Talk:Leader of South Korea requests foreign involvement in decommissioning of nuclear test site

As always, I consider the title serviceable, but I'm not head over heels. Anyone wants to change it, go ahead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4403446 [Not ready]

Revision 4403446 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede is seriously weakened by failure to choose a focus. The first sentence, which should start the article with a bang ("if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one"), is instead a vague description of stuff that's happened "this week". Which could even be misleading since one of the two events described took place before the weekend and the other after the weekend. This could be crisply focused on a specific event that took place on Tuesday. It would not even be strictly necessary to remove the earlier event from the lede, although the lede is rather on the long side; crisp focus on the specific fresh event would already shorten the lede by probably about 20%, making mention of the second event later in the paragraph more tolerable. The headline would probably want some adjustment, although this might be quite subtle. There's a paragraph here that ends with "but the rest of the reaction has been cautious:". Don't know what meaning is intended. Btw, the second-to-next paragraph after that wants some pruning; the first sentence ("The site may not be operational now") is somewhere between analysis and redundant to what follows, and would be better removed, while the second sentence has two "last week"s. A few paragraphs later I see two "officially"s in one sentence. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4403446 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede is seriously weakened by failure to choose a focus. The first sentence, which should start the article with a bang ("if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one"), is instead a vague description of stuff that's happened "this week". Which could even be misleading since one of the two events described took place before the weekend and the other after the weekend. This could be crisply focused on a specific event that took place on Tuesday. It would not even be strictly necessary to remove the earlier event from the lede, although the lede is rather on the long side; crisp focus on the specific fresh event would already shorten the lede by probably about 20%, making mention of the second event later in the paragraph more tolerable. The headline would probably want some adjustment, although this might be quite subtle. There's a paragraph here that ends with "but the rest of the reaction has been cautious:". Don't know what meaning is intended. Btw, the second-to-next paragraph after that wants some pruning; the first sentence ("The site may not be operational now") is somewhere between analysis and redundant to what follows, and would be better removed, while the second sentence has two "last week"s. A few paragraphs later I see two "officially"s in one sentence. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

1. Redid the first line to establish that the point is that they are both doing the same thing in different ways, which is a very Koreas thing to do.
2. Removing the Kim Jong Un focus would render a lot of the commentary on his motives irrelevant to the article.
3. That line introduces the subsequent paragraphs, which provide the rest of the reaction. Added a "for example" to make this clearer.
4. Removed one of the officiallies and the line that you cite as redundant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

On another note, closing the test range really is insignificant because it consists of tunnels. I am pretty sure those tunnels were dug by hard labor political prisoners, a bunch of whom died when one of them collapsed a few months ago. Also, for a test facility to exist, you have to have testing equipment to show you how well the test did. I would be interested to see if any of that is being looked at the moment. AZOperator (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4403633 [Not ready]

Revision 4403633 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Earlier difficulty edging into this area; see below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Several peripheral problems were addressed; thank you. The previous review asked for a crisp focus, and pointed out the negative consequences of the first sentence resulting from the failure to choose a specific focus. Unfortunately, the response to this was to add to the first sentence, apparently doubling down on it. The first sentence is analysis (contravening Wikinews neutrality), prevents convergence to focus, and postpones concrete details. The addition exaggerated all three of these aspects. Contrary to a claim above, nothing need be lost here through crisp focus. If I'd meant to fix the lede focus problem myself during review, the time to try would have been the first review. Instead I judged, at that time, I could not do it without disqualifying myself for independent review of this article (I see incautious tampering with the lede as particularly likely to disqualify). Without something in the revision that reduces the size of the problem, I can't (without howling hypocrisy) now turn around and implement a fix for the problem during review. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4403633 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Earlier difficulty edging into this area; see below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Several peripheral problems were addressed; thank you. The previous review asked for a crisp focus, and pointed out the negative consequences of the first sentence resulting from the failure to choose a specific focus. Unfortunately, the response to this was to add to the first sentence, apparently doubling down on it. The first sentence is analysis (contravening Wikinews neutrality), prevents convergence to focus, and postpones concrete details. The addition exaggerated all three of these aspects. Contrary to a claim above, nothing need be lost here through crisp focus. If I'd meant to fix the lede focus problem myself during review, the time to try would have been the first review. Instead I judged, at that time, I could not do it without disqualifying myself for independent review of this article (I see incautious tampering with the lede as particularly likely to disqualify). Without something in the revision that reduces the size of the problem, I can't (without howling hypocrisy) now turn around and implement a fix for the problem during review. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Good enough for re-review? I focused on Tuesday ad removed any analysis of whether the two statements were equivalent. I only touched the first paragraph. --SVTCobra 23:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT

