Talk:2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit/Archive 1

Archive 1

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,[3] 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."[4]--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)

A tactical asset is a small weapon in the 1K-3K range for use on the battlefield with a specific objective to stop an advance or open a path for (admittedly crazy) soldiers to pass thru to get at the enemy - these are fired by artillery or rockets or delivered by fighter-bombers. Strategic assets are relatively large weapons that target major railways or weapons depots, other nuclear missile sites, or cities - delivered by missiles (land or sea) or strategic bombers, like the B-2. The use of either today would be absolutely catastrophic and result in a major nuclear exchange if not called off in time.50.111.46.18 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's approximately true in practice, but it's not really the difference in how strategic and tactical forces are defined. Tactical nuclear forces are used against the military forces of the other side. Strategic forces are used against cities, ports, and basic infrastructure. Tactical weapons tend to be smaller, but it's not a sharp line, and even strategic forces are often formally targeted against the adversary's own strategic forces. NPguy (talk) 03:05, 21 August 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)

Huh? In any case, the original question is a good one. The phrase "nuclear weapons strategic asset" is a strange formulation for us to use, and I don't see it in any source. I suspect it is an editor's translation of the Korean.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 21 August 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."[5]--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."[6]--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 necessary 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)
• Oppose per arguments above and merging is a mess.   S cobido   Sclamera  11 July 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.).[7]--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)

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)

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,[8] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My belief is that "one-on-one" is more of an American English usage, which is fair enough for this article. Davidships (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As an american, "one-on-one" is the more common usage here. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 22:50, 14 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:

• Hwasong15.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 15 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)

Removed. I agree that we can't include every vox pop.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I agreed with the opinion above 22:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding, the opinion from the media below is also improper to keep it as it is not an official opinion but opinion from the two of the many presses. Could we remove it?

• Section Post-summit: South Korea

> Kyunghyang Shinmun, a liberal newspaper, said that Trump and Kim have started a "march of peace" that would lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities. Chosun Ilbo, the conservative newspaper, expressed concern that as a result of Trump's concessions, the North would keep its nuclear weapons program permanently. It described the summit as "dumbfounding and nonsensical" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871:The paper is the biggest South Korean newspaper, as it stated before your edit. Please quit your efforts to remove this. zzz (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

editorial views of the media in South Korea reflect public opinion--a very important issue that should be included. Liberal and conservative views are both included for balance. Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 15 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)

I have a few pictures that I will try to upload as soon as possibleZubin12 (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many sub-sections

The article is far-too-long due to an excessive number of sub-section that contains barely any content. I propose that all the foreign reactions are replaced with a statement describing a general positive reaction with only exceptions or significant countries being given more detail Zubin12 (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Summarize, don't list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. And the pre- and post-summit reactions should be distributed chronologically. The other subsections should be amalgamated.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 15 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)

That's a good solution, thanks. — JFG ^talk 10:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hydrogen bomb

This has been inserted as an "NPOV" sentence:

North Korea tested what some sources argued may have been its first hydrogen bomb on September 3.

Is there really any doubt?[9][10][11] Is it neutral to cast doubt on North Korean claims without evidence???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Nobel Peace Prize"

