Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please let me know whether the agenda below is valuable to update on the section of the current topic.

House Democrats and DPRK
  • Reactions=> Subject: House Democrats Should Cut Trump Some Slack on North Korea Policy: Link [1]

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please keep reactions- the sub-title as it could contain decent or compelling articles in the future.
Regarding the reaction parts, I think that it would be advantageous to have articles from multiple countries (for examples, USA, Japan, Korea, China, the UK, and many other countries... ETC).
It would provide us with "360-degree-view" from all over the world; What’s happening now, and what's other people's thought. Goodtiming8871 (talk)05:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Per WP:NEWSBLOG, it doesn't seem like the most awful of sources. IMO though, it is not that interesting a source either, I'm leaning that Daniel R. DePetris opinion is WP:UNDUE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reminder aboUT Wp:Undue Goodtiming1788 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Pre-summit reactions[edit]

Referred to post here by JFG: I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you [JFG] threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As an editor whose personal politics are remarkably different from those of JFG, please take my objectivity into mind when I wholeheartedly endorse the reversion. The content you added was not written in an encyclopedic tone, was proscriptive (when encyclopedias are, by definition, descriptive), was poorly sourced and in some places, downright incoherent.
I strongly advise you to stop complaining immediately, and start trying to explain exactly what it is you want to say in the article and why you think it belongs there. Right now, you're coming across as just another editor who's here to promote their own political views who's throwing a fit because things didn't immediately go your way. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to give the rest of us a proposal to seriously consider. To that end, I strongly advise you to read the links JPS has given you, and re-read them as necessary until you have a firm grasp of them. Feel free to ask questions here or at my talk page, though please also note that I will immediately ban you from my talk page if you show up there just to whine about not winning this argument or to complain about "...editorial transparency and credibility behind Wikipedia." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You want WP to proclaim stuff like
  • it is paramount for the US to restore credibility to its integrity
  • the US must commit to unambiguous, unequivocal and categorical international
That is not how it is done here. This WP-article doesn't care if the US restores credibility to its integrity or not, and has no opinion on what the US must do. That is material for your blog or whatever channel you have access to. If you want to have a lasting impact on this article, think again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also support removal of this unencyclopedic content that is more appropriate for an op-ed column than an encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
From my understanding about the opinions from the experienced users: "The content added in Reaction should be written in an encyclopedic tone" & well sourced. Let me add some reaction based on encyclopedic tone (👍 Like = neutral voice ) with a dependable source. Face-blush.svgLightbulb.png Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Can we add this photo below on this topic?

Trump officially addressed the location of the second Trump-Kim summit.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not very informative, in my opinion. We see the president standing at a podium while delivering a long speech on many subjects; nothing particular about the summit. — JFG talk 10:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Yep, the Second Summit was one of the 29 subjects :). Would you please suggest any photos can be placed on this article before the actual summit on 27-28/Feb? (example: one of the first Trump-Kim summit photos) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess one of Pompeo under Preparatory talks would not be unreasonable, he is mentioned a lot there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for your kind feedback. Would you please guide me one the links that can be used if possible? (examples: Wikipedia article or media file, News article ...etc) Goodtiming1788 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Mike Pompeo with Kim Jong-un 2
Goodtiming1788, I'd say this of Pompeo and Kim is a reasonable inclusion, more alternatives at [1]. BTW, a "ping" must include a tilde-signature made in the same edit, or else it doesn't work, more at Help:Fixing failed pings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That's on-topic, I'd support the inclusion of one of those pictures. — JFG talk 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
And presumably some more on-topic ones will turn up fairly soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for your kind guide Help:Fixing failed pings. YES, It's a great picture on this topic. I will add it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Can we add a photo about the venue - Vietnam (examples: meeting location)?
Please refer to that I added one photo: File:Presidential Palace Hanoi (38834565094).jpg, and it could be another option: It looks like: a Government House File:Hanoi, Vietnam (12036416576).jpg
Others: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RS media and writing style[edit]