It seems that you [Pi zero] and I have stylistic differences. I did not fail to choose one event. I deliberately chose two. It's not a focus problem; it's a focus difference. Per your last review, it looked like you simply didn't understand that that's what I was doing. I'm a believer in "don't tell me in the talk page; tell me in the article," so I made the changes that you seem to find just made things worse.

This is not about Moon or Kim but rather about both of them. If you were to change the beginning in the way you describe, you would not be fixing a problem but rather transforming the piece from an article about This into an article about That. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly not something that you aren't allowed to do, but if you truly think it's necessary, then you should do it and then let someone else do the review, and if no one does and the article times out, oh well.

It looks like what's going on here is that this article meets Wikinews' standards in general but is very much not to your taste. For such articles, perhaps switching from review team to draft team or just not reviewing it is the thing to do.

POST EDIT CONFLICT It seems that SVTCobra has taken the lead on this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I think it was better the way I did it (which is why I did it that way) but it's still pretty good. I'm cool with it in this form. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

...and reading SVT's work has given me some ideas. Pi zero, is the problem that you have with the original version of the opener that you think it wasn't tight enough/focused on two things and not just one or was it something else, something qualitatively different from that? Right now, I'm not asking why you think having two focal events is bad. I'm asking whether that is indeed what you are talking about in your review responses. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A large part of it, I believe, was this: "both asked for the same thing in different ways" ... Wikinews should not decide that. Just state the two different things and let the reader draw their own conclusions. --SVTCobra 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For me it was both the technical point about focus and its consequences. I saw this article faltering in ways that followed from its technical focus problem; either the faltering or the technical problem would be an obstacle, but they don't come separately. It does seem a rather good concrete demonstration of the principle of focus —something I've been trying for some time to describe abstractly, without notable success— including demonstration of how crisp focus acts to eliminate other problems, and demonstration that crisp focus does not have to inhibit presenting the structure of the story. --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I don't really see what you mean by "technical problem" or any place the reader is likely to get confused What technical problem do you mean? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Some months ago, there was a similar discussion here, and there may have been more similar discussions. It seems some users here have very big problems with having two focal events more or less at once. I for my part do not think this should be such a big problem. Sometimes it's just necessary to "merge" two focal events, in order to comply at the same time with the strict "freshness" policy. De Wikischim (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary. There is, in fact, no reason at all to do so, which is the point. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Quote from @SVTCobra:, 20:42, 25 January 2018: "I don't see a problem. There seems to be a direct cause and effect linking the two events". So I'd say there surely is a reason, or at least, there may be one in some cases (like in this article, for example). De Wikischim (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You've apparently failed to read and understand the discussion, and the case. --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

YAY, PRECEDENT CONVERSATION!! I'm going to go give it a look! Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: So in your opinion, SVT, the second draft of this article had a problem in the lead but the first did not?

I've been doing some thinking and I think this is the problem: If it is something that I have seen professional news outlets do, like have two focuses once in the while, then "that's wrong" is not going to fly with me. My eyes are telling me that it's not wrong.