I have removed from the article a section about Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by a small group of his “most ardent supporters” in Congress. We have discussed this at other articles including the Donald Trump article.[12] It means nothing. The Nobel committee receives hundreds of such nominations every year. [13] Open for discussion of course. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the section. Thank you for opening discussion. There was a lot of national conversation on the Nobel Prize relating to this summit, much like how the summit has had many global reactions, which has its own small section. All winners of the Nobel have been nominated by those who are, by definition, ardent supporters. Out of the hundreds of nominations each year that Wikipedia never mentions, very few are made public, and very few, if any, are as public or as notable as this. There are countless reliable sources that report on it; it might be undue not to include it. Statements that make it onto the news articles of reliable sources are notable, especially those made by the main actors (i.e. Presidents Moon and Trump). There are many other such statements in this article that don't have to go through the test of being meaningful enough or being a real-enough Nobel endorsement. It's been over a month since the nomination, and the meeting has taken place; it's no longer speculation. If we should remove content for not likely having enduring notability, then we should start by removing all the stuff about Singapore's advertisements of its preparations, expenses, and real estate and removing all the minutiae of the movements and activities of Trump and Kim leading up to the one-on-one meeting. It's also worth noting that mentioning the nomination in this article is not the same thing as endorsing or legitimizing the nomination (it's already legitimate anyways, whether we like it or not). However, I understand your points, and I recognize that consensus on inclusion on a politically contentious issue like this is not likely, though not impossible. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fair. Let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree on it not being very meaningful, but there seems to be enough RS coverage on Moon Jae In's comments and what not. And apparently odds makers have put his odds at 6/4..[14]. Two norweigan lawmakers have nominated him for the prize too Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The nomination itself is not very meaningful so it may be better merged into another section, perhaps about South Korean comments; not sure if it fits exactly in the Preparations section Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support a mention. The nomination has made international news, meeting with ardent disapproval as well as approval! I think people are blinded by their hatred of Trump and their America-centred view of the world. It is likely that the upcoming prize will be connected with Korea in some way. It is not outlandish to think that Trump would receive it, but probably in conjunction with someone else (Moon, Kim, the Olympic movement, Dennis Rodman etc). It would be strange, in fact, if the Nobel Committee overlooked Korea, as it is one of the most intractable conflicts of recent times. Trump would be a controversial pick, but so was Obama, Kissinger, and Arafat... In the context of an article about the summit this is notable. The summit has divided opinion, and I think the article has to reflect that. While some think he deserves a Nobel, others think he has been outfoxed etc. This is worthwhile being mentioned here, even if it is significant enough (yet) for Trump's article...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that I may have misplaced it by putting it in the Preparations section with its own heading. The Reactions section seems to be a natural place for a mention, if it's included. I understand that most of the people who qualify to nominate someone for the Nobel are not notable, and, while members of Congress are notable, their nomination is less meaningful when Trump's leadership of their party makes their support for him too predictable, almost automatic. Maybe its notability in the eyes of the press is due to it being the first time (I think?) that members of Congress have publicly, and without irony, nominated their party leader for a Nobel. On the other hand, the Norwegian nomination is somewhat less predictable. I think the nominations and the global discussion and controversy are notable on their own to merit three sentences in this article, regardless of whether Trump deserves the dignity/ridicule or whether the current Korean detente actually leads to a Nobel announcement in late 2019 for anyone involved. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It might belong in the reactions section, provided there's some indication that there is -- to put it mildly -- some skepticism about the notion. In other words, balance. NPguy (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of time to see if this nomination gets any traction (positive or negative), it's best omitted now. Anyway, nominations for 2018 closed in February, and are supposed to reflect actions of an individual over the previous year. This means that any Trump/Kim/Moon nomination would only be valid for the 2019 prize reflecting their actions in 2018. The year is still young… — JFG ^talk 17:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any point in fighting the tide of history. If, in fact, it's just an eddy, it doesn't hurt to mention it as one of the curiosities of the summit. What does hurt is long, drawn-out battles because one side refuses to include the mention. The year in that case will be very long indeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why only North Korea and South Korean names for summit?

Propose also adding Chinese and Japanese neames for the Kim-Trump summit, since if you add South Korean (Non-participant in the summit), you should also add Chinese/Japanese names for the summit, since they are regional players with enormous stake on the peace process. Rwat128 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Neither China nor Japan is a direct participant of this summit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.62.100.54 (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Hwasong-15 image

I added an image of Hwasong-15. The caption was challenged for having nothing to do with the image. Instead of just changing the caption, the whole image box was reverted. I think the caption was relevant, but nevertheless I changed the caption, making sure its relevance was immaculate. It was again reverted, but this time without an edit summary and without discussion on this talk page. I added a message on the user's talk page, asking for an explanation but have not had a response after waiting for the last few business days. I went ahead and changed the caption again, making sure its relevant, and I get reverted again, this time by a different username, on the basis that it was previously challenged.

