Talk:2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit

Fifield/Robertson

Re this edit:

• The Fifield and Robertson quote belongs under the "North Korea" section rather than the "United States" reaction. Although they are journalists for U.S. publications, their comments here relate to the North Korean domestic effects of the meeting.
• I do not understand the change from "described the meeting as" to "criticized the meeting as." The former language seems fine to me.

--Neutrality^talk 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please refer to that regarding the analysis of Fifield and Roberson; from my understanding, it could be a neutral place under the heading of US section as they are journalists in U.S. ; Because the same event might be described differently in a different political location; for example: the U.S. defines it's truth, and DPRK specifies it's propaganda and vice versa. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Neutrality^talk 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me elaborate the example cases about the event.

>For examples, Regarding the DMZ summit, 1) U.S. journalists think it can be used as a propaganda by the DPRK. 2) DPRK journalists think it can be used as a propaganda by the US. However, no one can decide whether it is truth or propaganda, but it is basically speculation. so from my understanding, it could be neutral place under the heading of source as long as it's not fact.

• Opinion from the Journalists in U.S. : under U.S. section
• Opinion from the Journalists in DPRK. : under DPRK section Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding for what the neutral point of view is. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We reflect the perspectives within the relevant community of experts (giving proper attribution when necessary). We do not "display both sides" in the colloquial sense of giving equal prominence to each view, taking every view at face value, etc. Anna Fifield is the Beijing bureau chief for The Washington Post with extensive experience reporting from North Korea, and was also a fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. Nic Robertson (who is British, by the way, not American) is the International Diplomatic Editor of CNN with 30 years' or reporting experience. We also do not shove experts' views under a heading reflecting whatever nationality they happen to be; rather, we organize material by topic. Neutrality^talk 19:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response about the practical case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The proper contents of "Announcement"

Hello, From my understanding, the "announcement section" should be "Official" or "confirmed fact", however the contents below are full of speculation and it is one person's imagination and he is just one person out of several thousand professors in South Korea.

Let me relocate it to reaction section as it would be the proper location of one person's thought. I also believe that it would be great to have more summarized one from the current version. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Although the meeting was billed as a spontaneous or impromptu meeting, Kim and Trump had exchanged letters earlier in the month, and Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University "said it was inconceivable that the leaders of two powerful nations had arranged a meeting at such short notice" and described the event as "a 'show' designed to send a political message without raising expectations about actual progress."

References

This does not belong in the "Reactions: South Korea" section. It belongs in the "Announcement" section because it deals with the planning or lead-up to the meeting. Lankov is an expert in the subject, so I have no clue what the "several thousand professors" point means. If there are other academics who take the opposite view (that the meeting was truly spontaneous), then perhaps we can add them. Neutrality^talk 14:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please advise me why one person's viewpoint could be placed on announcement section. I understand that Lankov could be one of the experts on this DPRK subject, but "announcement" means " a formal public statement about a fact, occurrence, or intention" regarding my understanding. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This gives context to the planning and lead-up to the meeting. If you want to rename the section to "announcement and planning" I would not object to that. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess the subject "announcement and planning": it is still difficult to justify to place one person's viewpoint on it as I don't think Lankov have joined the planing team of this U.S. - Korea DMZ meeting. Let me get advice from other Wikipedians.

One of the Wikipedia users recommended me to get Wikipedia:Third opinion, Before this process, I would like to get a mutual agreement via talk page.

Let me divide the current issued article to the two-parts: one: planed event comment and another: feedback.

> I don't think Wikipedia allows the user to copy the exact writing of the original article to the contents of Wikipedia, but it should be paraphrased

> the current version of the contents on Wikipedia : it is exactly the same writing of the Washingtonpost authors: By "Seung Min Kim" and "Simon Denyer.

Please find the actual writing of the authors :

Washingtonpost: By "Seung Min Kim" and "Simon Denyer" on June 30 "Whether the meeting was really arranged in just 24 hours remains open to question — the two men exchanged letters earlier this month — but Trump said the idea had simply occurred to him on Saturday. Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, said it was inconceivable that the leaders of two powerful nations had arranged a meeting at such short notice. He described it as a “show” designed to send a political message without raising expectations about actual progress."