RS Media and writing style; I will summarize or rephrase the reaction section again. Please update the writing or improve the article instead of removing it. I think it is fair to keep the part if it had the reference with a reliable source regarding the current topic. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if it's well-sourced and on-topic, it should be included. The previous text was just too far from encyclopedic tone to be kept. Happy to look at a better version. — JFG talk 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, To make it encyclopedic tone, please feel free to update the text if necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Goodtiming8871, you reintroduced this text:
Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of research planning at the Sejong Institute in South Korea interviewed with Japanese News paper, After the first Trump-Kim summit, for 260 days, they did not waste their opportunity. Instead, they continuously finalized their negotiation strategies for the two leader’s agreement and terms for the next step to be discussed on the second Trump-Kim summit.
Do you really not see the problem here? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Would you please be able to provide me with an example - encyclopedic tone writing style by fixing the problem of the text above ? It would be great for me to learn from your guidance.
Please refer to another version: I rephrased the previous text below.
Japanese Newspaper quoted the remark of Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of research planning at the Sejong Institute in South Korea.
After the first Trump-Kim summit, for 260 days, they did not waste their timeliness. Instead, they continuously finalized their negotiation strategies for the two leader’s agreement and terms for the next step to be discussed on the second Trump-Kim summit. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you got the drift of my obscure comment, thank you. However, when you are WP:QUOTEing something, use actual quotemarks to clearly separate what is quote from what is not.
Also, (here's the source) "Japanese Newspaper quoted the remark of Cheong Seong-chang" is not that good, "A Japanese newspaper quoted the remarks of Cheong Seong-chang" is better, but still not good. "The Japan Times quoted the remarks of Cheong Seong-chang" is better still, on WP one newspaper is often not as good (as a source) as another.
BUT. There is AFAICT no reason to doubt The Japan Times when they say that Cheong Seong-chang said this, so there is no reason to mention the paper in-text, the inline citation is enough, like so:
Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of research planning at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, said that "After the first Trump-Kim summit, for 260 days, they did not waste their timeliness. Instead, they continuously finalized their negotiation strategies for the two leader’s agreement and terms for the next step to be discussed on the second Trump-Kim summit."[1]
There is one more improvement that can be made here. The Japan Times tells us (discreetly) that this article is actually the work of BLOOMBERG, so it is better to use that [2] article as source instead (some WP-thoughts on BLOOMBERG can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Which makes "Japanese Newspaper quoted" a little misleading, if true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
And one can of course think about if it is better to use some sort of paraphrase instead of a direct quote, that is more grey-area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind guidance about the improvement of the article in Wikipedia. If all user follows your several recommendations, the quality of Wikipedia would be upgraded from Gold to Diamond grade. Lightbulb.png Thank you again for your advice. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Second Trump-Kim summit seen coming as North Korea continues to 'nuclearize' | The Japan Times". The Japan Times. Retrieved 25 February 2019.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Currently this file has been replaced with another file used in the article, delete the old file because of the wrong file name.Thienhau2003 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Official Name[edit]

This article has been renamed several times to match the supposed "official name" for the summit. As far as I know, there is no "official name." I have seen no reliable source providing an official name. Can we drop the pretense that there is an official name and stop arguing about what that name is? NPguy (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

More interesting is a WP:COMMONNAME for the article. I don't know what that currently is, but having both Hanoi and Vietnam in there seems unnecessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Logo of summit[edit]

Personally, I feel that the logo with the flags is unneccessary and I propose that the logo without the flags be used in the article instead. The logo w/o the flags is also shown on the title page of the official host country summit website -

Logo with flags (currently used): Official Logo of DPRK-USA Hanoi Summit-Vietnam-2019.jpg

Logo without flags: DPRK–USA Hanoi Summit.jpg

Wpeneditor (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the use of this Logo is in conjunction with the entire city where the conference is held, the news agencies and broadcasters as well as the website of the conference and the foreign ministry, the standard of the Logo. vertical and horizontal with the flag and the name of the conference, you can see these 2 photos to see how widely used this logo: . If you do not believe, you can view newspapers, television and many other sources. Thank you for watching.Thienhau2003 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless this is an official logo for the summit, it should be deleted altogether. You can't make up a logo for a Wikipedia article. NPguy (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the two links below.

From my understanding, there are two official logs below for the second summit.