There is nothing wrong with the image. Its removal is vandalism. It must be restored promptly. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@KinkyLipids, seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I’ll restore the image since it is under Fair Use (albeit with an altered caption to clarify that it is an artist’s conception), and will send a warning to the first user for sure and likely the second user. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stratch that, I sent a warning to both users. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

CNN news and Interview

Hello, please see the interview and satellite image on the article below as a reference. I believe that CNN news might mislead people that DPRK developed the significant nuclear infrastructure after Trump-Kim summit. However the satellite image comparison between March(another 38 north Article) and June 2018(Article on June/2018), the two small blue roof buildings are the only difference. If there is any other reference with satellite image that supports CNN's opinion, please share it Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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:

• 2018 Trump-Kim summit commemorative coin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The new focus of North Korea

Regarding Kim Jong Un's new move, I think that the focus of North Korea is now changed after Trump-Kim summit as it did not happen previously.

Would it be possible to add the summary of this article below to the reaction part?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/touring-north-korean-farms-and-factories-kim-jong-un-signals-a-shift-1532862001

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Speculation by NBC news

Regarding North Korea's current stock level of nuclear weapons, I see there is crystal ball gazing by NBC news. Please share the clear evidence of the current increased stocks of nuclear weapons after Trump-Kim summit if it's possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What's your point?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean that the report from NBC: it is speculation of the existence of the elevated accumulations of nuclear weaponry. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The best source I have found says that North Korea has 15-60 bombs.[15] In other words, no one really knows. A leaked intelligence assessment isn't particularly reliable. It's too soon to comment on North Korea's response to the summit.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agreed that A leaked intelligence assessment: it is vague... Thank you for your professional opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reactions

@Goodtiming8871: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves WP:NOR zzz (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Zzz:, WP:NPOV is one of the crucial Wikipedia:Policies, if you remove the international reaction because of your belief or personal preference, and emphasize the contrary opinion on the top front side of the reaction part, it would be violation of WP:NPOV. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So, your argument is that adding your unsourced opinions improves NPOV. Can you find that written in policy? (As an exception to the policy I quoted above) zzz (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Zzz:, Would you be able to clarify your opinion why you believe that the negative comment below is only well sourced?

"Some commentators have expressed skepticism towards the signed agreement pointing to a history of failed past agreements and to the vague wording of the declarations"

From my understanding, the summary of the reaction below is also well sourced by the numerous global newspapers.

"The summit received a generally positive international reaction with most countries expressing praise or hope for achieving a peace deal from the summit".

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"numerous global newspapers", such as... ? zzz (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As you noticed the main article of the International reactions, there are examples of 59 references, Why do you believe the sources about the negative comments is only well sourced? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The negative comments are taken from reliable sources. Any conclusion about whether commentary was, on balance, positive or negative, would require an overall assessments of all such commentary, which would be either original research or would need to cite a reliable source. My personal assessment is that official comments (i.e. from governments) have generally been positive while unofficial comments have been mixed. But my personal assessment is not a reliable source. NPguy (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the user:NPguy's personal assessment "official comments (i.e. from governments) have generally been positive while unofficial comments have been mixed"

I believe that some Wikipedia users might have a positive or negative opinion with the Trump-Kim summit.

However, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Selecting the negative comments with unofficial comments while it have been mixed, and emphasizing the contrary opinion on Wikipeida.

Regarding WP:NPOV on Wikipedia:Policies,

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these ::opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views."

