Talk:North Korea–South Korea relations

This is a work-in-progress

This is a work-in-progress for which I have decided to take on the responsibility of fulfilling (found this 'topic' listed on the 'Most Wanted Pages') Jacnoc ^{(Desk | Contribs. | Discuss)} 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyan dots on map

What are the cyan dots in the first picture (map)? Holy (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough there are still dots on that map, but they aren't cyan.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Name for current South Korean policy?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2011/dprk-110117-voa01.htm Presidential security adviser Chun Yung-woo says in an interview with U.S. public broadcaster PBS that the "obsession" of North Korean leaders with weapons of mass destruction may become "a short-cut to their demise."

Has any name been given for the current policy of disengage and ignore? A "Twilight" policy? Hcobb (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The US policy is called "strategic patience".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent Threats

We should add some info on the recent threats of "turning South Korea to ashes in four minutes". I tried but it got taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.53.9 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Country comparison

base on table from Germany–United Kingdom relations--Feroang (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

	Germany	United Kingdom
Population	81,757,600	62,041,708
Area	357,021 km2 (137,847 sq mi)	244,820  km2 (94,526 sq mi )
Population Density	229/km2 (593/sq mi)	246/km2 (637/sq mi)
Capital	Berlin	London
Largest City	Berlin – 3,439,100 (4,900,000 Metro)	London – 7,556,900 (13,945,000 Metro)
Government	Federal parliamentary constitutional republic	Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Official languages	German (de facto and de jure)	English (de facto)
Main religions	67.07% Christianity, 29.6% non-Religious, 5% Islam, 0.25% Buddhism, 0.25% Judaism, 0.1% Hinduism, 0.09% Sikhism	71.8% Christianity, 15.1% Non-Religious, 7.8% Unstated, 2.8% Islam, 1% Hinduism, 0.6% Sikhism, 0.5% Judaism, 0.3% Buddhism
Ethnic groups	91.5% German, 2.4% Turkish, 6.1% other	92.1% White, 4% South Asian, 2% Black, 1.2% Multi-racial, 0.4% Chinese, 0.4% Other
GDP (nominal)	trillion ( per capita)	trillion ( per capita)
Expatriate populations	266,000 German-born people live in the UK	250,000 British-born people live in Germany
Military expenditures	billion (FY 2008)	billion (FY 2009–10)

--Feroang (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

References

New Article?

Considering the combined developments of this year, I think an article specifically for the developments this year would be appropriate. Thoughts? Ryan Vesey 07:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I wholeheartedly agree. The media coverage certainly passes WP:GNG and would be an appropriate spin off. Go Phightins! 19:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There is considerable media coverage of recent events, and they seems to mark a departure from the ordinary North Korea–South Korea relations. Dentren | ^Talk 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article created: Korean crisis, with information from the 2013 section moved there. Needs major expansion, as there is a lot more details from the past few months, plus a background section is really needed. Jmj713 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> S Korea activists launch anti-North balloons>> S Korea to boost security against North >> N Korea proposes family reunions with South >> North Korea's 'peace offensive': How should South Korea respond? .> Koreas hold rare talks to ease tensions (Lihaas (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).

Korean Conflict - new page

I'm proposing a new page called the "Korean conflict" which would cover the whole conflict from 1945 to the present. It would overlap with this page, but would not include peace initiatives, economic and cultural ties, etc. But it would be international, including the US, China, the USSR, Russia, etc. As it is, the conflict is scattered over a number of pages, causing duplication and confusion. Any objections?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Probable support I'd support something that would reduce the duplication. But could you list the articles that would be superseded by the new article? Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as discussed at Talk:Korean War, I don't think it would be possible to merge any existing article into the new one. There are a number of pages that deal with the conflict as well as this one:Division of Korea,Aftermath of the Korean War, Korean Demilitarized Zone, List of border incidents involving North Korea, Korean maritime border incidents. The lists of border incidents could all be merged into one article, eliminating the maritime article, but I don't think you could avoid having a list article (incorporating it into a "Korean conflict" article would be unwieldy). The other articles have reasons to exist apart from the conflict, which seem to me to be worthy of an article. This raises the question: do we need yet another article? Yes, I think we do. Firstly, I think the Korean conflict is worthy of an article in its own right. Secondly, it would avoid duplicating the same incidents over several different pages. Thirdly, it would provide a perspective on the conflict and avoid recentism. As it is, people continually turn up at the Korean War page, wanting to write about current events. Or they create pages about "crises" that turn out to be relatively minor.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now created the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. It turned out very well. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, nice work Jack. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the job now is to differentiate that page from this one.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

North Korea–South Korea relations → Inter-Korean relations – Because the name North Korea–South Korea relations is getting too tainted, this article should be renamed to Inter-Korean relations as is in the Cross-Strait relations article. Like China, both nations claim to be "One Korea". Wrestlingring (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per East Germany–West Germany football rivalry. Sawol (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is clear and unambiguous, and precisely describes the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

What do you mean by "tainted"?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The second citation references a page that is completely opposite of what is written

The second source cites: http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/south-koreans-view-north-korea-as-cooperative-partner/

