Talk:2017–18 North Korea crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Start date[edit]

Should the start date be August 5, 2017? Or should we trace it somewhere around April? April seems to be when the rhetoric and threats started growing big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the date from the infobox altogether. It's not our job to determine which of these related events marks the beginning of the crisis. If reliable sources decide that, then we can cite them. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the start date for this crisis was at least July 4, 2017 at bare minimum, and it likely started earlier in the year than that. Since that start date has been brought back there needs to be a discussion on when this crisis truly started, and I would say the the tests of North Korea's first ICBMs mark the start of the most serious episode of this crisis and should be included in this article since their launches started a great increase in rhetoric and threats as well as concerns. (Stormchaser89 talk) 7:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Guam Qualm[edit]

Was North Korea proposing a missile attack on Guam or a missile test in the international waters near Guam? The sources seem to differ.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It evolved from a threat of an attack on Guam to a test of 4 missiles 20-30kms from Guam. There were a number of NK stmts on this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure?
(The emphasis in these quotations is mine.) It doesn't seem that the North Koreans ever said that they were actually going to hit Guam. I don't think "enveloping fire" has any military meaning.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Envelopment is a military term, I think I've heard enveloping fire (in an enfilading context)- though not that often. This is what latimes had to say about this - [1]. In terms of western understanding the idea that this would land 30-40kms from Guam was later (perhaps the next day)- per my real-time parsing of events. North Korean statement are often quite blustery.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, so "enveloping fire" really means shooting missiles into the surrounding areas. It is not in debate that Western media etc believed that North Korea was going to fire missiles at the island, but did North Korea ever say that?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
That was only clear the next day when they said 30 40 km. This is Reuters from the day of [2]. ""The KPA Strategic Force is now carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12 in order to contain the U.S. major military bases on Guam including the Anderson Air Force Base". Here they mention bases by name. One could say one could interpert enveloping fire as shooting around Guam, however this is not clearly obvious without the 30km bit - it could have meant firing at multiple targets on Guam, eveloping the island's targets entirely and attacking from multiple directions/vectors. They were able to walk this back as enveloping fire is not precisely defined as, say, turning Anderson to ashes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You are assuming the North Koreans "walked it back". The text you have quoted, clearly shows they were not threatening missile strikes on the island, but rather targetting the "areas around Guam" to somehow "contain" the US bases. (In fact, it is ludicrous to believe that they would announce a missile attack ahead of time.)--Jack Upland (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The initial statement could be read either way - however the more direct reading is that fire "to contain the U.S. major military bases" is fire that hits those bases (otherwise - how are they being contained? again - a dual word - contain in the literal sense (comprised in the area hit by the fire (nuclear or non-nuclear)) or Containment in geo-political sense). The North Koreans often use very fierce rhetoric in various official statements (regularly threatening to destroy, fire, etc.) - without carrying it out - so it wasn't as if it was expected they would do exactly what it was though they said - however the specificity of target location and dates was different than usual (which tends to run - we'll turn the enemy into ashes, etc.). This was clearly perceived by many as a threat on Guam - though also many expected (particularly those who watch these statements regularly) that this wouldn't occur. The subsequent 30-40km did clarify the original statement to a more benign form (in that the multiple interpretations of the original statement became a test firing over Japan to near Guam, and not on Guam).
CRYSTALBALLING - As someone who watches this - I wouldn't be surprised if this will end up as a launch over Japan (quite possibly on Aug 25) - but to some other point than Guam (an empty piece of ocean, some distance away, at approximately the same range). The North Koreans have a "problem" in that they can't carry out a true long-range missile test without shooting over Japan, South Korea, China, or Russia - and the latter two are problematic vectors for additional reasons. They did fire an alleged ICBM at a very high angle (that's the recent test) - which only traveled 1000km or so (but showed capability by the altitude they reached) - but that's not as convincing as an actual shot that "goes the distance".Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Just about every source from Aug 8 interpreted this as statement as a threat to attack Guam: [3]. walking back was used by RS - e.g. [4]. Understanding the original statement as a test 30-40 kms from Guam is possible - but not likely - ergo RSes on the 8th of August didn't interpret it this way.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "walking back" was used on the 15 August, NOT about the difference between the reports of 8 August and 9 August. Do you have a source which describes the report of 9 August as walking back or anything similar as against 8 August? Most sources seem to see the two reports as taking the same position (which I think is correct).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
My crystal ball was cloudy in terms of dating (cut correct at a launch over Japan to an empty piece of ocean, not next to Guam). But basically my take of the initial and evolving NK stmts is that this was a way to telegraph their intention to fire over Japan (which due to reasons of geography / angles - is required for a long range test (it is also borderline possible to shoot over South Korea - but the sea there isn't quite as empty and there are major archipelagos down range), Russia is also borderline - besides NK's desire not to anger Russia - this flies over much more land (Vladivostok, Sakhalin island, and then Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy)... Japan is really the main choice if they want to shoot more than 1,000 kms or so)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
But this is just another missile test, not an attack. And it's far from Guam. And I'm really not seeing the crisis. This is a continuation of North Korean missile tests and atomic bomb tests that have got international attention over the past decade. What exactly is new?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a long range missile test - they demonstrated an actual ability to hit a target in Guam's range (the missile flew some 2,700 kms) with a missile with an assumed throw weight that is significant. They only fired over Japan twice - both purported pre-announced satellite launch vehicles - in 1998 and 2009. They also pre-announced (of sorts) the test (Guam, Guam) - which leads credence to the claim that this is what they were intending to demonstrate to themselves and the world (and that this wasn't a failed test). Hitting Guam itself is just a matter of pointing the launcher in a different direction. Previous tests were shorter (up to around 1,000 kms), with longer range demonstrations (e.g. the purported ICBM earlier this month) done at a very high angle - which ended with a missile test that reached very high, but didn't travel very far - which left some skeptics.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a missile test. Yes, they could hit Guam. In my opinion, they could hit Washington. But that doesn't mean they will. You cannot equate a missile test with a missile strike. The US fired an ICBM into the Pacific this year too.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Earlier article[edit]

By the way, there was an earlier article called 2017 Korean Crisis which was merged to Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Should it be redirected here instead of to Korean conflict?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I would think yes. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
So much for "goldfish memory." kencf0618 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