Should we edit Wikipedia by personal opinion instead of following the written Wikipedia:Policies? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed my point completely. To be clear, I was not proposing to edit the article to reflect my personal assessment. I was arguing against editing on the basis of any editor's personal assessment, including the assessment of another editor that reaction was generally positive. NPguy (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I don't mean that your viewpoint is editing the article to reflect your own assessment. I mean judging the WP:NOR (No original research), it should not be decided by the personal assessment. From my understanding that User:zzz removed the summary of the positive reaction part as User:zzz believe that it was unsourced opinions. However, there are more than 50 references with the positive reaction. I believe that unsourced opinion and reliable sources should not be confused. I was also unable to find the Wikipedia policy that the more than 50 references to support positive reaction: it can not be included in the area of reliable sources. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Goodtiming. Can you show us some of these 50+ references you say support the notion that “international reaction was generally positive”? You did add one reference, from moneycontrol.com, an “online business news website” in India.[16] It reports a statement by the UN Secretary General saying the meeting was “an important milestone”. That’s good as far as it goes, but it’s one person’s comment; it doesn’t support us saying that “international reaction was generally positive”. It's the kind of single statement that belongs in the article International reactions to the 2018 North Korea–United States summit, which is already linked under the Reactions section. That article does not attempt to summarize the international comments, it merely lists them.

For this article we should have a summary, and for that we would need a source that summarizes. In a search I found several. One such article, from Business Insider, says “World leaders' reactions to the summit have ranged from triumph to cautious optimism to complete disapproval.”[17] And here’s NBC News: “Trump-Kim summit drew global reaction, with many expressing cautious hope.”[18] IOW both of them describe mixed reactions - not mostly positive, not mostly negative, but mixed. I think we should add one of those, while keeping the NYT report already in our article. Would it be OK with people if I add a summary sentence describing the mixed reactions, followed by the “skepticism” comment already there? --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the leed but have edited the source to make it less biased, the previous descpriotn wasn't truly reflective of the international reaction. I've also added a source supporting it.Zubin12 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Gallery section should be deleted

Most of the photos are not from the summit itself, and many of the captions are misleading or not apt descriptions of the images. NPguy (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Dissent: I oppose the removal of the gallery section as the photos of Tump-Kim related events are useful information for the public in the current multimedia era. * Alternative option: Some of the descriptions of photos were already updated. Please update the contents along with the pictures if necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done [19] zzz (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism The removal of the gallery is vandalism without a broad consensus on the talk page. It should be recovered and see the agreement on the talk page. If there are any unrelated photos or description of the picture, it can be edited instead of removal of the contributions of other people. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support removal Wikipedia is not an image repository. We don't need a picture of every single thing Trump, Kim, and Moon have ever done in this article. Focus on the summit. OZOO (t) (c) 11:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The photos of Return of the remains of US soldiers: it is one of the examples great photo related with the summit, As there are several compelling and informative images of the aftermath of Trump-Kim summit, it would be beneficial to keep Gallery section. Wikipedia policy: the issue with the image without description and it specifies that the point with the media files with no accompanying text. So the related image with explanation would be acceptable.

Now, I believe that the focus of the summit is aftermath and it might be more critical than the Summit itself. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the removal without consensus was vandalism but there should be fewer pictures, Wikipedia isn't an image repository and only notable and informative images should be kept Zubin12 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

An edit – in line with policy – that you disagree with is not vandalism. Any one of the 30 (thirty) pictures can be restored to illustrate a relevant point; but they shouldn't just be dumped there. OZOO (t) (c) 11:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note that I removed the following text, which was later added to GT's first edit in this section in violation of WP:TPG zzz (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  "Dissent: I oppose the removal of the gallery section as the photos of Tump-Kim related events are useful information for the public in the current multimedia era. * Alternative option: "

The text in question was added an hour after the original comment when no-one else had responded. WP:TPG#Editing own comments allows this to happen (but does take a very dim view of editing other people's comments); suggest you self-revert. OZOO (t) (c) 12:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You misread the diffs. The diff you linked was added 2 days after the original comment. zzz (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the error. Regardless I still feel the comment should be kept; possibly with a mark to indicate amendment, as indicated in WP:TPG#Editing own comments. OZOO (t) (c) 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I added it back. zzz (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Destruction of a nuclear testing site

Is there any Wikimedia common photo source where can be used for the latest destruction of a nuclear testing site in North Korea? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt that, Goodtiming8871. If you're talking about Punggye-ri in May, only a limited number of journalists were invited. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop, Thank you for your valuable feedback. I admit with your thought that it might be hard to get a high-quality image of the photo about Destruction of a nuclear testing site. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The photo of DPRK’s 70th anniversary without ICBM display

Please let me know where I can find the free photos of DPRK’s 70th anniversary without ICBM display if possible. (examples; military Parade, Mass Game of DPRK 2018 etc.) It's a tourist spectacle so there might be some on the internet. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How long is the Aftermath?

