Talk:2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit

Addition Mar. 11 message to Trump via So. Korean delegation from Kim Jong-un

"The official, however, refused to elaborate on Kim’s message to Trump concerning topics other than the summit proposal. A senior Seoul official said Saturday that Chung had delivered an additional message from Kim to Trump that was unrelated to the summit invitation.

"'It was to build trust for the summit, and it is something not directly related to denuclearization,' the source said. 'After listening to this, Trump showed a very positive response.'

"Speculation is high that Kim might have promised the release of three Korean-Americans detained in the North in order to facilitate the summit."

--Mar. 14 Korea JongAng Daily

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, we need to see more news, but can we trust all news? .:)... Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No letter

Altho it had been reported Chung had passed a handwritten letter by Kim on to Trump,[1] it was later clarified that Kim's invitation that Chung relayed to Trump had been done verbally. ("The invitation was delivered Thursday by North Korean national security advisor Chung Eui-yong. In the message - which was originally reported to have been delivered in a letter -- Kim Jong Un also pledged to stop nuclear and missile testing. A senior administration official said later that the message was delivered orally and not in writing[...]."---Atlanta Journal-Constitution)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's surprising. How would Kim know that his message was passed on faithfully???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno but it does seem Kim prefers relaying this sentiment verbally and via various intermediaries. Eg in a Mar.28 tweet Trump wrote "Received message last night from XI JINPING[...]that KIM looks forward to his meeting with me."[2]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a strategy. Kim could just ring Trump, after all...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The composite image of the 2 leaders

I'm sorry, but this image might give the impression at a passing glance that it is a picture of the two men together. I know it's a montage, the backgrounds are quite different, and anyone examining it at all closely would see that, but we shouldn't, even potentially, confuse or mislead the reader, or cause them to go "wtf?". I suppose with a more explanatory caption, making clear it's a composite image it could be ok, but at the moment I'm quite uncomfortable with it - especially with the caption it has. My first inclination was to remove it, but I'm posting here for other opinions in case others see it differently. -- Begoon 14:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: I've changed it to use the multiple images template. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. I took the liberty of reducing the size to align it with the other image. The multiple-image template is fiddly to use... -- Begoon 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for efforts, it looks great :) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reactions?

Do we really need to list reactions from random people around the world before the summit has even started? If they are important, they should be included in Developments.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It will soon be confusing what these people are reacting to, as the developments unfold.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the "Reactions" section. It was just a random "quote farm". Consisting of quotes as far back as March, it made no chronological sense, and added nothing to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the reactions from the world about the historic summit; it would undoubtedly add values to the article as all parts of countries see differently the Trump - Kim summit. Trump-Kim Summit has a positive and negative view even in the United States. I think it is important to have a balanced view of these reactions in Wikipedia. I think it is a procedure to ask for the consent and opinion of several people first before the removing the one topic regarding the contribution of Wikipedians. If you think you need to sort the contents in chronological order, instead of merely erasing them, arrange the contents in chronological order. I would recover the relevant topic as a first step. Goodtiming8871 (talk)

I think two months was long enough to wait for a response. The problem is that the reactions are detached from the chronological structure of the article. As time has gone on, people have reacted to different things, but these are all lumped together. Are we going to end up with reactions to the actual summit lumped together with reactions to the proposal???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding about the interest of the historic summit, and as per your point to separate the reactions about the proposed summit and actual summit, it would be appropriate to create another section for the responses to the actual summit on the date of 12 June 2018. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Why are there 20 countries that just basically say "Yay, good job" in different forms on here? Half o them do not matter....Gvstaylor1 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

nuclear weapons strategic asset

What is a nuclear weapons strategic asset? Is it a strategic nuclear weapon or delivery means or weapons storage or command and control, or launch facilities or what?--Arado (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you may see it as a trump in a trick-taking game of cards. How a map works. Either it works or it doesn't. Does that make sense? Wakari07 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Why now?