I don't understand the structure. There is a long "Background" section, then a short "Timeline" section, which isn't a timeline, then a "Reactions" section which partly duplicates what's in the "Timeline" section and is mostly a redundant "quote farm".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think for now the structure is clear enough, and time will take care of it. If this "crisis" fizzles out, then in another few weeks/months, the whole article will need a thorough review/rewrite, and if it escalates, then the article will get rewritten and restructured anyway. In the mean time, if you have a better section title for the current "Timeline" section, I would say go ahead and change it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The structure seems to have been designed around an imminent climax at Guam in mid-August, which doesn't seem to have eventuated. The "reactions" relate to that same period, even though they are undated. It would make more sense to write the article as a series of events, rather than arbitrarily designating some events as "Background". The "Reactions" section should just go.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Day of Songun is just around the corner (Aug. 25, and what a show of Songun it will be if the people's army will let loose a show of force) - which might allow us to retain the article structure. If nothing happens by September/October - we'll probably be discussing notability (of a very specific NK threat, but beyond specificity threats are routine by NK. Trump's counter-rhetoric is also becoming routine).Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, I think it's fine to give this a little bit of time to play out before trying to figure out what should stay and what should go (which might eventually be the whole article, as Icewhiz seems to imply), but I also have nothing against some WP:BOLD editing. For now, maybe the "Timeline" and "Reaction" sections can be combined into a "Threat Against Guam" section with a lot of the reactions being deleted, or at least reduced to just citations, without so many quotations? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably we should wait till the end of the year, and then consider merging this to 2017 in North Korea if nothing major happens. In the meantime, I think combining "Timeline" and "Reactions" is a good idea. There might be further reactions to another event or issue. I also think it would be better to structure this article as a series of events, rather than having "Background" events which are intended to build towards...something or other, that may never happen. If something very significant does happen, this article can be restructured in retrospect. But it doesn't seem good that the blueprint is a crystal ball.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And now there's another event: the missile test over Japan. The "Reactions" section is out of whack.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


I feel that the structure of this page makes little sense. For example, the timeline. That conflict between the United States and North Korea dates back to the end of the Second World War. This information will give's great background to the current conflict that should be examined. - J.M.R.

This is covered in Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The structure now has a short Background section and now a Timeline section from April 2017 onwards which is now up to point 2.9 (where next?). There are numerous small sections, particularly towards the end. This really needs some work.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Moot discussion: Second Korean War was deleted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose that Second Korean War be merged into 2017 North Korea crisis. The majority of the article is already covered in 2017 North Korea crisis, and covered in more detail here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose While certainly the case with the article in its current form, it can and should be improved. Speculation about a second Korean War is long term and with multiple WP:RSes. The subject of a possible conflict clearly meets the requirements for an article under WP:N.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2017 North Korea crisis as target I propose Second Korean War should be deleted and 2017 North Korea crisis be merged into Korean conflict#The Trump era section. The present article to me suffers from WP:CRYSTAL and especially WP:RECENTISM. It may well be notable, but the sources are exclusively from mainstream media. We could very easily have many articles discussing media-driven possible wars. Second Israeli-Hizbollah War, Future GCC-Iranian War, Future Israeli-Iranian War, Future China-U.S War, Second Indo-China War, Second Falklands War? All of these examples could be easily sourced from reliable mainstream media sources, many published from a considerable time back. But does WP need them? Would their existence improve the 'pedia? I would argue no. There is no war. If one does break out, then we will have plenty of time to create such an article. At the moment it is a serious crisis. There was a serious crisis in 1994 and 2013. It did not lead to war. At the moment it is pure speculation, however notable. I say merge. Irondome (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It fits with category Category:Possible future wars, where there is no war, but where the possibility of one is a recurring theme in published sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose On two ground - 1. Second Korean War is already used by Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) as a common name. 2. At present, and until we actually see an exchange of fire - there are no grounds to assume this particular crisis will be the next Korean War. It might. Or it might be a limited strike/response. Or it might be nothing beyond rhetoric, hot air, and a missile test. If we are to have a hypothetical article on a possible future war - it shouldn't be tied to a particular event that might not lead to said hypothetical.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This article is (basically) about the current crisis, it inspired it. Any material not about this crisis can then be moved to other articles more appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven: - Second Korean War has existed since 2010 (as a redirect) - [5] - well before this crisis (which is not yet a war).
Yes, but we are not talking about that, but the new article (is that not correct?).Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the redirect there. The new content (which was copy pasted I believe, there) - is inappropriately labeling the current missile test as the Second Korean War which is both CRYSTALBALLING and possibly a COMMONNAME problem.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Both these articles are problematic. The Crisis article is based on crystal ball gazing plus a recital of events that have happened this year with a sensational interpretation. This Second Korean War article is basically crystal ball gazing plus nothing. We probably don't need either article, but we certainly don't need both. Merging it here would allow all the material to be concentrated in one place, and we could reassess the "crisis" when 2017 is over and the dust has settled and the hairs on both sides have fallen back into place and the media has moved on to a discussion of the size of Kim Kardashian's rear end.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - the content this merge proposal is discussing (namely the timeline that appeared in Second Korean War was copy pasted from this article without proper attribution without RS supporting this as an actual war or this being "thh Second Korean War". So we're basically discussing merging an old version (as in the past two days the timeline here was updated) - back into this article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support - I agree Second Korean War should be done away with as WP:CRYSTAL, but much of its content would better go to a new section of Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea as it is not limited to 2017, and the plans essentially support the MD Treaty. Rwendland (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support since it would be silly to have two articles if the crisis actually spins into a war. The existing 2017 North Korea crisis article could be kept as an introductory segment to the Second Korean War while the existing text of this article could go under a new section called "Planning for the conflict" or some such. Amyzex (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merging per nominator. Sawol (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • PackMecEng, just for notification, the AfD nomination on the "Second Korean War" article is made. --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The now-deleted article read more like someone trying to elaborate on a conspiracy theory, advanced by certain anti-Donald Trump activists (especially the kind on Mr Trump's Twitter feeds), that Mr Trump is deliberately provoking a war with North Korea to distract the American public from his "impending impeachment" for "being a Russian spy/agent/illegal resident/deep plant of some kind or similar in the U.S.". It speaks more of the private political bias here within "the upper ranks" of Wikipedia and Wikimedia (a lot of them probably do just that anyway, but on Twitter and under their own real names!), when the article wasn't deleted within 72 hours from when it was first created! -- (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

where is the "crisis"? propose new name for the article[edit]

