Talk:Six-party talks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Discussion - Notice board Manual of Style - Naming conventions Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: C quality , high priority.  Working group: DPRK.
	Korea-related tasks: purge Create North Korea South Korea Korea North Korean Cities South Korea-India relations Districts of Seoul National Institute of Korean Language Wanghusa Garakgukgi Korea YMCA Ji Cheongcheon Battle at Luozigou Battle at Dadianzi Battle of Bongohdong Battle of Samdunja Sampo Waeran Byeongin Yangyo Goguryeo-Wei War Lelang Conquest Xienpei Campaign Guda-guk Galsa-guk Gaema-guk Hangin-guk Chunchong King Taejong Jeamri Jinju fortress Improve North-South relations Sports Tourism Communications North Korean Missile Test (2006) Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Gangpeh Jirisan Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe Korean architecture Gaya confederacy Samhan Goryeo Namsan (Gyeongju) Nangnang nation Korean royal court cuisine Bangjja Calligraphy Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Korean Liberation Army Independence movement Culture of Korea Korean martial arts Korean swords Korean nationalism Korean knife Korean armour (see also Pages needing attention and Stubs) Images North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Dong-A University Pohang Songguk-ri Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery Three Kingdoms of Korea Mongol invasions of Korea Goryeo-Khitan Wars Goguryeo-Sui Wars Military history of Korea List of monarchs of Korea Prehistory of Korea Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: ko:이범석 (1900년) ko:유관순 ko:이봉창 ko:박헌영 ko:김원봉 Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Complete List (edit)

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.

Contents 1 To do 2 Article namespace 3 Supply of light water reactors 4 The Democratic People's Republic of Korea 5 Pictures 6 The 'foreign translations' of the 'six-party talks' at the beginning of the article 7 Rename

[edit] To do

• pictures, GFDL or public domain
• Add separate section on views of the six-party talks process by different parties, including those not directly involved in the talks (e.g. EU views, etc.). Alternatively, may split into two sections - the praise and the criticism.
• Add separate section on implications / impact the six-party talks can have on the security of the region.

[edit] Article namespace

• Any talks which involve six parties are "six-party talks". "Six party talks" could refer to any diplomatic summit involving six parties. The name of the article needs to be changed to something more specific, making it clear that this is about the Korean talks. News sources almost always qualify the phrase with something like "six-party talks on Korea", "six-party talks regarding the Korean peninsula", "six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program", etc. —Lowellian (talk) 12:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • In theory, yes, any talks involving six parties could be referred to as six party talks. However, in common news media usage, referring to "the six party talks" means these specific talks. If there are other six party talks in the future that are referred to specifically as "six party talks" then we can just create a disambiguation page. But we should use the most common usage for the article title. No one refers to the talks as the "six-party talks on Korea", "six-party talks regarding the Korean peninsula", "six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program" regularly or consistently. —thames 13:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean, I presume, that in the USA media they are referred to as 6 party talks, in the UK they are generally referred to as North Korean talks & the phrase 6 party talks isn't widely used, except as a descriptive phrase. I'd agree with Lowellian that the phrase 6 party talks is too general a name for an article, it is descriptive rather than naming. I'd suggest renaming it North Korean talks or something similar. AllanHainey 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You presume my meaning incorrectly. They are referred to as the six party talks in the U.S. media, the Chinese media, the Korean media (both north and south), and the Japanese media. I can't vouch for the Russian media. Perhaps the BBC doesn't refer to the "six party talks", but the FT does[ [1], as does The Economist [2]. —thames 17:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I will have to agree with Lowellian on this one. Any talks with six parties at the negotiating table may be called "six-party talks". This article should be renamed to North Korea nuclear talks or something like that. KNewman 13:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you in theory--yes any talks with six parties could be referred to as six party talks. However, in current widespread common usage, the term "six party talks" refers to the six party talks concerning north korea's nuclear program. I think this is official policy, in fact: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). There are no other prominent talks known as "six party talks". If there are in the future, we can create a disambig page. Until then, this is the most common name, and it should remain in this namespace. —thames 19:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Six party talks is overwhelmingly the most common (and most straightforward) way of referring to these negotiations. It has 425,000 Google hits, the vast majority of which do refer to these negotiations. That's ten times as many as for "North Korean nuclear talks." (By the way, this discussion should be moved to the article talk page once it's done). -- Visviva 04:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is denying that the North Korean talks are six-party talks. But any talks involving six parties are "six-party talks." In the current news media, most references to "six party talks" are to the North Korean talks because they are ongoing and current, just as, for instance, in the time around Hurricane Katrina, most references to "hurricane" in the news media referred to Katrina. That does not mean that the Katrina article should be at "hurricane," which is a general term that can apply to any hurricane, just as "six-party talks" is a general term that can apply to any six-party talks. —Lowellian (reply) 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• When there are another set of unrelated six party talks widely referred to as "the six party talks" in the media, we can move the article and create a disambig. Until then, it should stay. —thames 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I usually use six-party talks with a hyphen between 'six' and 'party' so as not to confuse it with other similar talks. Since I'm studying this area at the highest level possible pls ask if you have any questions. Jsw663 11:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since this seems like a proper title name (even though it's not really so), perhaps we should use the name The Six-Party Talks since we always seem to see it refered to in that way (then do dab work if desired). Emax0 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supply of light water reactors