Are there any sources analysing why North Korea is offering to meet with Trump at all, let alone agreeing to this summit? Last I heard, Trump was insulting Kim Jong-un on twitter. This article currently says the summit is happening with no analysis of why. I find it hard to believe that the North Koreans spontaneously decided to invite America to the summit out of the goodness of their own hearts. Hypershock (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Part of the answer can be found at North Korea–South Korea relations. However, you seem to have the misconception that North Korea was refusing to negotiate with the USA, whereas the USA was refusing to negotiate with North Korea ("strategic patience"). North Korea hasn't really shifted its position. But, yes, this should be covered here.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question. For myself, I wouldn't feel knowledgeable enough to venture a guess. That said, one source, at least, opines: "North Korea’s ideal to aim for, therefore, its shimmering vision of a more prosperous future, is not Vietnam but Belarus. To achieve a development of the North Korean economy and its re-orientation towards Russia, Kim probably needs two treaties — not just one. With Trump, he needs a treaty ending sanctions on North Korea and allowing it to make arrangements with the Western private sector in its own interests. With Russia, he needs a treaty of alliance and assistance, ideally funded by the Western banking system."[3]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is there's a lot of analysis, some of it merely reflecting the agenda or prejudices of its authors. I think we'd want to look for the main points that most people make, but more importantly the things are undoubtably true. That is, it's better to say that President Moon was elected on a promise to return to the Sunshine Policy than to try to get a mind-reading of Kim Jong Un.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added a "Background" section which, I hope, goes some way to explain why the summit might be happening.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Per Robert Einhorn ("a former State Department official who met with Kim’s father as part of the Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea"), as quoted in USA Today, Kim "likes to take the initiative. He likes to control the agenda and he likes to keep his adversaries off balance. Looked at from a professional point of view what he has been doing has been quite impressive."[4]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed – As the nominator, I am making the decision to close this request as new information is surfacing that the meeting will still happen. While these are just rumors, I apologize for jumping the gun to make this request. JE98 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 North Korea–United States summit → 2018 planned North Korea–United States summit – Now that the summit has been cancelled, I feel like this would be a more appropriate name, or something similar to this effect. JE98 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

But, doesn't planned imply "in the works"? I wonder if "cancelled" is more appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Both are unnecessary additions. The lead sentence would better explain this than a lengthy title, ie. "The 2018 North Korea–United States summit was a planned meeting between ... which was cancelled following a re-escalation of tensions between the two nations." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - both are bad. planned suggest it's still in process and has not occurred yet. Cancellation means it's never going to occur. Even with the option to restart, this article should only exist after the summit has taken place. It was pre-mature to start a independent Wiki article that is separate from 2017–18 North Korea crisis. This is just one of many twists and turns, doesn't deserve it's own independent article.Rwat128 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – @Another Believer and Floydian: My goal here is to say that the meeting was a failure in the article's title. I realize the word "planned" may not be the best option. JE98 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary for disambiguation purposes and does not change any truth claims. Planned, cancelled, and concluded summits are all "summits".
• Comment – I

JE98, I would argue that this is not what titles are for. Topics are described in article contents. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*Comment – There is still a chance that the meeting may happen. If nothing occurs before 12 June or there is not even any chance of it occurring before then (North Korea and the US both cancel prior to 12 June), then we should consider merging or rewriting the article to mention the development of the plans until the cancellation. Dreigorich (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Remove top page clutter. "Planned" by whom? Wakari07 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support – The title is problematic and inherently misleading, as though Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan were titled "Assassination of Ronald Reagan", or 1919 Polish coup attempt were titled "1919 Polish coup". Possibilities would include "Failed/Canceled/Planned/Aborted 2018 North Korea–United States summit". Doremo (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support in part — We should say, and should have always said, Proposed 2018 North Korea–United States summit. It's a mistake to talk about what "will be". We should talk about what is. I also agree that it's too soon to say the summit is cancelled. North Korea has indicated they are still interested, and no doubt South Korea and China will intervene. Again, we should talk about what is: Trump has said he's pulling out. This could just be a negotiating ploy. However, we should say the summit is "proposed" until it happens. A proposed summit or a cancelled summit is not a summit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Change to Partial support as per Jack Upland. Dreigorich (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (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.