So far, despite the best efforts of all concerned, this event has been a bunch of "sabre-rattling" and some not very effective sanctions. NK is not crazy enough to launch a war against the U.S. or its allies, and the "military solution" to NK will never happen despite the rhetoric - the cost in lives and material is far, far too high. Therefore, what term best represents what actually has gone on to date? It's not an 'event' or an 'incident' - 'situation' is too clumsy. So, any ideas? What about "episode"? (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As I have said previously, both here and at Korean conflict, ad nauseum for both myself and others, this is simply a case of goldfish memory. There are periodic "crises" in Korea, mostly manufactured by a sensationalist media, but when the dust settles and the cranes fly south, the status quo stalemate endures. I would suggest that, as previously discussed, we wait till the end of the year (i.e. 2017) and then (if a crisis has never eventuated) merge the article into 2017 in North Korea. If however, we are celebrating Xmas, Hogmanay, and Hanukkah under a dark sun, we probably will have more things to think about than editing Wikipee. If not, I will return here and revise and reassess my opinion. See you on the flipside, compadre.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
See, for interest (though now outdated):[6]--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Give it a month - and see where it develops. We might be discussing standalone notability of this article if it doesn't develop further. If it doesn't develop and does pass notability - it will probably end up as a "missile test".Icewhiz (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is already an article about North Korea and weapons of mass destruction etc, and this article is not really about the missile launch. A month is too early. It is likely that this episode of tension is not fully dissipated. (KJU and Trump will probably not be clinking moonshine cocktails in the Hotel of Doom till next year at the earliest, in fact it may not happen to Trump's 7th regnal year...) Also, if nothing has eventuated by January 2018, we can hardly justify this article. On the other hand, it will be difficult to justify [deletion/merger] until the year is over. After all, it has already survived an AfD. Let's have some strategic patience.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems we have nuclear talk and a test this morning. Give it time, as it is still developing. Naming at this point is simply bound to change per developments.Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
How about either "global crisis" or "diplomatic crisis"? Would either one work? George Ho (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I would just leave 'crisis' out of it - it's a true concern, but nobody's been running around foaming at the mouth yet (i.e., not a single pistol shot has been fired.) As crises go, I'd take this one any day over some others! (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the Wikipedia criteria are, if any, for including "crisis" in an article's title, but that said it would be useful to compare and contrast. kencf0618 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
We can't name something if we don't know what it is. I don't think there's a real crisis (yet), just an increase in tension and war of words. However, opinions differ and it's still too early to tell. As I said before, we should wait and see. There is no point in fussing about the name of the article when the article itself is in flux.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, here it is mid-October, and still no signs of any "crisis" - just months and months of the same blather from each government. The crickets are chirping along the DMZ. This article needs an alternate title very badly. (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I must agree, this has been a big nothing burger. Is it time to start a merge request?Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be best to just delete this article. All the points in it are in other articles on N.K., the U.S., or their interactions. There's certainly no "crisis." (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to add a campaign box by I.P[edit]

Can I have some comments on this? I have reverted and invoked WP:BRD, but procedurally, is a campaignbox on an article about a perennial crisis appropriate? I would have thought we would have needed a war for a campaignbox, but maybe I am wrong. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Irondome: {{Campaignbox Korean War}} links here and on that basis it should be transcluded here to keep navigation WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. If you have a problem with the campaignbox including that link in the first place, you should seek to remove the link by editing the template itself. I agree that the link could be removed. The present crisis is temporarily very distant from the Korean war and it is by no means part of an established typology of post-Armistace incidents. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Irondome: The article Cuban Missile Crisis, which is often considered as a comparable crisis to the current North Korea crisis, has a campaign box as well. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Cyberdoomslayer I am a bit dubious about the comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are no viable North Korean missiles with 2.3 mt warheads within 70 miles of the United States as there was in the case of the Soviet deployment of R-12 Dvinas in 62. Also there was an aircraft lost by the U.S.A.F and a pilot killed. So far, thankfully no one has aimed or fired anything at anyone, as far as we know. A campaign box, as I say, seems premature. Irondome (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Irondome: A number of notable figures such as John R. Bolton, Leon Panetta, and Graham T. Allison think that it is comparable. Graham Allison said that North Korea crisis would be a Cuban Missile Crisis in slow motion. There is at least some consensus about this matter among the intellectual community. Applying the same template to this article seems reasonable. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I respect your opinion @Cyberdoomslayer:, and from your talkpage details you may be very close geographically to this potentially dangerous mess. Also, I too have seen these comments. However, I have to disagree. Three or even four political pundits, however distinguished do not make the comparison plausable. Regards, Irondome (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fine. Let's remember the purpose of an info box, per Infoboxes. Is there a better fit for this article? If so, use that. If not, leave it.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think all of the post-Armistice conflicts should be removed from {{Campaignbox Korean War}} since there is a much more relevant campaignbox


Comparison to cuban missile[edit]

About the Leon Panetta quote: "the most serious since" does not mean it is "comparable to".

I am not sure this even belongs in the lead section -- but maybe I'll wait and see if anyone provides sources for the other pundit (John Bolton) before editing further. -- (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the comparison, as in the meantime the US is all talk and bluster, and no actual ultimatum has been made. If the US lays down an ultimatum to China, eg on trade, it might be comparable. If it all jawboning, with no actual standoff it is not.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I concur.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. is not "all talk" - there have been some pretty serious sanctions laid down (cited in the article). But as far as any non-retaliation military action, nope, hasn't been and won't be. (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This is all WP:RECENTISM. But to resolve the particular question, the sentence is now moved out of the lede to a separate sub-section. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Start date for 2017 crisis[edit]

The origin of the current crisis is in 1998 when the USA promised 800,000 barrels of oil to North Korea provided that the North Koreans did not establish nuclear power.

In 2003 the USA broke this promise because Venezuela blockaded supply of oil to USA. The North Koreans said they were freezing and starving to death because they had no other source of power and that therefore they were going to make nuclear power. Instead of admitting that USA did not have the oil available to supply North Korea, the USA repeatedly accused North Korea of wanting to make nuclear weapons, implying therefore that North Korea did not deserve the oil that USA did not have. USA annoyed the NKs so much that NK actually decided to make long-range missiles and nukes. In 2003 the NKs launched such a missile.

In 2007, the NKs jailed two women journalists to force Bill Clinton to visit NK to rescue them. When they departed the smiling, waving NKs thought they would finally receive the oil but a few months later they were accused of sinking a South Korean Corvette, thus not deserving the oil again. Fidel Castro stated US Navy Seals sank the destroyer.

As a result, the NKs are not interested in negotiating with USA. Go figure!

Does anyone in USA leadership have enough sense to leave the NKs alone?