This issue was known about on the 19th as recorded in the New York Times article:

"The accord finessed what had been the biggest sticking point in the latest round of talks - the light-water nuclear reactor - by leaving it to be resolved in future discussions. North Korea demanded throughout the week-long session that the international community agree to provide it with a light-water reactor before it took steps to dismantle its nuclear program."

The following day's New York Times article records that at the talks it was agreed that each country would issue "separate statements describing their understanding of the deal", so the DPRK statement 24 hours later can hardly be a surprise:

"To break the impasse, Ms. Rice came up with a compromise during meetings on Saturday afternoon with her South Korean and Japanese counterparts. Each country, she suggested, would issue separate statements describing their understanding of the deal, with a specificity that is not in the agreement itself. The South Koreans and Japanese went along with the idea, though South Korea, one official said, complained that it would "sour the atmosphere." Russia and China issued vaguer statements that left unclear the sequence of events."

I have adjusted the article to reflect this. Looks like the South Korean prediction this would "sour the atmosphere" was spot on. -- Rwendland 10:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have modified this slightly. Please read the article (I've tried to keep some of what you've written) and see what you think. To say any country's proposal would 'sour the deal' when it is simply a credible alternative (as supposed to an impossible alternative or deliberate frustration of a deal) sounds too much like opinion. Jsw663 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The United States of America is not called "The Kingdom of America", nor is Saudi Arabia called "The Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia" (at least they admit they are not a democracy). The "DPRK" is a totalitarian dictatorship, not a democratic republic. Just because the morons that run North Korea declare themselves a democracy, that does not make it so. I wish I could declare myself to be the most handsome man on the planet, but unfortunately most people have eyes and the ability to think, therefore I know it would be useless to give myself such a title.

Perhaps you don't realise that communist countries call themselves democratic PEOPLE'S republics, not democracies or republics on its own, therefore its title is still accurate. One word does make a difference, and you cannot deny a country's official name simply because you do not think it fits with their government style. After all, many people would object if we labelled the USA the Kingdom of the United States of America instead of its official name, the Federal Republic of the United States of America, right? Jsw663 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

it's wikipedia policy to use the most common english names, not "official names." WP:NC(CN) that's why north korea is at North Korea. until the policy changes (and i've been tempted to argue for a change myself), we need to be stylistically consistent. Appleby 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What if I created a republic? (Let’s say in Africa). If I decide to name my republic Penisland, would wikipedia and the United Nations be forced to recognize my republic by that name? "The gentleman from Penisland will adress the assembly."

According to the United Nations, the government of North Korea actually declares itself a democracy. It considers itself to be the purest government that is for and goververned by the ordinary people, hence the title: "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea." The reality is much different than that. It is well known now that if any person in North Korea decided to mouth opposition to Kim Jung-il he would be labeled as an enemy of the state and would be executed. The Soviet Union tried to fool people by their "USSR" title and China, to this day, tries to fool people with their "PRC" title. It is all dumb and selfish politics, which, to an extent, is practiced by nearly every nation on this planet. --Mdriver1981 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mdriver1981: It's the Democratic People's Republic (hence DPRK). According to the UN the DPRK declares itself a PEOPLE'S democracy. It is a brand of democracy, as communism is in the sense that there is representation of the people (note that this is all theoretical, but nevertheless applies here). Thus your P-land republic example is irrelevant, as is your anti-state diatribe above. Just because states are inherently selfish does not make them any less of the system of government they are claiming.

