This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The "Early Background" section seem out of place. Giving undue weight to one event. I think both paragraph should go(including the one I added) and at most we should go as far as the six-party talks.--PLNR (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Anonymous' "Operation North Korea", which took down many North Korea sites during the crisis, worth being included in the timeline of events or only in the "See also" section? [Soffredo] 03:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"North Korea puts army on alert, warns U.S. of 'horrible disaster'"
Related to the crisis? I put it in the "Outcome" section for now. It could be just another threat; at the moment, we can't guess if it's serious or not. [Soffredo] 14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Soffredo (talk·contribs) first added this part on 8-15 Oct, then decided to split it off on 18 Oct to List of post-Korean crisis threats (see the section above). Danlaycock (talk·contribs) then merged it back in without discussion today (30 Oct); this happened less than 2 hours before Soffredo was blocked for an unrelated issue, so he was probably unable to address this if he wanted to (considering what he was blocked for). I've moved the sole "outcome" into the main timeline, and the section is now host to only the "continued tensions" part. I can see the arguments for both sides and don't know which is better: the new tensions do seem to be unrelated to the main March-May "crisis" and to each other (hence the "List" in the new article's title), but there is so little substance currently that it may not merit an article of its own - the current situation doesn't seem to have "exploded" as the earlier one did. If nobody else has any opinions or objections, it can stay this way, but I'd like a little more discussion before agreeing with this merge. Ansh666 01:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Support stay I agree there is no compelling reason for continued tensions when there is no material to actually support it in Real life :). If young Mr. Kim decides to kick off agin, then we can reconsider. At the moment NK appears to have calmed into its usual paranoid, threatening and neferarious self. Nothing to see here folks. Cheers men Irondome (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
That is the danger. If a long, non notable list of trivial incidents. Only a re-eruption of major tensions should make us reconsider. I would advocate adding no more items to "List of post-Korean crisis threats", as the crisis appears to have ended several months ago. Irondome (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This whole article seems to go against the "Not News" policy. All that's needed is a summary of what happened. Arguably, in fact, the article doesn't need to exist on its own, as nothing unusual eventuated. By Korean standards this "crisis" was relatively mild.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jack Upland, the whole "crisis" was just a lot of NK rhetoric, but nothing tangible actually happened. There seems to be a real problem of editors trying to create new pages out of current events in North Korea that with the benefit of hindsight aren't actually notable. This page really doesn't deserve to exist as it could all be covered in 1 paragraph on North-South relations. No doubt the next time NK issues one of its regular threats of war another series of pages will be created to record every single detail and... nothing will happen... again. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it was just NK rhetoric. The alarmist reporting is equally responsible for creating a false sense of crisis. But if the Korean War was the Forgotten War, the aftermath is the Forgotten Crisis...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say "NK rhetoric and media hype"...I don't agree that the aftermath of the Korean War is in any way forgotten, NK does these periodic attention-seeking antics and the media hypes it all up while nothing much happens and then eventually the media focus shifts to some new world event Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is it seems like "goldfish memory".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag dated January 2014 from this page for a number of reasons.
Upon reading the article I did not see any evidence of POV
Upon reviewing the edit history of the article since Jan 2014, I saw no evidence of edit-warring or edit summaries that listed POV as an issue.
Upon reviewing the talk page and archive, I found no record of why the tag was added in the first place, nor any discussion making allegations of POV issues at all.
If anyone sees any POV issues with this article, in addition to tagging the article, please add a section to the talk page indicating why you think the article is POV. Thanks. --Sennsationalist (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Timeline of events needs consolidation - tagged
The timeline of events for January through September 2013 requires some consolidation. As it stands, it is a lengthy list of events, postures, planned meetings, etc. that generally haven't been edited with respect to the outcome of said events. I changed the tense that some of the points were written in to match the tense of the rest of the article, but it is still confusing, and a sub-par section as it stands. Basically it seems like it hasn't been edited much since the event was an ongoing issue, where this sort of timeline might have made more sense.
Removal of some of the less significant aspects of the conflict would be helpful. The information about the Kaesong Industrial Complex could be consolidated into a single section. Updates to the respective events would be good. Putting it into paragraph form, and merging it with the "Continued tensions..." section would make a lot of sense. Basically it should be put into a perspective of 2014/2015 as we look back on a situation that has now been concluded. Also, a true aftermath section should be added, as the article doesn't seem to have a resolution to the crisis, which, in my limited understanding, has been resolved.
I hope that someone more familiar with this event can make these changes!! --Sennsationalist (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As discussed above, I think the article should probably just be deleted. It was created at the news broke in the mistaken belief that something was going to happen...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)