*It's also actually reaction after summit not before the summit: Please get the confirmation from the author of the original article: The contact point of authors: seungmin.kim@washpost.com, simon.denyer@washpost.com

Hello User:Signedzzz, Regarding the latest edit, Basically, I don't think any of the personal opinions of the three people below could be placed on the announcement section.

1) "Seung Min Kim" 2) "Simon Denyer" and 3) "Andrei Lankov"

Especially, Criticism about the DMZ summit should be placed on the reaction section. Currently, denunciation by "Andrei Lankov" is already placed on the reaction section of South Korea and it should not be repeated on the announcement section again. Let me remove the duplicated criticism on this article.

If you don't agree on this solution, please ask WP:THIRD for arbitration opinion instead of WP:WAR. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Reaction" section is for reactions, which occur after the event. Criticisms sections are discouraged per WP:CSECTION. zzz (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edit which I reverted changed it from what he did say, to what he did not say (Your edit [1]) zzz (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello ZZZ, From my understanding about the section of WP:CRIT below, The reaction section could contain both of the positive and negative views.

"An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.

Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section " Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, Reactions,official version Announcement, Middle East, John Bolton

• Regarding the official title of Ivanka Trump(Top advisor),

I think that it is proper to write the official role first in this article as it's not for the family trip of U.S. PRESIDENT but for official summit with DPRK. I think that it could mislead the reader of this article if we write the family relationship first on U.S. PRESIDENT's official summit. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

• Concerning the reaction section,

Could we find more reactions from U.S. and other countries in the world to give it a neutral point of view on the article of encyclopedia ?
>the reaction from United States Forces Korea:
Starting from 3 minute 25 seconds on the link
> Link Subject: (Full/ARIRANG NEWS) S. Korea's defense ministry denies suspicions of expansions to UNC...

Please refer to the summary of the video link above:
(Video link Time 3:25) USFK released the official strategic assessment about the DPRK ICBM capability on Thursday (11/July) for the first time. The two of the three models of ICBM of DPRK: Hwasong-14 and 15 can strike the most or anywhere in the U.S. mainland. (Video link Time 4:15), Although DPRK is willing to negotiate the nuclear deal, and Kim jong-un ordered to dismantle some key nuclear missle sites in North Korea. there are still a lot of work need to be done for FFVD (finally fully Verified Denuclearisation ) of NorthKorea considering counter measure to DPRK: sanction's relief or foreign investment.

Otto Warmbier

• About the case of Otto Warmbier,

If we just exaggerating the fatal brain injury in DPRK on this article without crucial information about Otto Warmbier’s action of subversion in DPRK, it could be a misleading article to the reader of this encyclopedia. I believe that it’s following a neutral point of view to write an actual cause (subversion, convicted of theft) and the result(imprisoned, brain injury) in the article. > Alternative option: Instead of specifying stealing North Korea’s a propaganda poster and suffering a fatal brain injury after he was imprisoned: The summary: “the incident in North Korea.“ it would imply the issues of Otto Warmbier’s during his stay in North Korea, and the reader of this article would be able to see the details of it via the link of Otto Warmbier Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about giving credence the DPRK pretext for its murder of Otto Warmbier. There are not two valid sides to this issue. NPguy (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

NPguy, Please elaborate the meaning of the two valid sides of the issue Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

North Korean claims about what about what happened to Otto Warmbier, any implication that he was responsible for his own death, should not be given credence. They can be cited, but only with a qualifier that makes it clear they are not factual. This is both a factual statement (DPRK claims are not reliable) and a moral one (it is wrong to make excuses for this crime of the DPRK. NPguy (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Now I can see your point. From my understanding, the criminality of both Otto Warmbier and the DPRK should be summarized in the encyclopedia to minimize the neutrality issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

official version Announcement

• Please refer to the Official version Announcement below with English translation.
  