Appleby: OK, granted, but then I'm pretty sure that preposition in the first line you used is incorrect. A meeting can be COMPOSED OF 6 members, or be WITH 6 members, but cannot be OF (preposition by itself) 6 members. Jsw663 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663: I believe that the United Nations is willing to call a nation whatever name that nation desires. The U.N., unfortunetly, is not an entity that encourages democracy and honesty. It encourages peace and stability, and is willing to do just about anything to appease totalitarian dictatorships for those purposes. They let men like Mao Zedong and Kim il-Sung die natural deaths, and will recognize nations like the "DPRK" as legitimate.

Again, the reason why communist nations call themselves “Democratic People’s Republics" is to imply that they are governments for and by the ordinary people (workers); they do not use that title to insinuate to other nations that they are undemocratic. My point is this: The least we can do is simply recognize nations for what they are, not what they are in theory. There are, in my opinion, two reasons why North Korea should not be called the “DPRK”.: (1) It gives the tyrants that run the North Korean government undeserved legitimacy and pride. (2) The name gives false implications to the ignorant.--Mdriver1981 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mdriver1981: To judge another country's government by applying what others (ie citizens not belonging to that country) think is the most approriate criteria is reaching into controversial, if not dangerous, territory. How would the USA feel being called the Dictatorship of the USA by the growing number of anti-American people on this planet? The UN is respecting each country's sovereignty, hence its name and system of government as well. Although I obviously understand that most people would argue a good case for the DPRK not being very DPR at all (after all they call their own system 'juche', not strictly communism / Marxism per se), that is really more of a judgement call. Your call on Mao and Kim's natural death point seems to be more emotion than fact. After all, the UN allowed Stalin to die a fairly natural death - and the US, UK and the Allies even allied with the country during WWII they were later going to war against in the Cold War!!! As POVs are not tolerated on wiki, it's better we stick with their official, or as Appleby said before, their most-official-name-next-to-their-UN-official name. To call the DPRK not the DPRK or North Korea would be a little far-fetched. Jsw663 10:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations does not name member nations and does not get a say in renaming nations already a part of the United Nations. Call it either by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or North Korea. People refer to the "United States of America" (official name) as any number of things and it doesn't really matter. It's just a name. One could point out the irony of calling it the "United States" seeing how different some states laws are (ie gay marriage) And I am sure some people around the world do not even know the United States is made up of states or even care because it isn't important to them. A name is just a name and whatever North Korea wants to be called I am sure is the least of the United Nations' worries. People are not flocking to the Democratic People's Republic because it sounds like the happening place for "the people". If the argument is it gives a false impression then, yeah it does, so what? Just don't believe it. Greenland is a misleading name but no one is standing up at the UN to say that. But to be fair it's not its own nation and is not a United Nations member. However if it was I'm sure they could keep their name regardless of how false it is (it's not a green land at all). Ganley894 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"To judge another country's government by applying what others (ie citizens not belonging to that country) think is the most approriate criteria is reaching into controversial, if not dangerous, territory." I'm sorry, but we live in a world where people judge other people's governments. I believe the U.S. and the free world must implact judgment on dictatorships, and call them for what they are. North Korea is totalitarian dictatorship.