However, if you were to say, "I Pi zero am not comfortable/not going to/[say as you like] hit publish on an article that goes against my own ideas of what's best for Wikinews and/or its readers," but then don't kick it to "disputed." Leave it in the review hopper in case another reviewer wants to give it a go. (Also good: "We at Wikinews decided years ago not to do it this way; here's a link to that conversation.") Your two responses here give me vibes of "What are you going to believe, what you see or what I tell ya? Obey me!" and that creeps me out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: No. The lead paragraph was nearly unchanged between the two. It was only after the second failing review that I looked at it critically. --SVTCobra 13:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Darkfrog,

1. you violated the requirement of a focal event — that's a focal event, singular — which I've characterized as 'technical' although, of course, like all the basic principles of Wikinews there are deep practical reasons for it,
2. by doing so you introduced various other serious problems into the article, thus demonstrating the wisdom of the 'technical' principle, and
3. fixing the 'technical' violation eliminated the consequent problems without creating the problem you had claimed would result, thus demonstrating that your concern was illusory.

I do not not-ready based on mere personal preference; in fact, every time I allow you to deprive readers of information by using information-lossy punctuation conventions on quotes I go somewhat beyond the limits of merely tolerating personal preferences, putting up with a mild betrayal of our responsibility to inform readers to the best of our ability. If you imagine I would abuse my status to push a mere personal preference... I lack words to express how badly you've misread me. However, it's not really news that you've misjudged me; you've demonstrated that often since you arrived here. You also continue, I see, to imagine that somehow msm practice is automatically "right" — which isn't even necessarily true journalistically, let alone valid in the context of Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. "Violated"? What the eff. And no, a single focal event is not a requirement. According to the content guide, the article can also focus on a single phenomenon, like the two Korean leaders doing the same thing in different ways.
2. What "various other serious problems" are you talking about, and why not name them in your first review response?
3. Yes, the article does look lopsided now with a lede and headline that are about Moon but so much of the body about Kim. It's good enough, but it was better before.

No I am not "violating" Wikinews or "betraying" the readers by writing an article that was not to your liking. I find your language far too strong. I think "abusing your position" is too strong a term as well.

If these are not your personal preferences, if they don't come from you, then show me where they do come from. Journalism lecture? Textbook? Wikinews precedent conversation? It would be great for me to see your source, so that I can be enlightened by it too. I am not being sarcastic; I am 100% serious. And if it's not coming from you personally or from a source, then what?

"You also continue, I see, to imagine that somehow msm practice is automatically "right" — which isn't even necessarily true journalistically" Okay, I think we can make some progress here: I do not think that MSM practice is automatically right so much as I think the sources are far more likely to be right than any one individual person working at Project Wiki.

So this is the nail on the head: When you want to convince me "I the reviewer am right," especially if it's "The source is wrong and I the reviewer am right," you have to do more than just say so. Show me your source. Show me your precedent. Show me something that went wrong the last time it happened. Or at least show me how you came to have that opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Juuuuuuust in case anyone years from now sees that post out of context, the issue at hand is a matter of source practices on paragraph structure, not on facts. No one's accusing anyone of alternative facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd call it article structure, rather than paragraph structure.

Getting dragged down into details on this is simply a road to insanity without end. If I meant to spend the next several days composing an essay, I'd start with a list of specific points you just made, then write notes on what comments should be made about each... not remotely practical.

I've at least partly given up on convincing you, tbh. You haven't got, and for whatever combination of reasons probably never will have, an intuition for the underlying principles (and no, I'm not changing the subject; a theme here is your perception of how well I understand things, and my sense of the inner harmony of the Wikinews principles can't impress someone to whom that harmony is invisible). Your mode of operation that works best for you is fundamentally different from that of typical veteran Wikinewsies, and I've relatively recently started trying to work out what that means in practice for Wikinews contribution — how to maximize your strengths while steering entirely clear of your weaknesses, rather than trying to squeeze you into a particular mold that isn't the right shape for you. I haven't got it figured out yet, though; and I have continuing trouble with just which of my explanations are not going to come across to you successfully (I keep getting blindsided by things that I say that unexpectedly don't come across; sometimes it takes a while for me to even realize they fell flat). --Pi zero (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree to a large extent with what Darkfrog24 says hereabove. @Pi zero:, I'm beginning to get the idea that everyone here who has a slightly different opinion, "does not understand the basic principles" according to you. For similar reasons, you've even blamed me for trolling and misuse just because I did (and yes, still do) not agree with some parts of the policy. Now I see it's Darkfrog24 who is being accused of things such as abuse and violation.