Cancelled Summit, suggest Merger with 2017-2018 North Korea Crisis

My suggestion to all is that Wiki article should be merged with 2017–18 North Korea crisis as a new subsection, it doesn't deserve an independent thread since it was cancelled event that never actually occurred. Even if Trump left the option to continue it, this article should only exist after the summit has occurred, not if it's cancelled. Rwat128 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Support – Not a bad idea, we would just have to condense the information. JE98 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be okay as long as someone by God removes the crazy "Crisis" from that article title - there ain't no crisis. It's business as usual on the Korean peninsula. 50.111.48.95 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that, and while this may be an oversimplification of the DPRK-US relations prior to this current administration, this is more dangerous than any previous confrontations have been (I see that the 2013 North Korean crisis page has apparently been deleted, as if to magnify the seriousness of this one.)(Sirkh1 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

The decision to merge 2013 Korean crisis to 2013 in North Korea was made in 2015, so it has nothing to do with the 2017 article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Korean crisis. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – The scheduled summit has received sufficient coverage to justify a separate article, even if the summit doesn't end up happening (see WP:DEGRADE). Plus, reported details about the summit's preparation and why it was canceled would just clutter the 2017–18 North Korea crisis article (see WP:SIZE). ^Falling_Gravity 23:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – These are early days. kencf0618 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose — I agree it's too soon. I don't think the crisis article would be a good merger target. This would turn that article into an extended narrative of North Korea's international relations, which is not useful and not encyclopedic. I think a better target would be North Korea–United States relations. However, as I said it's premature and a merger may not be necessarily as the proposed summit is notable enough for its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and close – Now that new information is surfacing that the meeting still could be on, I change my vote. In fact, now that I look at it, there is too much information here to merge it in. JE98 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and close as per above. Jeez, my opinion seems to change so much based on information. If it's still on, close and don't merge. Dreigorich (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support It sets a bad precedent to create an independent article for every event that never takes place. This is a good example of "Jumping the gone" on a premature summit. If Wiki had a proposed/schedule summit, there would be thousands of summit events. Rwat128 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There's still a possibility of it happening - it's not fully over. Trump cancelled it and then changed his mind - the possibility of it happening is still there. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This specific event is too stand-alone and separate to be merged into the (also) stand-alone subject of the North Korean crisis article. Cancelled or not (and of course it happened) the summit itself was and is significant. So unlike what Rwat128 said above, this here is too big, too historic, too significant to be considered like "every event". It's obviously something different. Both articles could (and should) mention each other (obviously), but not be merged, and diluted, in that sense. But at this point, the matter is moot and closed. (And should stay that way) Historium Scriv (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

gaddafi sodomized?

I don't know if this is trolling or what but it says on the current page that "Libyan rebels captured, beat up, sodomized and executed Gaddafi". I’m not aware of any credible source that he was raped or sodomized. This should either be deleted or properly cited. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayansb (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's right there in the cited source (Global News). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it's enough to say he was killed. This detail does detract from the narrative.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

But it is relevant. That's why reliable sources mention it. The implicit message being of course that not only will you die if you don't cooperate, but you'll die in a very bad way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually you'll die if you do co-operate.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Libyan common people had quite a grudge against Gaddafi whether he 'cooperated' or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.55.122 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah, Gold Standard, insert conspiracy theory here. Strong oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove it. It's a fringe theory. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Next up: Trilat?

Change to trilateral (interKorean+American) summit a possibility. Otherwise, one would be in the cards, post Singapore, in any case (w rgd formal end to Korean War &c.).[5]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should see if a common name for the summit arises, and then use that. It does appear that Moon will attend. Will he be an observer or an equal participant? Only time will tell.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to "Singapore Summit"?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Crystal

This is practically a literal lesson in crystalballing. It may not go ahead. Maybe we should stop editing it until it has happened?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no problem documenting the events that actually happen. The problem is the speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jack Upland. Even if this summit, which South Korean officials say is 99% sure to take place,[6] doesn't, the on again off again back and forth should pass the so-called wp:10 year test w rgd notability. (Thus in such a case, I think the best route would then be to retain much of the material in the article under a re-tweaked or else merged elsewhere.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And we should definitely cut down the speculation. We don't need a large section about the location. This will probably be clear in a couple of days.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding wp:10 year test w rgd notability. I believe that this topic could be much more richer with the worldwide point of view. Denuclearization of Korean peninsula it might be the first historic event in the world removing the actual nuclear ICBM missiles completely not the development stage of nuclear weapons. It would affect the other countries (China, Russia, USA) who has more powerful nuclear ICBM Ballistic missiles. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now, that really is crystal-ball-gazing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I understand your point, but it's some opinions from the nuclear ICBM military experts. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The Letter from DPRK