1) log in when you post/sign with the four tildas ( ~ ~ ~ ~) , 2) Wiki is not a place for your personal ranting (see WP:SOAP) but instead is a place to discuss the use of Reliable Sources to improve the article. Your post mentions not a single citation. You are also trying to use this thread as a forum (WP:FORUM), which is also against the guidelines. Do you have ANY item of interest that you can bring to the table for discussion to improve the article? (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
We have an article on the Agreed Framework and I have just included a mention in the Korean conflict article. Clearly it doesn't really fit in an article entitled "2017 NK crisis".--Jack Upland (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Apropos Cianmarbo′s edits[edit]

″international intelligence community″ does not exist as such. Whether ot not those were ICBMs is still debatable.Axxxion (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

″Reactions″ section[edit]

I did nor dare to touch it in a radical way, but I find this section somewhat abnormal. This artcile is called ″crisis″ (not ″NK test″). Mostly, it is about tests and verbal exchanges, thus ″reactions″ of the countries immediately involved should apparently go under the ″Timeline″ section. Still early days, perhaps, to make a conclusive decision, but some amendments are in order.Axxxion (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

See my previous comments under "Structure". The Reactions section has got to go, one way or the other.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It should be collapsed. Brazil is not a party in this matter. kencf0618 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a recurring problem for articles covering current events. Separating the WP:NOTNEWS can be difficult, but certainly 'reactions' are limited to involved parties and major international bodies (not the Olympics Committee!) or Hamas, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Article content should not be collapsed, so we shouldn't do that. Removing the content seems justified in this case. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Ah, thanks for pointing the 'collapsed' business. I'm tired and read it loosely as eradicated (don't ask me how!). Of course this elaborate list is WP:UNDUE, meaning that the other stuff/content is removed, not turned into a collapsible list. Redundant is redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It's also time-bound, as I said earlier. Most of the 'reactions' related to the Alarm over Guam, which is now largely forgotten. This isn't obvious, and it isn't clear now what the various world leaders were reacting to. I would suggest that any material that's worth saving is integrated into the 'Timeline' so that the event and the reaction sit together, and the reaction can be understood in context.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan of action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have now integrated the 'reactions' into the 'Timeline' in chronological order. I have eliminated the reactions of minor actors such as Brazil, the Olympics Committee, Hamas etc. I have also eliminate reactions which seemed to duplicate material already in the Timeline or which seemed inconsequential. If editors don't agree with my judgement call, they can always rescue a 'reaction' and insert it where they see fit. I don't think the article has lost anything from this edit and it has gained a more coherent structure.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of war[edit]

North Korea has declared war (source in Dutch) against the United States. Not sure where to add this in, but it needs adding. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I simply don't think that's true. The NK foreign minister made an inflammatory speech in reply to Trump's inflammatory speech. He basically said if you call Kim Jong Un rocket man, well, you'll get rockets. He also said (more accurately) that American people call Trump President Evil, Lying King, and Commander in Grief, and implored the UN to take a stand for peace against American aggression. That is not a declaration of war. Let's be factual, and not get carried away by rhetoric and media sensationalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It's the opposite, N Korea accuses the US for declaring war: CNN: North Korea accuses Trump of declaring war, BBC: North Korea accuses US of declaring war and Fox News: North Korea blows up US aircraft carrier, bombers, jets in new propaganda video --OnWikiNo (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
We do not see a declaration of war, much less combat between the sides. There is no "war" per se. Jack Upland is correct – we simply have inflammatory speech and school-yard name calling. Adding the piece is not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the claim to avoid misleading information, BBC posted a similar article, more accurately stating that the pariah state accused the US of declaring war, feel free to add that but make sure to rephrase the sentence. Keep in mind however that NK regularly makes this claim on the annual military exercises conducted by the US and SK, so in other words this not an unusual practice for NK.SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Should also add that North Korea claimed that the US “declared war” last year with the sanctions targeting Kim Jong-un. We would have seen military buildup in both countries if that were the case. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
See this and this for a survey of the history of similar rhetoric.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Not only is there a long history of such rhetoric, technically the Korean War has never ended inasmuch as a peace treaty has never been negotiated and signed, so the phrase is superfluous. The Korean War didn't start with a declaration of war, either. Words matter, so we'll have to do some parsing of the rhetoric here. kencf0618 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
'Technically' the Korean War never ended and never began???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Diplomacy option[edit]

Regarding the current efforts on diplomacy option to North Korea by U.S.A, China and South Korea, Please let me know if it is suitable for creation of the another sub-subject under Time-line or another subject - the same level of time-line. From my understanding, the contents of time line- it is predominantly military exercise or some military options so creation of another subject; it might be useful to read. [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


I think it should be included under 'Timeline' (though I don't think that's the best heading - 'Events'? 'Developments'?). It is essentially a negation of the escalation of tensions, and both should be viewed together.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Over-simplistic Infobox?![edit]

I think, to most folk, it would be highly disingenuous to pretend that China and Russia are somehow not parties to the 2017 North Korean Crisis, whilst specifically giving mention to Australia and Malcolm Turnbull (for what possible conceivable purpose other than domestic Australian party-political, that I can't imagine!)...perhaps we need a new bespoke template here, such as Template:Syrian Civil War infobox for use in Syrian Civil War?! -- (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Australia has directly stated they are siding with America and S-Korea on multiple occasions [7]. While China's assistance to N-Korea is undeniable, they are not a definite ally in the conflict the way Australia has pledged to be. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
China might not be an open ally of North Korea, but past Chinese and Russian participation in the Six-party talks, not as neutrals, but as parties sitting side-by-side with the North Koreans, have clearly forever made the two states by default parties to any Korean/North Korean crisis (although not necessarily any future Korean/North Korean War), present or future ... and anyhow, Australia is NOT a direct party-participant in the current crisis either, and Australia anyway would only be a supporting ally or co-belligerent to the U.S. in a hypothetical "Second Korean War" of some kind under the terms of the ANZUS Treaty. -- (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
China definitely is an ally and is a party to the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty. However, in the current 'crisis' China has been pushing for both sides to de-escalate. I think in cases like this, when there are many players, and when there is not outright warfare, this kind of infobox doesn't provide much useful information. Australia (like many other countries) has taken part in a war of words, but there are no Australian troops in Korea, and there is no immediate prospect of this. It's very misleading to include Australia here.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually thats not true, The Australian navy has 2 warships on the way to S-Korea as we speak. [8] [9] Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Two frigates on a week-long visit doesn't equate to troops in Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
North Korea has directly threatened to attack South Korea, the US, and Australia. That is why they are all included as combatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
And Japan, NK has threatened them directly as well. 2600:1015:B11E:1EB4:FDF9:38A8:A2CD:EFB4 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

State Dept. statement following Tillerson's "probing" remark[edit]

Following Secretary Tillerson's remark that the U.S. was probing for discussion w/ the DPRK in diplomatic channels, a State Dept. spokesperson put out a statement saying that DPRK officials had spurned talks of denuclearization (, which precipitated the President's tweets the next day claiming that the Secretary was "wasting his time", and threatened the use of military force (as the State Dept. also did: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Supertramp: Crisis? What Crisis?[edit]

seriously - WHERE is the so-called "crisis"? It's just a situation with a lot of rhetoric. PLEASE - let's get this article renamed - its an insult to crises everywhere. :-)