Well, if you really feel the need to comment that way on other contributors, just go ahead - actually I don't care, but the final result may be that on term, you'll be the only contributor left on this project. De Wikischim (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I now see below that you've finally approved this for publication - OK, that's good anyway. De Wikischim (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you describe the passing review as "approving for publication" is further, amongst extensive, internal evidence that, although you claim (and appear to sincerely believe) you understand-and-disagree, in fact you signally fail to grasp the concept. I do see you as a very different case from Darkfrog24, and both of you as very different again from various relative newcomers who are attempting to learn how the project works. Your claim to understand is problematic; it is hard to distinguish lack of journalistic values from not having a clue what news is. Our high standards present a challenge for attracting contributors —no duh— but also fuel the idealism that has been essential to en.wn's (vast, by "citizen journalism" standards) longenvity. However, your incessant heckling of our policies and practices is a negative for which there is no obvious positive side. --Pi zero (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, our policies and practices? It's apparent that some of the more or less steady contributors here do not − OK, at least not fully − agree with the polices and practices you're probably referring to. De Wikischim (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pi zero, take your time. I'm planning on being here for a good long while, and I'd be interested in reading that essay if you ever feel like writing it.

In the interest of having productive conversations in the future, I've noticed a pattern. When I say something like "Show me your source" or "'specific problem'? Okay, name it," you almost always change the subject. When you do that, I feel like you're not being honest. It looks like you don't have a source/specific detail, and you don't have a good reason why not, and you don't want to admit it.

There are probably other explanations, but if you were to say "I don't need a source and here is my very good reason why not" or "well it's not a specific problem, more like I know there's a problem but I can't put my finger on exactly what's bothering me. I guess it's my long experience giving me some intuition," I'd get to spend less time wondering what's going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I would never attempt to write that particular essay. It would be altogether a waste of time.

There are some definite recurrent patterns in our interactions. You describe what one of those looks like from your perspective. Just as an experiment, I'll take a shot at describing (a subset of) that one from my perspective. You say something like "Show me your source", I point out that that's the wrong question to be asking, my explanation of why it's the wrong question entirely fails to make any sense to you, and we're both left altogether frustrated.

A broader pattern, I think, is that when I'm trying to explain things to you, parts of my explanations make no sense to you, to the point where, it seems as if, parts of my explanations are effectively invisible to you. Why would that happen? Some theories I've moved past:

• You could have been missing some particular deep insight that, if it could just be explained in a way that would cause you to see it, would cause the various other bits floating around to converge for you. I do think something like that often happens as I'm helping Wikinews contributors grow into the role. However, it hadn't happened, and continued to not happen, in your case. It would have been convenient, if all that was needed was for me to work out just what needed to be explained, and find just the right way to explain it; but after a sufficient number of variations have completely failed to gain any traction whatever, a simple failure analysis suggests reconsidering that whole strategy. So the next question is, why no traction, no convergence?
• You could (I'm especially unfond of these variants) be refusing to believe there's something more for you to learn, either because you're too sure of yourself or because you're too doubtful of me. Or, combining with a variant of the previous theory, because you've underestimated the role that reviewers' expertise plays in passing things on to later generations of Wikinewsies (so that the challenge would become, how to get that across to you). But after various explorations in the neighborhood of those theories, it really doesn't feel as if any of them are likely to be so.

