Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit/Archive 1

Pre-summit reactions
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 ( = neutral voice ) with a dependable source.    Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reactions
Please let me know whether the agenda below is valuable to update on the section of the current topic.
 * House Democrats and DPRK

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reactions=> Subject: House Democrats Should Cut Trump Some Slack on North Korea Policy: Link

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)

Photos
Can we add this photo below on this topic?

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)


 * , I'd say this of Pompeo and Kim is a reasonable inclusion, more alternatives at . 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 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: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&profile=default&search=+Hanoi%2C+Vietnam&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22namespaces%22%3A%5B6%2C12%2C14%2C100%2C106%2C0%5D%7D  Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RS media and writing style
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)
 * , 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."


 * 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 article as source instead (some WP-thoughts on BLOOMBERG can be found at 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.   Thank you again for your advice. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Official Name
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DRPK-USA HaNoi VietNam Summit.jpg
 * 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)

edit request
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". 78.108.56.35 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2019

 * 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 Nam → 2019 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)


 * I think it would be good idea about this move: "2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit" as it is simple and easy to read. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:CONCISE. Note this is a request to reverse a recent undiscussed page move. - Station1 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support go ahead – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, per consistency with Singapore summit. Wpeneditor (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  06:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Of course. Aviartm (talk) 08:14, 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.

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