This statement is completely contrary to what the statement made in the article. I added a header to the article so this can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. The citation had become displaced.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On further consideration, I have removed the sentence that displaced the citation: "As of 2017, after a series of nuclear missile testing, fatal incidents at the demilitarized zone, and ongoing threats to South Korea, North Korea-South Korea relations are at an all time low." While I understand this was intended in good faith to update the situation, it is very inaccurate and isn't supported by a citation or anything in the body of the article. Nuclear testing started in 2006; there have been incidents at the DMZ since 1953. See the Korean conflict. Relations at the time of the Korean DMZ Conflict and the Blue House Raid were worse. And the "all time low" would have to be the Korean War!!! Yet another case of goldfish memory... If we have an update, it has to be factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment of Park

I have removed text about this. It had nothing to do with North Korea, except for the claim that "policy towards North Korea was extremely unstable during the transition period", which is not in the cited source. After the removal of Park, Hwang Kyo-ahn, a Park minister known for his strong anti-North Korean stance, became acting President. The claim of instability seems unlikely. If it is true, then it needs a source.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of graphics

I've removed the graphic of leaders and the timeline. They were messy, hard to read, and really conveyed very little about the relations between North and South. Viewing the history of the two countries in parallel says very little about their relationship. And having three sets of graphics bunched together at the start really detracts from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also removed the "Predecessor States" from the "Country Comparison". There's really no need to go back 1000 years. We discuss the relevant historical background under "Division of Korea". Having such a large table at the start of the article detracts from everything else. It is much bigger than the UK-Germany one that it was based on. And a comparison is not a relationship.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Surveys

Do we need surveys of South Koreans in the lead? Would it be better to have a section on public opinion? How relevant is this to the topic?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the surveys to where they fit in the chronology.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunshine Policy ends

This section seems to be the weakest link in the chain, particularly the Park government subsection. It is dominated by a fairly random series of military incidents and includes very little else. Often there is very little indication how these incidents affected relations. Some of the incidents, such as the discovery of North Korean drones, are relatively minor. Others seem to be sensationalised. For example, when North Korea launched a satellite, what the article says is that "The United States moved warships to the region". The source doesn't say that. It talks about positioning warships that are already there. When North Korea fired a single shell at Yeoncheon in 2015, the article says "it caused the evacuation of an area of the west coast of South Korea". According to the source, "about 80 residents in Yeoncheon had been evacuated". The problem is, if this information is removed or trimmed, we have nothing to replace it with.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have dealt with some of the problems.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Reconciliation subsections

I propose the "Reconciliation" section be one chronological narrative, without subsections. As it stands, there are seven short subsections covering the events of this year. The summits have their own articles, and don't need much detail here. Most of the detail is about scheduling, which is trivial with hindsight.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, Jack Upland. By the way, I think "reconciliation" is too strong a word here. Maybe just use "During Moon Jae-in administration"? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "reconciliation" seems a bit presumptuous. Perhaps "thaw". I don't think the article should be organised by the terms of SK presidents.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've edited the section.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Country comparison (2)

I propose the removal of this section (I already did but an IP returned it). It's off-topic. This article is about the relations between these countries, not their similarities and differences. If it's an attempt at contextualization, it's exceptionally lazy: it's not prose and these details are not discussed in the rest of the article. It's also entirely unsourced and outright wrong (Kim Tu-bong was the first head of state).

These sections are not part of the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations and searching for the archives of that project there seems to be no consensus to have these. GA class articles that I checked don't have these in the reviewer versions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. As I said before, a comparison is not a relationship. The table represents an ugly roadblock between the lead and the rest of the article. It tells us nothing that is useful in this context. Even if such a table was suitable for a bilateral relationship, which I doubt, Korea is a special case. And the details are debatable. Who is the current head of state? Kim Jong Un? Kim Yong Nam? Kim Il Sung???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Essay–like?

Dylan Smithson, can you explain why you tagged this article? What is the issue? Are there examples? This article has been written by multiple people, so it can't reflect one editor's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland, the tagging doesn't appear to be valid. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There being no explanation, I will remove the tag. If there are stylistic problems, they should be dealt with individually.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

---

North Korea–South Korea relations → Inter-Korean relations – Since the term "Inter-Korean relations" is being more widely used over "North Korea–South Korea relations" (for example, in this, this, and this), I guess this article should be moved to "Inter-Korean relations". Since I've given supporting evidence on the term "Inter-Korean relations" being more widely used over "North Korea–South Korea relations", if you want this article to be moved to "Inter-Korean relations", please reply. 69.160.29.28 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I think this sounds better. "North Korea-South Korea relations" is repetitive (repetition of Korea) and grammatically ugly (NK-SK not being an adjective). I agree Inter-Korean relations is more widely used.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion above. It is not obvious to me at first glance what "Inter-Korean relations" refers to, and the title should be WP:RECOGNIZABLE to anyone who may not be familiar with it. The present title is also WP:CONSISTENT with other titles at Category:Bilateral relations of South Korea. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose while I take the point about the repetition, I think that the current name is more Recognizable. Mztourist (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:RECOGNIZABLE ~ Amkgp 💬 15:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like other East Asian languages, Korean puts south before north. So it's "South-North relations". "Inter-Korean" represents an effort to split the difference between English-language usage and Korean-language usage. Allan Rice (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Allan Rice, are you sure you mean "oppose"?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is consistent with other articles on international relations. Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Consistency is irrelevant because other examples cannot be expressed as "Inter...", nor do they have repetition.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative: change the name to "North Korea—South Korea—Marilyn Monroe".
• Strong Oppose The current title is consistent with the naming convention between two sovereign nations. Just because they're similarly named with historical ties to each other is irrelevant. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:36, 16 June 2020 (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.