It could be used for updating the current Announcement section of this article.

"we are showcasing to the world that we have a new present, and this is showcasing to the world that we will have positive meetings going forward."

Regarding the summary of speech above;

repeating "showcasing" two times with a quotation mark: I believe that it's not a neutral way of a summary of the actual speech.

To identify the actual announcement from Chairman Kim and President Trump, I watched the three DMZ summit videos(YouTube) several times. Please refer to the exact timeline of the speech on the link below.

* reference from ARIRANG NEWS English:

> Announcement from Chairman Kim:

" 3 minutes 59 sec to 4 minutes 15 sec : "

Don't just looking at this action, it is an expression that his willingness to eliminate all the negative past and open a new future

> Announcement from President Trump:

4 minutes 20 sec to 4 minutes 35 sec

Trump said that this is his honor, He did not really expect. he went to Japan for G20, and came over DMZ and say "Hello" to Chairman Kim

Another reference from Al Jazeera English and ARIRANG: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Middle East

• Concerning Middle East section,

PLEASE KEEP THE REACTIONS ON THIS ARTICLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING MIDDLE EAST (i.e Iran is one of the main stakeholders of U.S. Foreign policies about Nuclear deals as US requested Iran for updating the current Iran nuclear deal framework and War With Iran is on the table of the Foreign policies of U.S. Please elaborate the reason of your objection on talk page if you do not acknowledge with the value of the Middle East section. If U.S. and Iran escalate the current nuclear tension, the potential war between US-Iran would cost millions of innocent life. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having a section on the Middle East. But the section you keep inserting says nothing of any relevance. It does not address the Iran issue you mention above. Try again, but try something different. NPguy (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello NPguy, I would add it with more information. From my understanding, the reaction from the Middle East section is crucial like China or U.S. as Iran is one of the main stakeholders of U.S. Foreign policies. Video:Trump meets Kim, makes history by stepping into North Korea => From 2 minutes 25 sec to 2 minutes 45 sec on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTOlYnhnDNc Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You have presented the hypothesis that reactions from the Middle East might be of interest. You have not shown any evidence that this is the case. NPguy (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

John Bolton

• Regarding the issue with John Bolton,
  

Please see the NEWS about recent issue with John Bolton,
Trump: John Bolton 'made some very big mistakes' Fox News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFJKf8Dl48w
Rand Paul: Bolton was working against Trump : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM0CpiLysJ4
Bernie Sanders rips John Bolton, Trump over: Iran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at1KGBXKSyI : From 1 minutes 50 sec to 3 minutes 35 sec ==>
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There were various reasons for Bolton's departure, not just one as you stated. In addition to the objections raised by User:NPguy, note also that one article by Aljazeera does not amount to "Arabian Peninsula media". zzz (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello zzz,

I would add more reasons of the issue with Bolton. I believe that it's disruptive edit removing the article as becasue of it does not contain all reason of the Sacked national security adviser John Bolton.

Regarding Arabian Peninsula media, I would replace it to Aljazeera, from my understanding, Aljazeera is one of the main- Arabian Peninsula media with English version, Let me know if there is any other major English - Arabian Peninsula media. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not even clear if he resigned or was sacked. I think it should be left out of this article. Also, you can't extrapolate from one article in one source to say "Arabian Peninsula media".zzz (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello zzz, it's the fact and crucial event on the process DPRK nuclear deal. I don't think it is fair to left out of this significent article. Plz add the evidence of resignation of John on this article. : "On September 11, Trump sacked the national security adviser John Bolton as he strongly disagreed with John Bolton’s suggestion about applying Libyan model to North Korea nuclear deal and mentioning Muammar Gaddafi".

