Talk:2018–19 Korean peace process

Korea Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

Military history: Asian / Korean / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Creation of article

This article was created after a discussion at the Singapore Summit article. It is basically a cut-and-paste job from a number of articles, and hence needs a lot of copy-editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the intent here, Jack Upland, I think the article is misleading in scope. There has been a Korean peace process well before 2018, as is evident in reliable sources. Ideally, this article should be about the log-term process. There is a draft by Goodtiming8871 at Draft:Peace treaty with North Korea that tries to do just that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about more than just a peace treaty (which may never happen). I think the issue of scope could be fixed by a name change — to 2018 Korean peace process? I don't think we need an article about the long-term process. We already have Korean reunification, North Korea–South Korea relations, North Korea–United States relations, Korean conflict, Sunshine Policy, Agreed Framework, and Six party talks. We don't have an article about the peace process which started this year, though there is an overview in some of the general articles and there are specific articles about each of the summits. This led to a very long "Aftermath" section at the Singapore Summit article which I have copied over here.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

An infobox would be great to have in this article to summarize key points in an easy, concise way (for example see Camp_David_Accords and Cuban_thaw articles with infoboxes) including one photo about Trump-Kim summit or Moon-Kim summit. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More photos

Can we add more photos on this article? Goodtiming1788 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a lot.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Destruction of Inter-Korean Liaison Office (4).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Destruction of Inter-Korean Liaison Office (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

This article should be moved back to 2018–19 Korean peace process. It was moved to 2020 because the year changed, not because sources said that there still was an ongoing peace process, which is WP:OR. Right now 2020 is discussed in a section called "Breakdown of relations" and its contents do not suggest that the process is ongoing, but quite the contrary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree: move it back. And maybe we could come up with a better phrase than "peace process".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)~~ I take back my agreement, because on reflection the situation isn't clear, either way you look at it. Trump is still talking about another summit,[1] and Moon continues to pursue the Sunshine Policy.[2][3] North Korea continues to observe a moratorium on tests of atomic bombs and ICBMs. North Korea walked out of talks in Sweden — just as the US walked out of talks in Hanoi. It has employed some strident rhetoric — nothing new about that. And it blew up the liaison office, which was basically a stunt. I don't see a strong argument for saying the peace process ended in 2019. Just yesterday, the US government reiterated its readiness to negotiate.[4]--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Article just updated to confirm what I suspected - peace process is indeed ongoing. There will always be quiet periods, but this has been going on for years and years so no reason to think it would stop now... Thanks. Crep171166 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given subsequent events, I have changed my mind again and agree with the proposal. We can include an "Aftermath" section in the article, but the fact is there have been no major events since 2019. This is supposed to be about summits etc. As discussed above, this was never intended to be an open-ended article. This is not about the peace process in general. We have several general articles, including Korean reunification, North Korea–South Korea relations, North Korea–United States relations, Korean conflict, Sunshine Policy etc. Trump is no longer President, and while North-South dialogue is continuing, this could be covered in North Korea–South Korea relations. The tempo of events in recent times is such that the information could easily be incorporated into those general articles. If the tempo increases, a new article could be created. It is pointless to extend the article into 2020 and 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article, and edited to created an "Aftermath" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapons — Deterioration of relations

The section now entitled "Deterioration of relations" began with the following:

Two years after President Donald Trump's 2018 meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong-Un, U.S. experts both within and outside the government estimated that North Korea's stockpile of fissile material had grown considerably larger. Various assessments concluded that the North by then had produced enough fuel to build about 20 nuclear weapons.

I have removed this. Firstly, it's just an estimate. Secondly, stockpiling fissile material is not a violation of any agreement made. Thirdly, it sounds like the stockpile (if it exists) has been added to continuously and so doesn't amount to a breakdown in relations. Fourthly, the article says, under "Background", that in 2017 North Korea might have had as many as 60 nuclear weapons. So does this mean: North Korea's nuclear arsenal (could) = 60 + any nukes built since 2017 + 20 potential nukes? I think this is too vague to include.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Destruction of Inter-Korean Liaison Office (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what are the issues in the negotiations?

It is understood what does the west want, but the article poorly adresses North Korea's position. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essential issue is peace, the end of the Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]