I agree, but start a merge or delete request and see what what the consensus is. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Seems like speculation about how things might develop. NPguy (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
We have already had a discussion about this under 'Where is the "crisis"?' above. This has been merged to Korean conflict and reborn, and it has then survived a AfD. As I said before, I think it is better to wait till the end of December. Then the situation is clear-cut. Was there a crisis in 2017? If nothing has eventuated I suggest a merge with 2017 in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, Jack Upland's suggestion is the most logical. The article was built on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS (as occurs frequently with current affairs articles on Wikipedia). The fact that it remains only reflects the fact of 'stuff' having happened and being reported on in a media feeding frenzy. At the end of the day, being a 'crisis' for the sake of posterity needs serious RS... which is seriously lacking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Any student car-fire in the university lot from a cigarette has been more of a 'crisis' than all this guff has been. (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest renaming this article to '2017 north korean conflict' Gregorius deretius (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What difference would that make? 2017 was no more conflictual than 2016.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
My 2 cents - I think this topic merits an article - events both in terms of threats and actual ICBM and nuclear testing do merit a standalone article. At present it might be wrong to call it a conflict/crisis - though it might be premature to make this call.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If Wikipedia articles were news, perhaps it would merit its own article... but they're not. Keeping an article - particularly where it's evident that there is no WP:COMMONSENSE title for it - is WP:UNDUE. Yes, it meets with having been an event of some description (i.e., WP:OSE), but no more significant than NK tensions over the years, therefore "2017 in North Korea" is an adequate venue. The blow-by-blow account in this article as it currently stands is unnecessarily detailed and salient details can easily be transferred in a logical, terse manner to the main article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This year certainly feels like there has been an escalation of sorts, at least from the standpoint of the American news consumer. I think you address this above as well when you mention that, for whatever reason, at a minimum the reporting around "the stuff" this year is a step-change in usual reporting about North Korea. I make no speculation as to why, though I understand where both sides sit on the issue of whether or not this article should remain. My question for us to ponder is what do we do if the escalation (whether in fact or in reporting) continues into the New Year? Will we go through this exercise again? (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This utterly non-crisis crisis is like watching ferns turn into coal. In the name of humanity - change the title of this article! (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a title to suggest? If it is not crisis, it would be better to merge the article, as suggested above.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Jack! (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Exclusive economic zone[edit]

The section on the recent missile test states that it fell in Japan's exclusive economic zone. However, this has no relevance. Exclusive economic zones only apply to fishing and mining. They have no relevance to military operations. The expression implies that North Korea violated Japan's sovereignty, which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It could imply other things as well: that the impact was geographically close to Japan, or that Japanese nationals were in danger (that's what EEZs are for: economic activities - people - working in the area). I think it's a rather neutral geographical description. Perhaps they are unable to give a more precise location. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a pretty broad area, in fact: see [10].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I know. I have no idea if they have pinpointed a more precise location. If they haven't, the EEZ remains our most accurate, and a fairly neutral, description on where the missile struck. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
They have a good idea where it hit:[11]. It's fairly simple physics to calculate the trajectory. I think it's generally false to think that the Japanese were in danger, despite the alarmist reaction mentioned in the article, and if that's the implication then it is inaccurate and not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Japan's EEZ seems like a fairly neutral geographic description. In the ocean, close (but not too close) to the Japanese coast. NPguy (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
That was the August missile, Jack Upland, not the November one. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry!--Jack Upland (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Move: 2017–18 North Korea crisis → 2017–2018 North Korea crisis[edit]

I moved the article to 2017–2018 North Korea crisis citing MOS:DATERANGE. This was undone by MarioProtIV with the edit summary "not how it works". Mario, can you explain your point of view with in more detail please? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it only works with going into new centuries (e.g 1999–2000). Many year cross events on Wikipedia are styled in the other fashion, like 2014–15 North American winter, 2004–05 South Pacific cyclone season, and much more. No point in changing how it works. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Having carefully re-read the guideline, it appears we are both wrong. Two consecutive years is the exception to the rule, not a range within one century. This article should stay at 2017–18 North Korea crisis. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I was going to say on this talk page that the page shouldn't have been moved since the years are adjacent, but the move apparently happened despite this talk page section. I'll just link User:Hodgdon's secret garden here. Master of Time (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what this link, User:Hodgdon's secret garden, documents for the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis: That is the person who moved the article back to 2017–2018 North Korea crisis a second time. Master of Time (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why that user, moved this page without authorization. Perhaps one of use should send them a message concerning that action? Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Merger proposal[edit]

After more than a week, there is a clear consensus against merging the two articles together, with no chance this will occur anytime soon. --Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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.

