Talk:Korean leaders Moon and Kim meet days after NK-US summit cancellation

NPOV

I have some serious reservations about allowing the 'Temper Tantrum' comment in the article. Take that paragraph out and boost the conclusion since it is hanging. May want to talk about how the train gets back on tracks from both NK and US. AZOperator (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If you feel it's necessary to remove it, go ahead. I'm not so fond of the passage that I'll fight you on it, but because I believe the article is better with it in, I don't plan to remove it myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is unrelated but both "US" and "U.S." are correct in American English. You didn't have to make that change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some more feedback if there was a way of giving some political analysis that is fair to Kim Jung-Un and Trump. The name calling that has been going on, 'rocket man' and 'temper tantrum', just does not cut it for me anymore. Even though the nicknames maybe warranted, I would rather hear about political capital being spent or policy changes based on relationship building. AZOperator (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Supreme Leader"

I actually just read a Guardian article that explicitly stated that "Supreme Leader" is not his title. Technically, Kim's title is "Dear Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Britannica refers to "supreme leader" (lowercase) as an unofficial title. If anyone has a good source support for the use of Supreme Leader uppercase, no objection to putting it back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Kim holds many offices and titles. I think our convention has been to just call him leader of NK. It's toO difficult otherwise. I think right after his father passed, he was called the "Great Successor" or something. --SVTCobra 04:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess if Gaddafi did it, so can Un. AZOperator (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Note

"surprised meeting" in lede seems like a peacock term, and (just noticed it is in the headline) should be changed accordingly -- how about unannounced/unscheduled?
•–• 08:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks for pointing out the typo. "Unscheduled" might not be accurate because it probably was put on a schedule at some point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

With all of these questions being raised, I think it is appropriate to pull it out of the review queue. So I am going to do that, there is no need for a reviewer to waste time on a heavily flawed article. AZOperator (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts.

Some thoughts. I don't think I'm up to a review tonight.

• Lede. Problematic word choice provoked. (Neutrality.) Don't try to report on what people think (we're not mind-readers); report on what they say. For example, if we can verify that they were to address issues that Trump cited when withdrawing, that would be much better. Don't try to second-guess the inner works of Donald Trump's mind. There's also, of course, the question of what is our objective basis for saying what they were there to address.
• Second paragraph. Problematic word choice: careful. Unnecessary description, edging into analysis; best solution is probably just to drop the word.
• Last paragraph, first sentence. Rather than saying the news agency reports that something is true as of Friday, if the agency reported it on Friday, say that. Emphasizes the importance of thinking about how-and-where information comes from (rather than telling people what to believe and then suggesting the information is out of date).
• Last paragraph, last sentence. Starts out as analysis (a neutrality violation); whose assessment is it that "some progress was made"; and then something goes wrong with the grammar later in the sentence.

--Pi zero (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I often wonder what crosses Trump's mind in a minute. It is probably something like this: "Porn stars, money, golf, me, gold, me again, I don't speak Russian, me some more, golf, that intern is pretty hot, if Clinton can do it so can I, golf, how can I get a golden throne in the White House, some more me, screw you guys I'm going to Mar-a-Lago!" AZOperator (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The "as of Friday" is a circumlocution to avoid punctuation that differs between British and American standards. One of many. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4409746 [Passed]

Revision 4409746 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I do have some comments here. At points I felt like I was redacting a document that was about to be released under FOIA. It may be that all the fact add up to one logical conclusion, such as Moon and Kim were trying to "salvage" or "re-schedule" a summit. But when the sources [even CNN] don't jump to such conclusions, it does not behoove Wikinews to make such interpretations for the reader. I understand there may be some frustration but it's obvious, however we can't go down that road. If such statements should be made in an article, they ought to be attributed to an acknowledged expert. Speaking of expert quotes, I thought a little undue weight was paid to the FAS guy. Good expert for the nuclear stuff, but maybe not so much for the political stuff. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4409746 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I do have some comments here. At points I felt like I was redacting a document that was about to be released under FOIA. It may be that all the fact add up to one logical conclusion, such as Moon and Kim were trying to "salvage" or "re-schedule" a summit. But when the sources [even CNN] don't jump to such conclusions, it does not behoove Wikinews to make such interpretations for the reader. I understand there may be some frustration but it's obvious, however we can't go down that road. If such statements should be made in an article, they ought to be attributed to an acknowledged expert. Speaking of expert quotes, I thought a little undue weight was paid to the FAS guy. Good expert for the nuclear stuff, but maybe not so much for the political stuff. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.