and second, per precedent timelines are more useful for current events like this. Organization is much harder using paragraphs than bullet points, and would quickly devolve into WP:PROSELINE again. If you want to work on a prose conversion, maybe you can start it up in your sandbox or something and let me know; I'd be happy to help if I have time available (finals and projects coming up, you know), but I really don't think it should go that way just yet. Ansh666 23:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More Involved Countries

Should there be UK and Russia on the side of USA, S-Korea and Japan? I have heard that N-Korea has made some aggressive statements against them and it has called their citizens to leave N-North --Ransewiki (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if any country should be added to the "involved nations" it should be China moreso than Russia or the U.K., that's just my opinion though. — -dainomite   07:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, any country with its military involved should be listed in the infobox. I don't think Russia and the UK made any military moves or preparations. China, on the other hand, did, but it's rather unclear which side it would support, as it has a mutual defense treaty with NK (key word defense, not that they would really uphold it anymore anyways). At least, this is all what I've gathered from the admittedly few sources I've seen online. Ansh666 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring - please come here to discuss!

Goals:
1) We need to come to a consensus on the crisis's end status/date
2) We need to come to a consensus on China's belligerent status
Could we discuss instead of edit warring? Thanks, Ansh666 03:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just stalking. Would suggest date is to be measured by the first media mention that the crisis is ended. I saw a news report online from Sky about 3 days ago. Article about a kids military parade. Inter alia, the article specifically states the crisis is over. I also note it upthread as far back as April 15th, where I suggest de-escalation was in the air. :). China seemed an ally of Obama on this.

The crisis ended part in infobox MUST be cited. Its the earliest mention of de-escalation in the media which should determine the duration of the crisis. Irondome (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Counter-stalk! I'd agree with the current May 20, actually, since that's the last media report incident thing that we have on this article IIRC, though you are correct that we need a citation. In regards to China, see my comment above about militaries being involved - it's not as clear cut as it may seem. Thanks, Ansh666 03:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "end date" - I personally would like to avoid phrasing it as "the crisis ended on this day" and would be in favor of phrasing akin to "in X month the crisis started to de-escalate when.... X happened". Seems more reasonable than a definitive "The crisis ended on day X" when there will likely be zero refs that would say "crisis ended on day X". — -dainomite   04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding China - I would leave it out of the infobox, mainly because their military was not involved in the same regards as NK, SK, US or Japan. By that I mean in regards to military readiness, military deployments or military exercises. I would however leave it as one of the primary involved parties since they were diplomatically involved in calming down the "crisis". — -dainomite   04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that the end of the crisis was May 7th, since that was the day Obama gave his speech regarding the crisis. The missile launches didn't get much of a reaction, and should be put into a new article called 2013 North Korean missile tests or as a subsection in the 2013 North Korean nuclear test article. The fishermen story is unrelated to the crisis itself; not every problem in North Korea during/after the crisis should be considered as part of the event. Soffredo (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a source for any end date, but if May 20 is insisted upon, I revised the infobox to add the second date to the Age template, as should've been done. Jmj713 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, is there really a need for a definite start and end date? The main tensions kind of wound up and then wound back down, so an indefinite January-June 2013 might be more accurate than a single day start/finish, just as Dainomite suggested. Also, just because the "crisis" doesn't generate breaking news every day anymore doesn't mean it's not over, just that the normal citizens of the world have gotten tired of NK's antics again. I think in a few years someone will look back on this and decide it wasn't really anything meaningful and nominate it for deletion... Ansh666 14:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, User:23.17.101.129 keeps putting China back in the infobox, refusing all attempts at dialogue (just like North Korea did ) Ansh666 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the crisis may still be ongoing. Jmj713 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be honest the crisis will never really end, just as it never really started. It's more that the media picked up on it more this time, then dropped it when it got boring. Ansh666 19:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I just undid Soffredo, Just because Obama says that NK can't create crises anymore doesn't necessarily mean this crisis is over on that day. We really need to come to a consensus on what to put for the dates.— -dainomite   21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If the crisis were still ongoing, then does the article state the that the even ended on June 6th? Soffredo (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Because that was the first time NK offered dialogue. Personally, I think that's the best we can do, since nobody to our knowledge has reported a definite end - instead, they just kind of forgot about it. Ansh666 22:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ansh took the words out of my mouth. I think this is the best date we have for an "end date" because it showed NK coming back to the discussion table after cancelling the talks with SK.— -dainomite   00:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

When does the crisis actually de-escalate or end?

To me, it seems like the crisis starts to de-escalate on May 6, when North Korea withdrew it's missiles from their site. There was a sudden spike of tension when North Korea launched six missiles (May 18-20), but this left afterwards. Since the de-escalation is still occurring, would that mean the crisis is still happening? Also, Anonymous does plan to release North Korean military documents on June 25th. Soffredo (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Article split

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.

---

To me, the crisis ended with Barack Obama discussion with Park on May 7th. The missile launches did create much of a commotion, and should be split into a new article. Opinions? Soffredo (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose no information on what exactly should be split and what tests that the proposer is referring to.JOJ ^Hutton 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It's the launches from May 18-20. See my comment below for more info. Ansh666 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose since the launches were during the 2013 Korean crisis they should stay here since they were part of the crisis, it doesn't matter if they didn't cause much commotion as you put it, still part of the crisis. Also, there's nothing that says "the crisis has ended", admittedly it's your own POV that the crisis ended, however as recent news points out the crisis is de-escalating and it's not definitively over. — -dainomite   21:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What determines if it's during the crisis? I say that the event occurred after the crisis. Soffredo (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Consensus amongst us editors determines it. If users come to a consensus and say the crisis is ongoing and de-escalating or if we come to a consensus and say that the crisis ended. — -dainomite   21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support-leaning neutral, as a glance at previous history shows that NK's nuclear tests all have a corresponding missile test (on a side note, the latter article there needs to be cleaned up a lot...anyone? ). While potentially routine, it was definitely interpreted by others as part of the crisis - both the preparations, in early April, and the actual firings, in May. I don't really know the best way to deal with this, as it has a lot in common with previous tests, but was also part of the crisis; would a separate article be a WP:Content fork or a legitimate split like the 2013 North Korean nuclear test article? Ansh666 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Things Just got Heated Up

Check out this page i made cause things just got heated up again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsontchrismer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

See my concerns here. Ansh666 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to stop adding to this article.

Not everything that happens on the Korean peninsula or regarding North Korea worldwide is part of this "crisis" (I'm referring specifically to the 2013 North Korean cargo ship confrontation in Panama right now); it's WP:OR to suggest otherwise unless the media starts to say so specifically. Can we please decide on how and when we stop? Thanks, Ansh666 05:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)'

Agreed, this article isn't called 2013 in North Korea. I added the cargo event to the article, however, since it's involvement in the crisis hasn't been resolved. (It is missile related.) The agreements about Kaesong are still ongoing, so the crisis isn't quite over. [Soffredo] 11:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's a stretch, but I agree it could potentially be related. As far as Kaesong goes, that's good for here, of course. Ansh666 17:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that, but now that I think about it, it probably isn't.--Forward Unto Dawn 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should move the event list to another article, and add summaries. For most people an event list of more than a few days is an auto skip.--PLNR (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)