As previously discussed, I propose merging this article to 2017 in North Korea (with any material from this year merged to 2018 in North Korea). What we have here is a series of events over the past year loosely related to the Korean conflict. The most important is North Korea's development of an ICBM capable of hitting the east coast of the USA (which is already covered in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction). However, there is no direct link between this and the death of Otto Warmbier or the shooting of the defector. We also have incidents such as the supposed threat to Guam and the visit of the Carl Vinson, which ended up fizzling out. We also document the bombastic rhetoric exchanged between Trump and the North Korean regime, which is hardly notable. We have now ticked over into a new year. Tensions appear to be easing with the Winter Olympics (not mentioned here), but this article could be extended indefinitely. There has been a crisis in Korea since 1945 which erupted in war in 1950 and continued ever since. Starting in the 1990s, there has been international alarm about North Korea's nuclear weapons program. There has been nothing special in 2017, just an increase in tensions related to the program, just as there was in 2013. During the year there was speculation that something dramatic was going to happen, but this has not yet eventuated, and the possibility seems to be receding. If there is a war or a diplomatic breakthrough, we should have an article about that. Until then, this article is just a loosely defined litany of events, framed a speculative point of view, which would be better merged into 2017 in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - no need for two articles covering the same topic. With any grain of salt luck, the "crisis" will wane for this year with the Olympics. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Right now, the article consists of, as Jack points out, unrelated events that just happened to take place in or around North Korea in 2017 and 2018. Whether they are part of this "crisis", is ultimately a question of media (and scholarly) narrative, not what you or I think is part of it. I don't think that in 20 years academicians recognize such a thing as the "2017–18 North Korea crisis". However, right now there is a mainstream media narrative that does. It's out job to summarize that narrative in WP:DUE, and in doing so, only include the events that sources verifiably count as being part of the "crisis". Tracing this media narrative is painful, though, because when they talk about "the crisis", it's not clear whether they mean the events in 2017, the nuclear crisis that has been there since the 1990s, or indeed the Korean conflict in general which, as you say, has persisted since 1945. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking for the media/scholarly narrative, I have found the following accounts of the "crisis":
  • the NBC, which concentrates on Trump, but refers back to the first nuclear test in 2006,
  • the BBC, which refers to recent events but also to attempts to negotiate "aid-for-disarmament deals", which happened decades ago, and starts with the division of Korea in 1945,
  • the Council on Foreign Relations, which surveys historical events going back to 1950.
I can't see a consensus for a crisis erupting in 2017. In addition, these sources indicate that the crisis is about the nuclear weapons program, and we have already covered that in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. In addition, given that North Korea has vowed not to give up its nuclear weapons, the "crisis" could extend indefinitely.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what a merger would fix, it would put the content of this article into that one. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the telegraphic style of 2017 in North Korea or 2018 in North Korea might be meaningful in ten years, but the clear ability to metastasize the availability of nuclear weapons to other states beyond North Korea would be swept under the rug in said articles. A historical perspective using detail is called for, but the current style of said articles would elide any meaningful precis. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose by merging the articles, we would technically be (to a degree) censoring the crisis from the reader’s eyes. As SamaranEmerald and Ancheta Wis both put it, the current layout of the pages coinciding to the years this crisis is occurring in would not be appropriate for the information provided on this article. We would have to shorten the sentences and remove a significant number of details provided from this article. Kirliator (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As I have argued before, this article is at best premature. It is written in anticipation of a crisis that has not yet crystallized. Crises are most evident in retrospect and we cannot yet say that we are in one. When I made the comment before, the reaction was "Wait until the end of the year." Well the year has ended but instead of deciding whether to keep this article, the authors changed the name to include 2018. That was a dodge. I continue to believe that this article should not (yet) exist. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
To amplify, I don't think this article should exist. The choices would be to delete or merge. I will also note that I refrained from editing this article throughout 2017 because there's no point in editing an article that is just going to be deleted. I will continue to not waste my time until an actual crisis emerges that justifies the existence of this article. NPguy (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many international news sources have officially dubbed this issue as a "crisis", some of which are evident in the sources provided within the article itself. Deleting this now would likely cause the issue to be forgotten by the contributors over time, with little chance of it being restored in the future. I admit this article is flawed, but keeping this article is better off than just alright deleting it. Python Dan (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is what had to happen when the 2013 Korean crisis occurred. Even though President Obama called those events a "crisis" as did the media at the time, there's no reason to keep this article and not the oter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose strong amount of activity going on at this page at the moment, little activity going on at 2017 in North Korea and 2018 in North Korea
Thats because people are editing this page instead of 2018 in North Korea, where they SHOULD be. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Murchison-Eye But where should the new information from the previous years be kept. It needs to be in a single article without artificial divisions. It's a matter of perspective. Unpreparedness for war bespeaks weakness; the US Army is quietly preparing for a war it hopes will not come. It's like arguing that a leaky roof need not be repaired on a sunny day, when crisis is thought to be water damage to the living room furniture, walls, and carpet. Readiness for war is the US Army's only realistic option after Task Force Smith. That said, the antimissile defenses of the US, Korea, and Japan need bolstering. It's like lobbying for a traffic sign at a dangerous intersection (think crisis); the sign goes up after a death there. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all of the above opposition votes. I personally doubt a consensus to merge this article will occur anytime soon, given the fact that there are 7 opposes versus 3 supports. This nomination is getting close to being 1 week old, so I suggest closing the consensus. 2600:1015:B12C:BE77:9448:1C49:4D6:ABF0 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current crisis is different from the 2013 one. Back in 2013, it was just a war of words between the North and South. Since both Seoul and Pyongyang were under leadership transition, they took advantage of the escalation of the crisis for strengthening their domestic leadership. It is true that the 2013 crisis was mere political, not a serious one. But the current crisis is from the imminent threat of North Korea's near-completed nuclear program. It is clear that the United States and its allies will never allow the completion of the so-called rogue nation's nuclear capability. It is not a political propaganda battle but an existing dire military threat. Keeping this article is necessary. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That is a strange comment because North Korea has a missile that can reach the east coast of the USA and apparently has a hydrogen bomb. Its nuclear capability seems to have reached completion. And there doesn't seem any viable strategy on the part of the USA to do anything about it. In any case, this is just speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this proposal should be kept open because there are a few people who commented recently who haven't yet given their opinion, and it is the holiday period in some parts of the world. A lot of the responses above provide useful pointers to improving the article if it is kept, there is no reason to stop them coming. However, I think it is problematic that many people are supporting the article based on what they think is about to happen, and this is the spirit in which this article has been created. But this seems to violate WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current crisis is a significant international event, merging it into "2017 in North Korea"(or 2018 in North Korea it has now clearly spilled over into 2018) implies that is an event contained in North Korea. Dmartin969 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"2017 in North Korea" has a column for "South Korea and International".--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is what we did after the 2013 Korean crisis turned into a big nothing burger. There is nothing special about the last 12 months other than Trump using meaner words than Obama did. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But the 2013 events triggered the permanent positioning of a THAAD battery in Guam, just as 2017 triggered permanent positioning of a THAAD battery in South Korea. And what about the North's UDMH factory, or the doubling in size of the uranium enrichment factory.
It's been a week. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Although there have been many significant developments in inter-Korea relations in the year of 2017, North Korean foreign policy strategy (and that of the US and South Korea as well) has not changed significantly over the seventy year time period. In essence there is little reason why 2017 would receive its own article and not 2013. Thus, per similar reasoning to have merged the 2013 Korean crisis article into 2013 in North Korea, I support. However, I would strongly support merging details in this article plus further details on the Korean conflict since 1953 into the Korean conflict article in a similar fashion as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, detailing history, developments, potential resolutions, and foreign policy of relevant nations in the conflict. -- Jeremy Ahn (talk | contribs) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose this will do more harm than help if we merge the article, as one of the users above has noted, we would be technically censoring much of the details. (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (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.

Vancouver Meeting[edit]

How do the Vancouver Meeting go? (Marxist-Trotskyist Communism (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)) Marxist-Trotskyist Communism (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You should be able to (but can't) read about that here: Vancouver Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Security and Stability on Korean Peninsula. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Global News and CBC are two Canadian news sources that cover this. Also likely good sources for the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is incoherent[edit]