Months later it is still be added to. Is it going to continue indefinitely??--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's horrible. Feel free to trim it down heavily. It should be a few paragraphs about what – of significance in the long run – happened since then because of the summit and what concrete action that has been taken is attributed to it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we need some endurance for finding the solution to the problematic situation between ending the Korean war and military position of U.S. in Southeast Asia. Please refer to the related summary information below and let me know suitable subjects below. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Possible subjects:
• Delay in peace declaration leads to hostile rhetoric.
• Inside the dispute delaying resolution of the nuclear issues.

On August 29th, the Atlantic reported on an interview with Moon Chung In who is the special envoy from South Korea. His understanding is that the diplomatic team of Mike Pompeo is having difficulties discussing with the defense team National Security Adviser John Bolton; This divided stance between the US Diplomatic team and the US defense team may have played a significant role in the delay of the signing of the promised peace declaration. Diplomatic Team Secretary Mike Pompeo is strongly in favor of adhering to the agreement set out in the summit, whereas John Bolton insists that a complete denuclearization of the DPRK must be established first before a peace treaty can be formally imposed and thereby ending the Korean War. Also on August 29th, The Hill reported on the U.S. presidents verbal agreement with DPRK to end the Korean War, on both the June 1st meeting at the White House, and during the Summit held in Singapore. However, soon after the Summit meeting, the U.S. demanded denuclearization from North Korea before signing on the Peace Declaration document which eventually leads to an ever more hostile rhetoric from North Korea.

The deadlock above between U.S and DPRK was the repetitious events for over 25 years based on the report by USC Korean Studies Institute Director David. He summarized the previous efforts resolving the North Korea's nuclear and Military Challenge, there are several trials of agreement between the U.S. and North Korea in 1994 by Agreed Framework, 2005 and in 2007. The fundamental reason for the stalemate between the U.S. and North Korea's stance; the U.S. requested North Korea - “DPRK should disarm first; then we'll discuss security guarantees.” However, North Korea's position is - “we need the security guarantees from the United States first, then we will disarm. It appeared over 25 years ago, but it is happening again this year.

But this article is supposed to be about the summit!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Thank you for your feedback, I agree with you, and that’s why I updated the directly related articles only pertaining to the aftermath of the Trump-Kim summit from the contents above. Goodtiming1788 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is a hot mess. I have given up on trying to fix it. NPguy (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding, the Aftermath part would reflect the current practical situation of implementation to the joint statement of the Singapore summit. I hope the future Aftermath part of the second Trump-Kim summit will be simple and straightforward. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This might make things worse, but should we have a Korean peace process article (or some other name) which gives an overview of everything?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that might be an excellent idea and I am sure there are a lot of related sub-topics will be added. Please refer to the draft article below and let me know your thought. Draft:Peace_Treaty_on_Korean_Peninsula Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is there may never be a peace treaty.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there was "Korean peace process," but it's still not yet completed. To resolve the Nuclear issue of DPRK, the U.S. and South Korea officially signed the document "seeking a peace treaty": so the new Wikipedia article subject would be one of the realistic options to the public seeing the clear viewpoint what's going on. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that most of the "Aftermath" section should go into a new article called North Korean peace process. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the first option: Korean peace process would be realistic as it affects both North and South Koreas with regards to ICBM Nuclear Missiles ,ending the Korean war 1950-53, reuniting the separated Korean families.

I support the idea of creating the topic: "Korean peace process" and move 70-80% articles to the new topic topic Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have created Korean peace process and copied "Aftermath across. The question is how much should stay here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References