Talk:2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit

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

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

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

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

--Mar. 14 Korea JongAng Daily

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

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

No letter

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

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

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

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

The composite image of the 2 leaders

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

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

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

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

Reactions?

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

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

nuclear weapons strategic asset

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

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

Why now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 24 May 2018

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)

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)