It seems like a collection of idiosyncratically-selected news clips, often with a dubious slant and assembled in a semi-random order. It's such a bad article that it's Not even wrong. It's hard to know how to fix it, which is one reason I have argued for its deletion. NPguy (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't whine about it, improve it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is too blunt a tool for that job. kencf0618 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This was canvassed in the recent merger discussion. The merger, which would have solved this problem, was rejected, but even some of those opposed to the merger agreed the article was flawed. Based on that discussion, it seems that the way forward is to focus on the "crisis". According to the sources I have seen, and the comments made in the merger discussion, the "crisis" consists of the latest developments in North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Hence, the article should be structured round that, rather than being a somewhat random list of events. Any material not directly related to this should be minimised. This narrative would provide coherence to the article. As editors are clearly looking to the future, it would seem a good idea to include some expert commentary, without being unduly speculative, as to why the USA etc are concerned about these developments and what options they have for responding to them. The word "crisis" comes from a Greek word meaning decision, so the article should explain what the decision is about — what is the threat and how could they respond. From the merger discussion this appears to be what people are interested in, but it isn't really reflected in the article. Having said that, I sympathesise with the comments made by NPguy previously: as I don't think this article should exist, I don't want to do a load of work to improve it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is beyond repair. Not worth the effort to fix. Is there a way to flag is as of dubious value? NPguy (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the focus of the article ought to be on the ability of the institutions (Force positioning, Artillery, Rocket sites, Populace, Logistics) to address the developments, in turn.
  1. The DMZ is a wall much like the Iron Curtain, serving to contain the North's populace behind it. The manufacturers have a stake in the positioning of the ROK/Eighth Army forces. This is a stabilizing force for the status quo.
  2. DPRK artillery can reach Seoul, but Fire-finding radars could then pinpoint the launch site of each artillery piece, in minutes. Logically, the barrage would only last as long as the pieces survive.
  3. The rocket sites that are fixed-position are vulnerable, but TEL sites are subject to picking-off by drones.
  4. The US forces have dependents who are co-located, except for the one ABCT that rotates in/out every 9 months. This is a stabilizing force for the status quo.
  5. As long as the US Army is manned by volunteers, this is a stabilizing factor to keep the US involved in peacekeeping. But once a draft is re-instituted, the current US interest in remaining in Korea would fall.
  6. Logistics are concentrated in Guam. Thus the North's interest in nuclear attack on Guam. The THAAD battery on Guam is a stabilizing factor for the status quo.
  7. The centrifuges for uranium enrichment still operate. The stockpiles remain. China and Russia have an interest in retaining them, as this fixes a US presence in status quo.
  8. The 2017-2018 rhetoric on both sides is destabilizing against the status quo..
  9. No State Department advisories on travel are currently in effect.
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Many of those points are discussed on the Korean conflict page, where any significant information on this subject should be. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The difficulty with the perspective inherent in that article is that crisis is perceived to have ended in 1953. 'That was then; this [article] is now' .. :) How about a little 'hotspot' marker in that article to wake readers up? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That article specifically covers events post 1953, up to events in 2018. I dont know what you mean by a 'hotspot' though? Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
See the latest (2018) nuclear posture review, for starters. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Surely this reading shows that a larger/longer perspective is needed. Why isn't this addressed in the encyclopedia? If you read the articles, this perspective is _where_? Why aren't there tags in the mooted articles that purport to cover the topic? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As you know, Wikipedia articles are not updated automatically, but are edited by volunteers such as yourself. If you feel that an article needs updating you can do so yourself. All the Executive Summary of the Nuclear Posture Review says about North Korea is: "However, nuclear non-proliferation today faces acute challenges. Most significantly, North Korea is pursuing a nuclear path in direct contravention of the NPT and in direct opposition to numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions." That is really unexceptional. The points you are raising have either been true for a long time or are purely speculative. This article has to be about events of 2017-18.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree that the article is a dog's breakfast, but that's the nature of the beast. To quote the late, great Texan Molly Ivins, "You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You." It's a been a weird, simmering crisis, and we as Wikipedians have to turn pro -I suspect that Hunter S. Thompson would approve of this fiasco. kencf0618 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This is not a war itself, it's just a timeline with some political events. Oppashi Sam-Taeguk.svg Talk 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this the end of the "crisis"?[edit]

In other words, will the timeline stop soon, or are editors just going to add events forever???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, depending on if the summit talks in May yield any fruit. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Or mushrooms. kencf0618 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Only time can tell. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Just so. Not only am I haunted by the geopolitical/reality show fact that the probability curve has been flattened (, I'm reminded of a sage observation made by George Ball (diplomat) shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis: "We must make it our business to ensure that we do not pass this way again." kencf0618 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, becoming a wilting daisy over this "crisis" is a bit amusing - I'd store up some of that FUD for a real emergency. This has been one huge, and very predictable, snore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't know what the summit will bring, but it would be good to bring this article to a neat conclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
If the 'negotiations' were to gloss over crucial details that allow nuclearization to be sold outward from North Korea, worldwide, to the rest of the world, that would continue the crisis and spread it worldwide.[1] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you should look at the article, not just the issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
IN THE MEANTIME, since this has been the "crisis" to bore the pants off of all other crises, let's change the title to "Development" or some other much more tame - not to mention accurate - term than a crisis. (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


There is no end to this Crisis. The Korean War has technically never ended. Rwat128 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A piece of paper confirming reality is less than useless. There is no war, there won't be a war - that would be catastrophic for both sides. The only 'crisis' was the one invented by the media and that Wiki, unfortunately, has seen fit to emulate. This is just a predicament - a situation - an irksome state of affairs we'll all have to just learn to live with. But the article needs to be adjusted away from a 'crisis.' (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Keep or Remove Ongoing?[edit]

Stale Keep This consensus has been going on for almost three weeks now, with a long pause in voting for quite some time. After this long period, there is a slight consensus in favor of keeping the crisis as ongoing, which is supported by the fact that the Panmunjom Declaration was not an official peace treaty, and the recent news about North Korea threatening to cancel the upcoming summit. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Considering that the two Korean leaders met today and declared “ending” the Korean War, I feel it is time we should discuss and poll on whether or not we should declare the crisis over or not. Should we we keep it as it is and wait to see how the upcoming North Korea-United States summit goes, or should we remove it and replace it with today’s date as the end date and change the status? SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Don't jump the gun. Wait until the explicit consensus of reliable sources shift toward such a conclusion. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I’ve already noticed a number of users, mostly IPs, winging it with the instant conclusion that the crisis has ended, which at most is only partially true. If the NK-US talks within the upcoming month prove fruitful than we can reconsider changing the status to stating that the crisis is over, but for now it is too soon to call it as have already ended. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - We have already seen this kind of inter-Korea agreement three times before. Kim Jong-un's sudden peace mode seems dubious, since there are many precedents that North Korea tried to evade international sanctions or military threats by suggesting fake peace talks to its opponents. Until North Korea's CVID denuclearization, this crisis is not over. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added the Panmunjom Declaration and other details under the Results section for a temporary compromise, I left the timeline unchanged as still ongoing. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Crisis has been largely over since the Winter Olympics where Korea competed together, the follow up being this summit, compromise, and later the NK-US summit Nice4What (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove: We have had about four months of peace. There was never a source that said that there was a "2017-18 North Korea crisis", so we can't expect a consensus of reliable sources to say the "crisis" has ended. As demonstrated above, there is no consensus among editors on what the "crisis" consists of, so there can't be a consensus on criteria for the ending of the "crisis". There was a escalation of tension last year which has clearly dissipated. The Korean conflict that has run since 1945 is not over, but that is no reason to extend this article indefinitely. To do that would make the article, which is already problematic, even worse.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep this article focuses more on the conflict and nuclear rhetoric between the United States and North Korea, not South Korea and North Korea like the Korean Conflict or the Korean War, in other words because the two leaders from the US and the DPRK have not met yet, I wouldn’t officially say the conflict is over just yet. Kirliator (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove What is happening now better fits the Korean Conflict article than a separate crisis article.Ultimograph5 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with the above user and agree with the one that voted keep above that, I see this article addressing a conflict between North Korea against the United States rather than against South Korea, I’ve also noticed that several sources, including the Washington Post have expressed skepticism over the Inter-Korean summit, implying that the missile crisis is not over, not yet at least. Python Dan (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Provisional Remove - it seems to be over. Should things escalate again next month - we can reconsider then whether it is a separate article on a continuation of this one.Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - At the moment tensions are still high given what happened yesterday. Keep until everything is officially over. Ultimograph5 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2018 (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.

