Talk:International sanctions against North Korea
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 23 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sanctions against North Korea to International sanctions against North Korea. The result of the discussion was moved. |
US Source of information
[edit]Here is one link that lists all the sanctions by US on NK: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/northkorea/ . It may be helpful in improving the content of this article. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 05:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
ImperialMilitaryWatch.com
[edit]ImperialMilitaryWatch.com is not a reliable source. At a quick glance it looks like a reputable magazine (and in fact the URL http://imperialmilitarywatch.com/ gets forwarded to the much more respectable-sounding http://militarywatchmagazine.com), there is no masthead; the "about" page gives no indication of who is behind the website. There's no indication of corporate ownership or association with some organization like a research institute or a think tank. Their Facebook link is broken, their other supposed social media links lead back to their own website. That's not how reliable sources are built. Even if the supposed magazine were reliable, the article by Abt is labeled "The statements, views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Military Watch Magazine." - it's an opinion piece which the publisher explicitly disowns. It isn't significant enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Many publishers state that opinions don't necessarily represent their views, and in fact many publish opposing views. Felix Abt's opinions are notable as he has extensive business experience in North Korea. But if you object to the source, OK, let's leave it out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The lead
[edit]The lead right now is cumbersome and it's hard to tell just what the important points are about the history of sanctions against NK. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Table instead of paragraphs ?
[edit]The flow this article is cumbersome. I'm suggesting that the different paragraphs should be put into a table for a better overview of said paragraphs.
Asabiyya (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- No. This article should consists mostly of WP:PROSE. Right now these bullet point lists miss the mark, but a table would be even worse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Reorganizing content for relevancy at the expense of chronology
[edit]In the section on the United States, all content is ordered chronologically. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to break such a pattern in the interest of relevancy. The proposed change would be to move the final sentence (about the US reconsidering a travel ban) to the end of the second paragraph (where the travel ban is initially discussed). Would this be a relevant/welcome change? Nolandanley (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
182347
PoE
[edit]The Panel of Experts has been discontinued by a Russian veto, Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- High-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea North Korea working group
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Trade articles
- Unknown-importance Trade articles
- WikiProject Trade articles