Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Logo of summit

Personally, I feel that the logo with the flags is unneccessary and I propose that the logo without the flags be used in the article instead. The logo w/o the flags is also shown on the title page of the official host country summit website - https://dprk-usasummit2019.mofa.gov.vn/HanoiSummit_CIP.pdf.

Logo with flags (currently used):

Logo without flags:

Wpeneditor (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the use of this Logo is in conjunction with the entire city where the conference is held, the news agencies and broadcasters as well as the website of the conference and the foreign ministry, the standard of the Logo. vertical and horizontal with the flag and the name of the conference, you can see these 2 photos to see how widely used this logo:

https://i-vnexpress.vnecdn.net/2019/02/20/PHAM5504-JPG_1550639224_m_680x0.jpg . If you do not believe, you can view newspapers, television and many other sources. Thank you for watching.Thienhau2003 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is an official logo for the summit, it should be deleted altogether. You can't make up a logo for a Wikipedia article. NPguy (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two links below.

From my understanding, there are two official logs below for the second summit.

Could you translate that into English? It makes no sense. NPguy (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodtiming8871, one of the many "rules" at WP is that you don't rewrite your comment after someone has replied to it[1], since this tends to make their comment a bit of nonsense. Better to just make a new comment. More at WP:REDACT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither of these logos is used officially by the parties to the Summit, the United States and North Korea. Instead, they are used by Vietnam. The same goes for the "official name." The logo is probably OK to use as long as it's not called "official." But the name should not be labeled "official." NPguy (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I agree with the user's opinon above : "The logo is probably OK to use as long as it's not called "official." ; I think it might be difficult to say it's official log as there are several versions. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What next for Donald Trump & Kim Jong-un?

Without the final agreement of the second summit, What next for Donald Trump & Kim Jong-un? Can we add some opinions on this topic from the world on this sudden issue? example: "Trump-Kim meeting: The big moments from the dramatic summit in Vietnam" [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It would be one of the good options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It will all be highly speculative and most likely totally wrong, like all the other "expert" opinions on the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it will be. It may be decent content anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/trump-kim-summit-the-key-moments/10853000

Chairman, North Korean leader or Supreme leader

Google News search results are as follows:

  • Kim Jong-un "North Korean leader": 7,800,000
  • Kim Jong-un "Chairman": 4,850,000
  • Kim Jong-un "Supreme leader": 37,800
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-summit reactions

@MrX: I contributed most of the content contained in this reversion, about which you said:

"Mediaite, 38north.org, and free republic are not reliable sources"

• Mediaite: please see this

• 38 North: a leading authority on NK

• Free Republic (FR): I realize FR is a conservative opinion site, some might say a rabidly right-wing echo chamber, and I winced at the thought of using it as a source, but as I alluded to in my edit summaries ("paywalled WSJ article via Free Republic"), I used FR only because it was the only source I could find that contained the full text of a paywalled WSJ article. The FR post links to the WSJ article, which is a very "meaty" piece for this article. I could replace the FR ref with the original WSJ article, but readers would not be able to see the meat behind that paywall.

"nor should this article contain such excruciatingly detailed commentary"

As I see it, Trump's NK gambit is bold, risky and likely highly consequential, and thus warrants substantial comments from subject matter experts, which is what those edits contain.

I'd like to restore that content. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't need to see behind the paywall for free. Cite the most reliable source, not the most dodgy one that provides it for free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely can't link to a WSJ article that has been copied onto FR. That's contributory copyright infringement and a violation of WP:COPYVIO. If the WSJ is the only source where something can be found, it more than likely fails WP:DUEWEIGHT anyway. I'll take your word on 38North. Regarding Mediaite, I believe that it is a shunned source based on various talk page discussions I've participated in. In fact, I thought it was already on the list at WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 01:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your copyvio comment is well taken, I can just use the WSJ ref, per Finnusertop. But Michael R. Gordon has the chops to get exclusive interviews with subject matter experts, which is why his WSJ piece carries weight. Mediaite is not yet mentioned on WP:RSP, which is why I am now seeking consensus for it. My specific Mediate edit contained quotes and video support for them, so it's pretty indisputable. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources: WSJ is obviously reliable; Mediaite is a news aggregator so again you should cite the actual source; 38 North I think is OK. But I think the problem is the "excruciatingly detailed commentary". We don't need long quotes from every talking head in the known universe. What would be good is a summary of the main opinions. If you use Gordon it should be one sentence. Less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding selection of the news articles, the actual source about 38 North, Would it be now reliable reference? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mediaite is not an aggregator, it doesn't merely link to other sources, and it is not feasible to link to the original source because it's typically TV shows, from which Mediaite provides quotes/clips. And it's not "every talking head in the known universe," it's a handful of observations from subject matter experts and principals such as Bolton. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-summit reactions by South Korea Government

South Korea Government announced that "We do regret that President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un did not reach a complete agreement at today's summit,” & “But it is clear that (the summit) made more meaningful progress than any other time in the past." However, the Wikipedia article stated "South Korea and Japan both supported Trump's actions" ONLY; I think this one line sentence could be some misunderstanding about the announcement of South Korea Government. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_Hanoi_Summit