Talk:North Korea–United States relations/Archive 1

Six-party talks information
To suggest the US were the original suggestors of 6-party talks in 2003 is clearly incorrect. Multiparty talks existed before (e.g. 4-party talks), and the idea of including the six relevant countries in such multiparty talks for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula were discussed as long ago as the late 1980s. Overall, the article needs a lot of reworking which I can improve on at a later date, but it definitely needs a more 'professional' and informative makeover. Jsw663 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Serious additions needed
Although the sections on Bush administration policy toward North Korea are really comprehensive and well-done, this page as a whole is sorely lacking in some of the most basic parts of the narrative. I also think that the early years of the relationship are worth building up (especially with reference to work done by scholar Bruce Cumings) and the Pueblo Incident and other aspects need inclusion.

I very much like the title of the page, though, since this problem should be looked at also from the North Korean perspective, not just "US policy toward North Korea," which is a completely different (and much more narrow) thing than "US-North Korean relations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liushaoqi (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section regarding relations until the end of the Cold War has been left blank. I don't know if this is the right place to ask to get this fixed, but I would expect it to be an important part of the article. Can anyone get on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelzo (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Dating Error Needs Resolution
This was originally found on the article, not mine. AlexanderAwful (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. International funding for the LWR replacement power plants had to be sought. Formal invitations to bid were not issued until 1998, by which time the delays were infuriating North Korea. [5] In May 1998, North Korea warned it would restart nuclear research if the U.S. could not install the LWR.[14] KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site, and a formal ground breaking was held on the site on August 21, 1997.[15]"````

The Interview film
I came here as a reader rather than editor because I don't consider myself qualified to write very much about North Korea. I was quite surprised to see that almost nothing has been written about the aftermath of NK's reaction to the film. This has been all over the news and is rapidly escalating. Is there any board or other place on Wikipedia where editors with some knowledge of NK might be requested to contribute? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Source 45
Source 45 links to an article about European Art Theft that has nothing to do with North Korea or the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.224.28 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on North Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927202918/http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070319/630000000020070319113120E2.html to http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070319/630000000020070319113120E2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on North Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403212710/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130328/us-flies-stealth-bombers-over-south-korea to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130328/us-flies-stealth-bombers-over-south-korea

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908091709/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824204704/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/042nd_issue/98051302.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/042nd_issue/98051302.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824204606/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/005th_issue/97082102.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/005th_issue/97082102.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on North Korea–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012224655/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4951 to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4951
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/22/punishing-north-korea-a-run-down-on-current-sanctions/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910105341/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3913 to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3913
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012224655/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4951 to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4951

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

POV
"President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade North Korea. He also has stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are most concerned with the threat to regional stability and security it poses. The U.S. goal is the complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea's neighbors have joined the United States in supporting a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula."

I think that is clearly POVed, at least the way of saying it, sounds like US propaganda.The DPRK may have a corrupt and closed regime, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should just repeat the USA's position; we all know they are all but peaceseekers.
 * We know you are anti-American POV agenda pusher, unsigned IP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the paragraph somewhat. In it's original form, it basically seemed to be taking the position that the sincerity of the Bush Administration on this issue was accepted by all when in reality many critcs doubt the administrations sincerity on this issue. In order to be more NPOV, I made it clear that we are talking about claims of the Bush and his administration and not completely accepted facts as they are not. -Cab88 22:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adding Public Opinion Data
In today's day and age, it is critically important that people have a good understanding of how Americans see and have historically seen North Korea. I think the attention is often focused on what the US government plans to do, but as we repeatedly see in history, the government's decisions are heavily swayed by a public mandate. On a separate note, there is a multitude of excellent sources that give a neutral and comprehensive look at this topic.

Sources and what they will contribute:

1. Forbes: Forbes Article This research is a great look into how strong the opinions are of the American public right now, along with a look at more recent American reactions to specific events such as the death of Otto Warmbier. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2017/08/02/north-korea-and-public-opinion/&refURL=&referrer=#41f0815558df

2. Pew: Pew Research Pew provides a more specific demographical analysis into which Americans think what about North Korea. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/americans-hold-very-negative-views-of-north-korea-amid-nuclear-tensions/

3. International Journal of Public Opinion Research The International Journal of Public Opinion Research explains what specific events have affected opinions historically. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/21/2/204/731656/Frame-Flow-between-Government-and-the-News-Media

4. Peterson Insititute: Peterson Institute Polling The Peterson Insitute for International Economics has a great piece about the role the US alliance with South Korea plays in American public opinion. https://piie.com/blogs/north-korea-witness-transformation/public-opinion-north-korea-chicago-council-global-affairs

5. Chicago Council: Chicago Council on Global Affairs These findings will serve to supplement the other sources in its analysis of how threatened Americans are by North Korea, along with strengthening data on South Korea's role. https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/north-korea-now-seen-top-threat-facing-united-states

Tcevidanes (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)tcevidanes

North demokrats
Could you add a line or two that now nobody can be held responsible for failing the peace talks on North Korea side? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"History" and "Nuclear Weapons"
This is not a clear dichotomy. Aren't nuclear weapons part of history? Shouldn't these be combined?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's flat out wrong to group information both chronologically and thematically. It's quite obvious that this is the single most important bilaterial issue in recent times. If anything, just a single "History" mega section would be a bit tautological, because everything that has happened up until this very moment is "history". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "History" section already includes information on nuclear weapons: for example, "North Korea policy under Bill Clinton". Given that nuclear weapons is such an important bilateral issue, it makes no sense to separate it from the historical narrative. I think it would be better to combine the two sections, and break it up into larger "eras". I don't think we need to have a "History" mega section. Clearly relations have changed over history. Relations in 1951 and 2008 are different to what they are now. I would just have separate sections for the the different eras.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)