Editing Talk:Korean conflict (section)

== Goldfish memory ==

If the Korean War is the Forgotten War, then the ongoing Korean conflict is a case of goldfish memory. The current "crisis" is (so far) just another uptick in tension, such as have occurred periodically since 1953. In fact, this article was created to provide historical context for these kinds of episodes. During a similar "crisis" in 2013, an article was created called [[2013 Korean crisis]]. However, despite all the sabre-rattling and sensationalism, nothing significant happened, and tensions dissipated over time, and the article ended up being merged to "2013 in Korea". In this article, the 2013 "crisis" is dealt with in two sentences. Unless something exceptional happens, that's the kind of coverage I think we should give the current "crisis" here.

The following things happen routinely: the deployment of US warships and warplanes to the area, North Korean missile and nuke tests, reports that Chinese troops are massing on the North Korean border (unsubstantiated and probably false), fiery North Korean rhetoric (actually all the time), and US talk about military options (actually all the time)... And the list could go on. What Trump has done (so far) is nothing more than what Obama did. So far no one has died, no fire has been exchanged, no lasting decisions have been made, no new strategy has been unveiled. This article covers 70 years, and we should be wary of recentism. When the goldfish has swum on, with the benefit of hindsight, the portion of the article covering recent years (including sentences that I have added) should be trimmed. In the meantime, we should all bear in mind this is a historical article, not a newspaper.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

:What's new is Japan holding its first ever civilian missile drills.

:What's new is the Chinese foreign minister saying that conflict could break out at any moment.

:What's new is Air China cutting its Beijing-Pyongyang route and China refusing coal shipments.

:In the aggregate this is substantial enough for a subsection  -it seems to be more than an uptick in tension in the grand scheme of things. And besides, the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc in 1989, nearly three decades ago. Given the Trump administration especially, I put it to you that we've moved beyond the post-Cold War era. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 00:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

::It's really nothing new unless you have goldfish memory, as the media does. We should avoid writing text on the expectation that something is about to happen. We should write about what has happened, if that is notable. The politics of the conflict hasn't changed since the 1990s. The US wavers between 3 options: the negotiations (like the Sunshine Policy, the Agreed Framework), military strikes, and doing nothing ("Strategic Patience"). Nothing has changed. For all the breathless commentary, the conflict today is much tamer than in the past, as this article shows. With regard to section headings, I think we should wait to see what happens before we give it a name. But I don't intend to edit war about it.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

::: If and only if there is military action then it'll certainly deserve its own subsection and its own article. The PRC has certainly changed the lay of the land already, and I'm seeing reports now that neither Air China nor Aeroflot are flying into, out of, or across the DPRK. In any case these are early days. Either the balloon goes up or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, there was still considerable diplomatic and military activity worth noting. We can pare down later if necessary. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

::::OK. On specific points:
::::*'''Troops massing on the border''': the source cited says, "Both China and the US have pushed back on the claims of troops massing, however". This kind of claim pops up regularly, probably based on someone spotting routine troop movements in Manchuria and thinking they are linked to the Korean "crisis". I don't think this should be included in the article without confirmation that it is true.
::::*'''Air China''' is not actually suspending all flights.[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-china-airline-idUSKBN17G11O]
::::The media loves to drum up a sense of crisis, but we have to zero in on what has actually happened, and often that is basically nothing.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