I was looking for the public domain picture regarding the article below: example - the picture of USA President Trump with the envelope from North Korea.
Would you be able to guide me the location of the picture in the public domain? "Kim Jong Un sent a letter to Trump. It's huge" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

@Goodtiming8871: - @Scavino45 on Twitter is a White House-issued twitter account... meaning all content from that account is in the Pubic Domain under the US Government. You can upload this photo under {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} on Commons... If you don't want to I can do it. Corky 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Corkythehornetfan:, Thank you for your kind guidance. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore

I think that people would love to see the shape of Shangri-La Hotel or Capella Hotel in Singapore - outside and inside venue, Presidential Suite (Eamples USA and DPRK Leaders accommodation) from the public domain. Would anyone possibly find and update it to Trump-Kim summit or in the article of Shangri-La Hotel? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reactions section

Shouldn't this be in alphabetical order, with countries before supra-national entitites such as the EU? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Agreement of the 2018 North Korea–United States summit (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reactions: North Korea?

Any info on how North Korean media are presenting this, if they are reporting on this at all? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Added in 2018 North Korea–United States summit# North Korea – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Rodman

Why is this under "meeting location" not "pre-summit"? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that position was left over from its earlier location. Anyway, it should be moved. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hard to decide where to place him, as he was not a participant to the Summit, but he did help in creating relations between Trump and Kim. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Background" section?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix grammar request

In Background section, last paragraph, "In January a false missile alert in January alarmed Hawaii.[22]" should be changed to "In January a false missile alert alarmed Hawaii.[22]". 184.162.234.201 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Preparations, subsection 2, "It was organised by the invitation Xi. " should be changed to "It was organised by the invitation of Xi." 184.162.234.201 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

fixed. KinkyLipids (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One-on-one ….

A "one-on-one" meeting? Isn't it "one-to-one" ? The former sounds more like a sex act. 86.153.24.140 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think one-on-one is more technically correct for meetings. One-to-one is more used for exchanges or math. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, who was on top?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased AP reference for American Reaction

The AP has a democratic bias. Is this not common knowledge? They just politicized & pseudo-polemicized a peace process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

you are perhaps talking about North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This statement is unsupported and polemical - please cite a source. In point of fact, AP news is an unbiased news reporting syndicate: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Chairman Kim?

I don't think we should be using the term "Chairman Kim", which appears to have gained currency in recent times. We don't use the term at the Kim Jong-un article. The North Koreans sometimes use the term, but more often seem to call him "Supreme Leader" or "Respected Comrade". In most cases here, he can be called Kim Jong-un or Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Kim is "Chairman" of more than one instance. Unless his capacity as chairman of those instances is discussed, the title is not relevant and is only confusing. For introductory purposes (supreme) leader of North Korea is the best description. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – Kim Jong-un has been addressed as "Chairman Kim" officially in preparations for the summit, during the summit, and after the summit by the U.S. side. An article about the summit should definitely reflect this fact. "Supreme leader" is not an official title, and I don't see any sources claiming that North Koreans call him that way. — JFG ^talk 10:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So we go with what the US side calls him???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• "President Trump" appears in the article no fewer than twenty times. —Cryptic 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME: After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only. I will fix that now. zzz (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Suggest to remove "The people in Singapore are divided about the resumption of the Trump–Kim summit; some believe that it is a small but encouraging step towards world peace whilst others are dissatisfied with both leaders." under the "Reactions" section.

Rationale: The reactions from other countries/organisations in this section are official lines from their politicians/spokespeople and not their citizens. It also does not make sense to list down every unofficial opinion here since opinions are so diverse. The reactions attributed to Singapore should not be any different from the others. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)