Which brings me to the theory I'm currently trying on for size. This has to do with something I learned about from a professor at college. As we interact with other people, we all tend to assume what goes on in their heads is basically akin to what goes on in our own. But suppose, as a sort of science-fiction-y premise, that you were living in a world whose population was made up of a whole bunch of different kinds of minds, with wetware working along a bunch of mutually alien sets of principles. How would you even know? I worked with that professor for some years, long enough to appreciate that such stuff can be very treacherous; even harder than grokking different ways that minds can work, is grokking how different kinds of minds fail to communicate with each other. And the researcher is inside that difficulty.

That would neatly explain, though, why a bunch of my explanations would fail so utterly they might as well not exist: I tend to describe things in terms of the inner world of my mind, and if what goes on in my mind is not at all what goes on in yours, my descriptions would be unrelatable to your experiences. --Pi zero (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your professor's hypothesis is very interesting. You will notice I keep asking you to show me things that exist outside your mind, like books and articles and old Wikipages.

Per your bullet point one, please pick out one of the times you tried to explain to me why you don't need a source, one that you think was especially good or especially core to who you are as a Wikiwriter, so I can go back and reread it a few times.

As for your second bullet point, no it's not that I don't think I could learn anything else. Why would I keep asking to see journalism books if I did? It's that if you want me to learn from you, you must offer some proof that you are right or that the guesses and assumptions and reasoning that you make are better than my own. Otherwise, you might as well learn from me. If I look at something and see it's red (or a gold and white dress), and someone wants to convince me that it's some other color (like black and blue), then they should show me proof that my eyes are playing tricks on me (like with a pixel analysis of that gold and white/black and blue dress from the meme). If no such proof exists, then that other person should permanently accept that no reasonable person is under any obligation to change his or her mind.

It sounds like you should be saying in your review responses something a bit more like, "My gut/intuition tells me that X is wrong and Y is right, but I cannot figure out why," and then accept that your unexplained gut, while not nothing, is not as convincing as a source. That would come off as more sincere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to this interesting science fiction idea, at WP:MoS, I often found myself thinking "So-and-so is thinking like a logician and I am thinking like a scientist. So-and-so says logic shows that American punctuation should result in loss of information or confused readers, but the observable evidence shows that it doesn't result in loss of information or confused readers." I've looked over the math and logic of the Monty Hall problem but I didn't really believe it until I saw that a group of people had gone and counted how many times each person got a car or a goat. In the Monty Hall case, the two methods produced matching results.

You say you focus on things that are inside your head, and, at least on Project Wiki, I rely very heavily on things outside my head. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone describes things in terms that fit the way their mind works; the variation between people is in how it is that their minds work. And there's not infinite variation in that, either; we're not talking about idiosyncratic mental landscapes, just two or three cognitive skills that, to a first approximation, each person either has or doesn't have, for either four or eight kinds of minds.

I see the same pattern here that I was describing above: I say things that add up to something for folks with sufficiently similar cognitive type to mine, and it doesn't add up for you, with the result that you get something out of it very different from what I put into it. And we're both frustrated (at least, I certainly am; I'm only guessing that you are too). --Pi zero (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The scenario "It's there but it's invisible to your eyes [because you are fool or a traitor]" is the Emperor's New Clothes. It's reasonable for me to least entertain the idea that there is nothing there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4403959 [Passed]

Revision 4403959 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4403959 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Korean names

We've gone through the process of figuring this out repeatedly; it's getting so it doesn't take as long, but somehow we're still not to the point of being sure of the details without some checking. As a general rule (with, potentially, individual exceptions because an individual person is the final authority on their own name), North Korean names make the third part a separate word with an upper-case letter, thus Kim Jong Un, while South Korean names make the third part hyphenated with a lower-case letter, thus Moon Jae-in. I remember once spending lots of time assembling that understanding from widely scattered bits and pieces, along with the insight that some news sites use the South Korean convention for North Korean names probably because they have ultimately South Korean sympathies. The quick way to re-confirm the convention we'd arrived at —as I did on this occasion— is that it's prescribed by my copy of the 2015 AP Style Guide. --Pi zero (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I did look this up in the 2017 AP Style Guide a couple of articles back, but I don't remember off the top off my head. I do remember Escape from Camp 14 referring to its author as Shin Ingeun and Shin Dong-hyuk within the same work, though that's a long-form work. 00:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)