Plz find the report from CNN: Trump fires national security adviser John Bolton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXZZaKLXiQ

Bolton himself claims he was not sacked. And it's too early to say the reasons for his departure. Please read WP:NOTNEWS. zzz (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BRIEF, Plz also write "Bolton himself claims he was not sacked"on this section. There are enough reliable sources: BBC - Trump sacks national security adviser John Bolton - BBC Newsnight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bgFWL45oWM, ABC news- Sacked national security adviser John Bolton’s legacy of turmoil : https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/sacked-national-security-adviser-john-boltons-legacy-of-turmoil/news-story/7d35044f50c60f1cbefd4e9282f44044 Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Any of these reliable sources connect the sacking/resigning with the 2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit? zzz (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources stated that "sacking or resigning": it's related to John Bolton's North Korea denuclearization strategy. The denuclearization agenda was the main topic of the 2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit. Another crucial issue of sacking or resigning with John Bolton (CNN released that previously John blocked intelligence about DPRK to Mike Pompeo to push forward his own agenda to Trump. CNN:Trump fires national security adviser John Bolton: News Video From 5 minutes 20 sec to 5 minutes 41 sec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXZZaKLXiQ) * Time frame on Video about some very big mistakes of John Bolton : From 5 minutes 30 sec to 6 minutes 30 sec ==> Trump: John Bolton 'made some very big mistakes' Fox News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFJKf8Dl48w Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your sources don't really say what the main reason was, as they are not mind-readers, although one expert was quoted by your sorce as saying "It’s really important for Americans and for the world to recognise that Donald Trump fired John Bolton for being insufficiently pro-Taliban". zzz (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a fact and I don't think it is fair to remove the fact that "Trump fires national security adviser John Bolton" PLZ see the video and timeline Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reported "Incident" with NK Security Guards

This continues to be reposted, but is hugely sensationalized information. Please, read the article. Watch the footage. What is being said by the washington post, and further reported on wikipedia, is false information. The footage provided shows Stephanie Grisham push aside a NK guard and walk past him. At no point does the guard shove, let alone bruise, Grisham, as this article suggests. Reposted information below.

In an incident caught on video, North Korean guards "pushed and shoved American reporters to block them from entering the Inter-Korean House of Freedom south of the border." The U.S. Secret Service and White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham intervened to help American reporters gain access to the building; Grisham was shoved by North Korean security personnel, causing bruises. --

References

All the information is directly supported by the cited Washington Post article. If your contention is that the WaPo article is "false information," please point to a correction issued by the newspaper. Otherwise, you don't get to substitute your beliefs for the facts as reported by the cited sources. Neutrality^talk 23:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The video doesn't show Stephanie Grisham being pushed. It shows the opposite. The Huffington Post quotes an ABC journalist saying that she was "elbowing and pushing aside a security guard". It describes her bruises as "reported". Saying she was bruised is vague. How bad was the bruising? What specifically caused it? There is also a major hole in the story. These were guards from the elite Supreme Guard Command. Are we really supposed to believe Stephanie Grisham beat them in a scuffle? Is she a female version of Chuck Norris? Clearly there are contradictory versions of events. Some American sources seem to be putting the blame on the North Korean guards, despite the evidence of video footage and witnesses. No North Korean response is provided. If we are going to include this minor incident, it would be more neutral to describe this as a claim or a report, and make clear that there are differing versions of events.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The video may not be the complete story; there may have been other events witnessed (and reported on) but not captured in video. As for the "North Korean response"—does one exist? If so, I'm OK with including it. Neutrality^talk 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

North Korea may not have bothered to respond. But the fact is this is a one-sided account of a minor incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how we can say that it's a "one-sided account" without some sources actually defining and detailing the other "side." And I agree it is a minor incident, which is why it's accorded only two sentences, which seems to me to be appropriate weight. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the U.S. new articles above (including the Video recording), I believe that it's one-sided account of a minor incident and sensationalized information. I reckon the subject of the article should be changed to the neutral subject, and/or the contents should be reduced more. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does this article propagate hilarious lies?