Could you translate that into English? It makes no sense. NPguy (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Goodtiming8871, one of the many "rules" at WP is that you don't rewrite your comment after someone has replied to it[3], since this tends to make their comment a bit of nonsense. Better to just make a new comment. More at WP:REDACT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears that neither of these logos is used officially by the parties to the Summit, the United States and North Korea. Instead, they are used by Vietnam. The same goes for the "official name." The logo is probably OK to use as long as it's not called "official." But the name should not be labeled "official." NPguy (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, I agree with the user's opinon above : "The logo is probably OK to use as long as it's not called "official." ; I think it might be difficult to say it's official log as there are several versions. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

edit request[edit]

Maybe the title should be changed to "2019 North Korea-United States Vietnam Summit", the current name sounds unprofessional, there is no need to include the city name, and Vietnam should not be spelled "Viet Nam". (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to unanimous agreed new name. Aviartm (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit Viet Nam2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit – The "Viet Nam" part is not needed per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. Also, the previous summit is under "2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit", so that proposed name would be consistent with the previous summit. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Levalbert, please undo your moving of the page per the above discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What next for Donald Trump & Kim Jong-un?[edit]

Without the final agreement of the second summit, What next for Donald Trump & Kim Jong-un? Can we add some opinions on this topic from the world on this sudden issue? example: "Trump-Kim meeting: The big moments from the dramatic summit in Vietnam" [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It would be one of the good options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It will all be highly speculative and most likely totally wrong, like all the other "expert" opinions on the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course it will be. It may be decent content anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Chairman, North Korean leader or Supreme leader[edit]

Google News search results are as follows:

  • Kim Jong-un "North Korean leader": 7,800,000
  • Kim Jong-un "Chairman": 4,850,000
  • Kim Jong-un "Supreme leader": 37,800
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-summit reactions[edit]

@MrX: I contributed most of the content contained in this reversion, about which you said:

"Mediaite,, and free republic are not reliable sources"

• Mediaite: please see this

38 North: a leading authority on NK

• Free Republic (FR): I realize FR is a conservative opinion site, some might say a rabidly right-wing echo chamber, and I winced at the thought of using it as a source, but as I alluded to in my edit summaries ("paywalled WSJ article via Free Republic"), I used FR only because it was the only source I could find that contained the full text of a paywalled WSJ article. The FR post links to the WSJ article, which is a very "meaty" piece for this article. I could replace the FR ref with the original WSJ article, but readers would not be able to see the meat behind that paywall.

"nor should this article contain such excruciatingly detailed commentary"

As I see it, Trump's NK gambit is bold, risky and likely highly consequential, and thus warrants substantial comments from subject matter experts, which is what those edits contain.

I'd like to restore that content. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Readers don't need to see behind the paywall for free. Cite the most reliable source, not the most dodgy one that provides it for free. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
You definitely can't link to a WSJ article that has been copied onto FR. That's contributory copyright infringement and a violation of WP:COPYVIO. If the WSJ is the only source where something can be found, it more than likely fails WP:DUEWEIGHT anyway. I'll take your word on 38North. Regarding Mediaite, I believe that it is a shunned source based on various talk page discussions I've participated in. In fact, I thought it was already on the list at WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 01:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Your copyvio comment is well taken, I can just use the WSJ ref, per Finnusertop. But Michael R. Gordon has the chops to get exclusive interviews with subject matter experts, which is why his WSJ piece carries weight. Mediaite is not yet mentioned on WP:RSP, which is why I am now seeking consensus for it. My specific Mediate edit contained quotes and video support for them, so it's pretty indisputable. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding sources: WSJ is obviously reliable; Mediaite is a news aggregator so again you should cite the actual source; 38 North I think is OK. But I think the problem is the "excruciatingly detailed commentary". We don't need long quotes from every talking head in the known universe. What would be good is a summary of the main opinions. If you use Gordon it should be one sentence. Less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding selection of the news articles, the actual source about 38 North, Would it be now reliable reference? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Mediaite is not an aggregator, it doesn't merely link to other sources, and it is not feasible to link to the original source because it's typically TV shows, from which Mediaite provides quotes/clips. And it's not "every talking head in the known universe," it's a handful of observations from subject matter experts and principals such as Bolton. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Post-summit reactions by South Korea Government[edit]

South Korea Government announced that "We do regret that President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un did not reach a complete agreement at today's summit,” & “But it is clear that (the summit) made more meaningful progress than any other time in the past." However, the Wikipedia article stated "South Korea and Japan both supported Trump's actions" ONLY; I think this one line sentence could be some misunderstanding about the announcement of South Korea Government. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)