::::: Fortunately Wikipedia is citation-driven, whatever your original research regarding "the media." In any case the PLA is shifting some serious assets around, as are we. Take note. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 02:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::It's not original research. I gave sources, one of which was the one you are using!!!!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 06:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::PS With regard to the media, I was making a comment, not suggesting an edit to the article. Have a look at [[Media coverage of North Korea]] if you want sources. The following articles suggest that war is not imminent:[https://www.nknews.org/2017/04/growing-tensions-on-the-peninsula-the-view-from-pyongyang/][https://www.nknews.org/2017/04/north-korea-says-it-will-nuke-u-s-at-first-sign-of-pre-emptive-strike/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/with-both-the-us-and-north-korea-saber-rattling-is-conflict-imminent/2017/04/11/aed073ae-1ebb-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_story.html]. And here's another source about troops NOT massing at the border:[https://www.nknews.org/2017/04/chinese-fm-denies-reports-of-more-troops-on-n-korean-border/].--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::(And another article, by [[Andrei Lankov]], arguing that war was not imminent.[https://www.nknews.org/2017/04/what-we-should-make-of-current-tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula])--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 04:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::: I've folded in several of these citations. Thanks! [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 03:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::Thinking about this further, I think the main problem is length. This article now has more about events of 2017 than about the Korean War. We cannot have a blow-by-blow, day-by-day narrative in an article of this scope. Either it has to be merged into [[2017 in North Korea]] or something like it, or (if it's notable enough) it needs its own article. In fact, most incidents mentioned in this article have their own articles, and there's hardly a sentence without a link to an article that gives more information. We simply can't go into details. I'm not saying anything has to happen right away, but the situation is unsustainable...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::: For this situation to have its own subsection here seems like a good placeholder solution, awaiting developments. Gotten too big for the goldfish bowl. Today alone we've had the Vinson fiasco, a Chinese scholar unusually being allowed to critique the PRC's DPRK policy, and consideration of intercepting a DPRK missile. (Of course I'm speaking as an WP:Inclusionist...) [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::The Vinson Fiasco indicates to me how far away from war we are... A sandbox seems a better placeholder solution...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 01:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::: I've set up a stand-alone article: [[2017 Korean Crisis]]. We'll see how this goes... [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 03:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well, I hope for the sake of humanity, that the article is a flop!!!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 00:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Or rather, that the article is not necessary, à la the 2013 crisis. That said, whether or not the balloon goes up, we are Wikipedians, and we shall document the circumstances and events accordingly. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Well, {{u|Srich32977}} has folded that article back into this one, on the grounds that it was recentism. I agree, but I think the subsection "April 2017 events" is recentism too. The balloon hasn't gone up — the [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39652701 North Koreans are playing volleyball at the nuclear test site] — but this subsection is ballooning. At this rate, it will soon be bigger than the rest of the article combined. Does anyone else want to weigh in?--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Even with the BLAR, this article is a manageable 63k. It can be pared down in a week or so when the ''CRISES'' subsides. And it will. Witness how the US took care of it. VP Pence visited the DMZ and looked through the big binoculars, just as many, many dignitaries have done so in the past. And the US is not going to take uni-lateral action because the sK government is in a stage of transition. We will soon be able to enact [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]] in this article.  – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The problem isn't the overall length, but the length of the subsection. If 2013 is any guide, this could go on for months. Having written this article from a historical perspective, I would struggle to put together a sentence on the current episode. I'd vote for summary execution. In the meantime, if people come to this article — and apparently thousands are dropping by — they either think these are momentous events, or they think we're idiots. It's as if the [[Warren Beatty]] article was dominated by the Oscars gaffe.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: The past is prologue, but the future is nonetheless unwritten. Serious military assets are being shifted around, and God knows what's actually happening diplomatically, but that said I grant you that this subsection falls between two stools. I'm all for [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]] if and when the dust settles and as events warrant. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The ''Carl Vinson'' has now left the vicinity.[https://www.nknews.org/2017/06/two-u-s-aircraft-carriers-leave-waters-near-north-korea]--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Well.. now North Korea wants to nuke Guam, basically. Are we really that sure that a subsection isn't necessary? [[User:MickeyCheeky|MickeyCheeky]] ([[User talk:MickeyCheeky|talk]]) 12:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Well, things have changed. But the previous section/subsection is now obsolete. Carl Vinson has paled into insignificance. And that's the problem. Reacting to heated rhetoric and feverish speculation leads to a bloated chunk of text which soon becomes redundant. The "crisis" has moved on. Let's be clear: North Korea is proposing a missile test with missiles falling in international waters near Guam. While this is inflammatory, it is not an attack on Guam. It may never happen; it may happen and end up being a storm in a teacup. Or it could be the trigger for nuclear war. But it is better to wait and see. We cannot and should not document every North Korean denunciation or every Trump tweet. We need to wait till something concrete happens. This is a historical article, and a chronicle of events as they happen belongs in [[2017 in North Korea]], not here. History is something you see in the rearview mirror. Yesterday's newspapers end up in the bin. But given the amount of events and the length of the section despite massive trimming, hell, yeah, let's have a new ''section''!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 14:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::And now it appears that the Guam missile test is not going to happen...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I have changed the name of the section from "The Trump era" to "Current situation" as there is nothing so far to suggest that the election of Trump is epoch-making for Korea. He is in fact dealing with the same issue — North Korea's nuclear weapons — that Clinton did.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Update for future historians: [[2017–18 North Korea crisis]] has been created, a reincarnation of the earlier article, and a recent attempt to merge it to [[2017 in North Korea]] has failed.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)