"Trump stepped over the border at 3:45 PM (GMT+9) on June 30, marking the first time a sitting U.S. president had set foot on North Korean soil."
1. The DMZ is not a border. The DMZ is the DMZ. The only land border the DPRK has is the one with the PRC and RF.
2. North Korean soil is a geographic term with vague boundaries. The DPRK claims authority over the entirety of the Korean peninsula. Those 19 visits to southern Korea by the US Presidents in the past were visits to the DPRK.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this statement as "hilarious lies". I think it is clear what is meant. If it said "DPRK soil" that could be ambiguous.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

The section called "Aftermath" contains many things that do not belong in this article. The word "aftermath" entails things that followed immediately or as a direct result of the events in question. It does not encompass all subsequent developments that are relevant to the subject. Most of the material in this section does not belong this article, though some of it would belong in a separate article on U.S.-DPRK negotiations during the Trump Administration. NPguy (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is why I created the 2018–19 Korean peace process article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I agreed with the idea : Split the large aftermath section into "aftermath" and "Post-Summit developments" sections with summary, and place additional details into 2018–19 Korean peace process article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You say you agree, but instead of moving material to the other article you restored it here, where it is out of place. Please move it and do not restore it here. NPguy (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've agreed that idea of User:RopeTricks: Split the large aftermath section into "aftermath" and "Post-Summit developments". In addition, compose the additional details of "Post-Summit developments" into 2018–19 Korean peace process article. Please write any additional details of "Post-Summit developments" to 2018–19 Korean peace process article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

But you have ignored the comments from me and Jack Upland that the "post-summit developments" section is out of place in this article. It should be removed and kept in the other article. NPguy (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello NPguy, The "post-summit developments" section is suitable place in this article. Please stop destructive edit and respect other editors edit including RopeTricks and me.

Please expatiate your logic why the "Post-Summit developments" section is unsuitable place in this article.

If you do not agree with other user's edit, please seek consensus via talk page before damaging other editor's contribution or starting edit war. To esteem User:Jack Upland's comment, I updated additional details of Post-Summit developments on 2018–19 Korean peace process article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article (based on its title) is about the summit. That's a well-defined topic. If you broaden it to encompass anything that happened before or after, it no longer has any coherence. In general, Wikipedia articles are not blogs for keeping track of current events. The content you keep adding is not about the summit and doesn't belong here, but it may deserve a home in another article, as suggested above. NPguy (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath or Post-summit are also in the sub-section of 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit and 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit.

• The working-level nuclear talks in Stockholm, Sweden or replacement of the senior officials channel to DPRK: it has clear coherence with the Trump-Kim DMZ meeting (Logic: starting The working-level nuclear talks again - it was agreement of between two leaders during DMZ meeting and appointment of the new senior officials channel to DPRK to fix the deadlock of nuclear talk with DPRK )

I would add two topics first and I would analyze it more. Hello NPguy, Please respect other editor's efforts. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a structural problem with those other articles as well. They cover a lot of material that is beyond the scope implied by their titles. The "post-summit developments" sections simply do not connect with the rest of the article. That remains the case for this article. The most important thing that might be set out in a section on post-summit developments is how little substantive follow-on there has been. Direct, working-level discussions between the United States and the DPRK have yet to get any meaningful traction. A single short paragraph making that point would be of more value -- and more relevant -- than anything currently in that section. NPguy (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add another coherent sub-subject of the summit below as (from my understanding, after the first Trump -Kim summit) it's the first official request (with carrot and stick) of working level talk to DPRK during U.N. Security Council meeting.
Request of working level talk to DPRK. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Chairman Kim's clarification about the speculation of the meeting

Regarding the sub-topic above Please refer to the reference from YouTube video from timeframe => 9:15 to 10:00

• The summary of the press briefing:

Regarding the questions from the International Press about the planning of the DMZ meeting, Although there is speculation about this meeting whether it's pre-arranged summit with respect to the previous letter between two leaders, Chairman Kim also surprised on 29 June that President Trump's intention to meet him in DMZ if possible. However, Kim accepted Trump's sudden request as DMZ is a meaningful symbol of division of two koreas and he also wanted to meet President Trump. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References