Unfortunetly, the U.N. respecting North Korea's "soverignty", means it respects the fact that North Korea butchers and enslaves it's own people on a very massive scale. The Government that runs North Korea is as worse as the Third Reich. Read the article on labor camps.--24.59.186.128 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just advocating a non-interventionist approach. Who, or what, gave the US and who they determine to be the 'free world' the right to judge every other country? I'm not defending Kim's actions but I don't see what gives the right for us to judge what goes on in the DPRK. Like I said before, would you allow and/or tolerate countries like Iran to call the US a dictatorship? Jsw663 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would not tolerate the governments of Iran or North Korea deeming the United States a dictatorship. My reason: The United States is not a dictatorship. I know this, for I have lived here my whole twenty-four years of existance and have voted in numerous elections. As for the peoples of North kKorea and Iran... I would not be offended by their calling the U.S. a "dictatorship" because I know that they do not know any better.--24.59.186.128 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then this comes back to the original question - who is to decide whether a country is of a government system it claims to be or not? (eg is the DPRK a DPR?) If you were the UN and you had countries calling each other all sorts of differing types of government, you would have confusion. After all, North Koreans may genuinely think that they are living in a Democratic People's Republic. If so, why should we not respect their wishes to call themselves the DPRK even if non-North Koreans do not agree? Jsw663 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the people of North Korea are not allowed to have any contact with the outside world and face imprisonment in labor camps with their families and quite possibly execution if they so much as criticize their government I'd say its impossible to know what they think of their country, but given the situation its pretty clear that, if they were told what a 'democracy' or 'republic' is its certain they'd recognize they don't live in one (seeing as they'd probably be executed for knowing what a real democracy is...) --The Way 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is why Kim's stopped calling his country a communist one... when he says it's "juche" it pretty much allows for a wide interpretation. However, even if many are only told of the evils of democracy like the Soviets before 1991, that does not mean they will readily embrace democracy (like the modern Russians) as some kind of 'ideal government' or even the best form of government in existence. Jsw663 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this is all getting OT. It shouldn't concern us here whether or not DPRK is a democractic republic or not (although anyone with any knowledge and experience should know a democractic republic is neither democractic nor a real republic by out understanding of the words). It only concerns us what to call it on this article. I believe this issue was discussed on the nuclear tests article so let's just stick with the consensus there unless there is reason to change it. That reason should have nothing to do with whether or not you think DPRK is a democractic republic IMHO. Nil Einne 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I have quite a few pictures specifically for the six-party talks but since I don't know how to find out its copyright / legal status / origin, what do I do (so that this page will look more colorful?) Jsw663 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we generally cannot use images that are not released under a free license. Thanks for your interest, though. -- Visviva 09:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'foreign translations' of the 'six-party talks' at the beginning of the article

It seems some users have deemed this 'unnecessary' yet I have not read any Wikipedia guideline or policy which discourages such use. After all, the six-party talks is not a uniquely US concept or process, but is a regional concept. Unless Wikipedia in general has gone through a major reformatting of excluding non-English translations on its English Wikipedia of which I am not aware, what is the need for the box with the different flags with their names? It is not as if this isn't clear later on in the article. My suggestion: Either have the full multi-lingual translations for the six-party talks or don't bother having the box at all. What are everyone else's views? Jsw663 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I am happy to be overruled by consensus (Wiki guideline I think puts this at around 60%?) or an admin, or of course willing to compromise if anyone feels strongly against my opinion. Jsw663 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The box is rather pointless, I agree, and may as well be removed entirely. But generally, we have foreign translations copiously on pages about those things - e.g we have the Korean for Republic of Korea at Republic of Korea. We don't randomly include them on articles just because. If there are stock phrases used in Russian, Korean, Chinese and Japanese for the term "six party talks" then that would be appropriate to go here, though.