Kim visits China's Xi twice in 40 days[edit]

I'm stunned there is no mention of Kim's visit to China twice in 40 days. This is astounding. Rwat128 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Another end of the crisis discussion[edit]

Should the crisis be declared over after the summit and the treaty signed, or is it a bit premature? ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 05:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, do you have reliable sources that explicitly support such a conclusion? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just going to be truthful and say no, not at least in my case. I just figured that the joint statement they signed should be somewhat indicative of whether tensions are still around. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, we don't have a source saying that the crisis began in 2017 either. This article is purely a response to news events without any specific focus. We don't want this to go on indefinitely as an amplified duplication of other articles. The sensible thing to do is focus on the events in 2017 that supposedly brought the world to the brink of war.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
But we do, e.g. here. But I agree on the larger issue at hand: we are, in effect, covering a media narrative rather than an actual event. And the problem with media narratives, in contrast to say established historical narratives, is that the journalists who herald such crises don't follow them through in any systematic way. The solution, in my mind, is a strict adherence to WP:V and WP:DUE. Most of the sources cited in this article probably don't even mention a "crisis". Inclusion here is justified merely because our editors think it's relevant. In reality, it often fails V or DUE. On the other hand, distinctively media (again, in contrast to actual historical) narratives are by definition problematic in terms of WP:NOTNEWS. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well - there was a crisis or a media scare at the very least around the Guam missile threats. As for " end of the crisis".... Wait 2 months.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I raised this in March, so that's more than two months... Maybe in two months time we'll be told to wait another two months... But I guess people will eventually forget about the topic and the article will die...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that the crisis has been resolved, because I don't think the North Korean regime will give up their nuclear weapons completely in good faith, just like they betrayed the agreement in the past after Former U.S. President Carter visited North Korea. But even if it is the end of the crisis, the article should be remained as it is. It is true that there was a considerable level of conflict escalated and that many countries put their serious efforts to resolve the crisis. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you are right that NK won't give up its nukes. But that means this article will grow indefinitely, and that's impossible. And it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily begin this neverending "crisis" in 2017. Ever since this article was started I've been trying in vain to get people to think about the article, not the issue. This article has to stop at some chronological point. This seems a good point. Long term developments can be deal with at Korean conflict and North Korea and nuclear weapons and the various "North Korea relations" articles. We cannot have an article on a short-term event that goes on forever, 2017-infinity!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that the crisis is going to be infinite. If North Korea and the United States keep their mutual agreement procedure for a while, I think that could be considered as the end of this crisis, even if North Korea does not have the intention of the long-term denuclearization. It wouldn't be too late that we consider whether it is the end of the crisis after that.
And as I mentioned above, even after the end of the crisis, it does not mean that there was no actual crisis. For instance, although it was resolved peacefully, the Cuban missile crisis was an actual crisis. So, this article should not be merged or deleted, since it illustrates the actually existed crisis of the certain period. Of course, as you mentioned, the chronological content should be stopped if we have a consensus that the crisis has ended. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
But what if the current peace doesn't last??? If it goes back to the previous situation??? Then the "crisis" lasts forever or for a very long time...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The word "crisis" implies a dangerous proximity to conflict. Where's the evidence of that? As far as I can tell there were a lot of words but no action or circumstance that might have led to conflict. It was at best a trumped up crisis (pardon the pun). Maybe there is material in this article of lasting value, but the article itself is about something whose existence is unproven. NPguy (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is a citation for the existence of the crisis, beginning in 2017.[1]
I concur that the crisis has passed its peak. The proximate cause for its end appears to be the geological instability of Mount Montap,[2] the location of the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, after the loss of 100 workers engaged in building another tunnel, and the subsequent loss of another 100 in the rescue attempt, in October 2017.[3][4] Following a shift in tone to a more aggressive stance,[5] the former top 3 generals of the North's nuclear weapon and weapons delivery program have been replaced.[6] And the President of the US unilaterally ended the semi-annual exercises of ROK and US Forces Korea.[7]
What the article would need to include would be a citation for the lifting of sanctions against the North (which hasn't happened yet). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Myself, and most analysts I read, would disagree that the Mount Montap collapse was anything but an excuse or pretext (possibly a manufactured one). A nuclear test site is actually not difficult to construct - it is basically a hole in the ground (or mountain - if you want to lower the seismic detect-ability of your site) - and that's assuming you want to reduce fallout (above ground testing is possible as was done extensively in the past). In short the test site is insignificant in terms of capital expenditure in relation to the actual nuclear program (both research, and on-going operations).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree the test site is insignificant. But this underlines the problem. The crisis essentially exists in the minds of Wikipedia editors, with occasional references to outside sources. (The same article about the "2017 North Korean Crisis" has now been cited twice in this discussion, indicating there really aren't many sources for its existence.) Because of this, it's always going to be possible for an editor to say that crisis continues; for example, sanctions haven't been lifted yet. I think the Korean conflict will continue until the division ends, and that's not on the horizon. But we all should consider rounding off this article. Otherwise its existing problems will become worse, as it becomes a bloated timeline of random events that never ends...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


We now have citations indicating a change of focus away from military-level drills and armaments/countermeasures at the highest levels of DPRK, ROK, and US government to the summits and the denuclearization process.[1] The sense of crisis has passed, starting from the January 2018 initiatives on the Olympics, etc. to the April summit. This does not mean that crisis could not flare up again, but the posturing has stepped back, as noted. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I propose an article structure which might meet the various editorial stances --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC):

  • There is no harm in multiple articles; however there needs to be a centralizing article in which disparate historical forces can be discussed.
  • Documentation of dysfunctional responses to political fiat (my prototype being Europe between the World Wars)
  • Documentation of utilitarian structures (my prototype being the Chaebol)
  • Documentation of regional responses to hegemons (my prototype being US funding of its two-and-one-half war capability since WWII)



The article has been tagged as needing an update. I don't see there's anything to update. There doesn't seem to be any kind of crisis at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Will remove tag. — JFG talk 06:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Also updated the lead section which had a lot of bad prose and repetitive statements; this must be what the tagger had in mind. — JFG talk 07:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)