By the way, I deemed. And check the list. But this doesn't get me any special rights here. People being entrusted to perform certain janitorial functions has nothing to do with a formatting issue. Morwen - Talk 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure, didn't notice you were an admin (I should have checked the list) - so what course of action would you suggest? Just eliminating the box? It's only a pity that such a box cannot be suitably replaced by a picture, or something. Also, do you have any recommendations on how to 'improve' this article? // To the person below, it only takes up one-quarter in width of a fraction of the length of the page, so it's really not that much. Jsw663 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, I've just noticed the contents of the box were, in fact, what I suggested. Doh. Are these actual stock-phrases used in the appropriate languages for these talks as invariably as 'six-party talks' is in English? Or are they just literal translations of "six-party talks". I shall ponder its formatting. Also note that the width it takes up on the screen will of course depend upon the width of your screen. It is currently coded to be 250pixels wide, no matter how wide the screen. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, well I'm glad that you think that if they were not just literal translations that you'd agree to keep the box (although the box wasn't written/included by myself). The translations are not exactly literal... for example the Chinese translated into English would be more like, if translated literally "six sides(' opinions) meeting discussion", and the Korean would be "six party meeting discussion", and although I don't know any Japanese it seems more like "six power-countries agreement" (since their Kanji writing system is based on Chinese). The Russian one would, when translated literally, be "six-sided negotiations". Since their meaning is thus not exactly the same in all languages it would be better to have their equivalents included in the box. Hope this has helped. Jsw663 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the english language wikipedia, and as such, the translations are meaningless to the majority of readers (and in fact, will show up as "?" because most uses don't have the proper fonts). It is particularly overboard here as it takes up about a 1/3 of the initial page, and includes 5 translations , some with three writing systems. It really doesn't add anything useful to the article. 75.105.178.150 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather shortsighted view. While this wikipedia article may be in English, the event is not created or exclusively hosted by English-speaking US (technically all nations present are equally responsible), so having only the English term can have the negative consequence of confusing readers into believing that US is "leading" these talks. The number of writing systems used is completely beside the point anyway. Also, there are differences noticeable to a speaker of multiple languages. For example, the Japanese language-equivalent is actually "Six-country talks" which is more interesting if one is aware that Japanese government does not formally recognize North Korea as a country. --Revth 03:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Revth. Keep the translations. —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Revth's comments are essentially the same as mine just above his... hope the 'literal translations' of the other languages can demonstrate that it is not called (exactly) the 'six-party talks' in languages other than English. Jsw663 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to have literal translations of the name in other languages, as well... Anyone up to it? —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Read my post (16:19, 2 Nov 2006) just after Morwen's and just before 75.105.178.150's where I do give a literal translation of the six nation's 'six-party talks' equivalents. Jsw663 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Clearly, this name is nothing near one-to-one and so there needs to be a new one. However, I do not know what would be a proper name. —Centrx→talk • 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with the current name? It's certainly the most common name used, and it's neutral. —Nightstallion (?) 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not sufficient descriptive or specific. There have been before and will be again things that are talks between six parties. These six-party talks are specifically about North Korea and it would be better to have some description like "Six-party talks on North Korea" or "Six-party talks concerning North Korea's nuclear program"; it is often introduced in this manner because, standing alone "six-party talks" is not clear and looks to be a generic noun of some sort. Examples: Washington Post introduces it as "six-nation nuclear disarmament talks", likewise CBS News, [Globalsecurity.org introduces it as "The Six-Party Talks concerning the DPRK’s nuclear program"], [BBC introduces it as "Six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme"], etc., etc. No one expects readers to know what "Six-party talks" means without a proper description of it. Articles belong at the the most common name, not the common abbreviation that is also found with it. For the same reason, the title should be the title that should be used in other articles when it is referred to; those articles should always properly describe what the six-party talks are. Even supposing that the reader today is familiar with the issue and the news surrounding—which is not necessarily be the case—if this is to be an encyclopedia article that will last for five or ten more years, it should be named more accurately. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be opening a discussion for consensus on such a matter rather than make a unilateral decision by one editor? Jsw663 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was opened a month ago; anyone was welcome to discuss it here. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely extending a discussion period when nobody has (properly) talked about it is not unreasonable? I find it objectionable to rename the six-party talks so soon. Maybe in 10 years, when there are other six-party talks, this point should be up for discussion again, but until then it is premature to rename it to say the least! It's not like you hear any officials, be they American, Chinese or Korean, talk about the "Six-party talks concerning the DPRK's nuclear program" now, is there? Jsw663 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The new title is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Use common names, and also note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions calls for names to be short and easy to link. We do not practice pre-emptive disambiguation on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Added: refer specifically to Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate." There will certainly be other six-party talks in the future, but it is relatively unlikely that they will be primarily known as "the Six Party Talks" rather than by some other name. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and also not paper; if the need to disambiguate does arise (which frankly seems unlikely) we can deal with it at that time. -- Visviva 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Six-party talks with North Korea", etc. is more common than simply "Six-party talks". I can't find any non-specialized writing that simply states "Six-party talks", and it is not clear what exactly is referred to. This is not disambiguation, it is simply an unclear, uncommon name. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any non-specialized article that does not simply state 'six-party talks' then? I'm most interested to read any such sources! Moreover, even if that did exist I would have thought that it would be in the tiny minority. Jsw663 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)