Feels rather crazy to have two different styles for Korean names, regardless of what AP says. We are the English speakers, we should be able to anglicize in any style we choose. Do we really believe Korea, China or whomever cares what we think when they style proper English names in their script? Also, if Kim Jong Un is what we prefer, why is the category Kim Jong-un? And why on Earth would we adopt a style that is different from literally every English wiki-project as evidenced by the Wikidata entry Q56226? Who are we aiming to please with this unnecessary complication? --SVTCobra 13:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Do we really believe Korea, China or whomever cares what we think when they style proper English names in their script?" Actually, yes. And any wikinewsie knowing that I edit multiple wikinews projects would be aware of it.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If en.wp gets it wrong there's a good chance the others would just by imitation; and if en.wp had a motive for getting it wrong, as I've speculated some of the news services might, that would make it even more likely for the others to do the same because they might share the motive. I see on the Wikidata page that there's no such universal agreement across languages. --Pi zero (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, I think our category is "Kim Jong-un" because when we created it, we were still floundering around trying to figure this out, and by the time we did figure it out we didn't scrape up the time to fix it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

103.254.128.130, If you are who we are assumed to believe you are, I find your claim extremely close to complete bullshit. --SVTCobra 00:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Pi, there is no right or wrong in this situation. But there is overwhelming consistency for "Kim Jong-un". The New York Times, The Guardian, Encyclopædia Britannica all use the same style. There will always be exceptions like the Library of Congress which uses "Kim Chŏng-ŭn" ... Hmmm, that looks even more 'authentic', why don't we go with LoC? ... Sorry for the sarcasm at the end. --SVTCobra 01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You can assume that the IP is used by user:Acagastya, yet fail to check for the contributions of the person who is user:Acagastya. “Acagastya” is not the only account, and that link which you have mentioned, actually that is bullshit because you should be knowing that page would not show projects that are in the incubator. So how about you keep your baseless and incomplete findings up to yourself
103.254.128.130 (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, so what? Prove your claims. "Never assume" ... right? But are you saying you are engaging in sockpuppetry? Either way, "any wikinewsie knowing that I edit multiple wikinews projects would be aware of it" is a completely worthless statement, so keep it out of the discussion unless you provide something verifiable. --SVTCobra 05:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a problem in situations like voting for/against something using multiple accounts, which I don't. And I don't care about what you "completely worthless statement" -- it is for Wikinewsies. You show up after ages, and expect to know everything that happened while you were gone?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you contribute nothing to this discussion. Stop it, please. --SVTCobra 06:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, just like every time, you assume something, I reply to it, and you ask me to stop. A typical day on enwn in 2018.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Acagastya: This seems a typical example of how discussions are likely to go wrong when allowed to become personal. (To be clear, I do not see this as caused by any one person, but I think a solution, at least for interactions between you two, might be brought about by both of you, each acting as an individual) Looking above, the first IP comment was reasonably on-topic, though in retrospect also maybe a bit edgy and a bit first-person-y; SVT's response took that first-person-ality and focused on it, and the digression builds like a pearl forming around a speck of dust. Suggestion: both of you work at trying to be less inflamatory, and less personal, than the other; if both sides are trying to do that, the conversation can become inherently stable, tending always towards being on-topic (rather than unstably tending off-topic). --Pi zero (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

103.254.128.130, I asked you to stop posting replies that don't contribute to the conversation. What is the merit of claiming that you edit multiple Wikinews projects and that is evidence of how we should style Korean names? BTW, you should probably post all your usernames some place, so we can be sure you are not reviewing your own work. --SVTCobra 15:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@SVTCobra: Not everyone uses that style. Besides my 2015 AP Style Guide, I noticed at least one of the sources of this article uses "Kim Jong Un" (Reuters, iirc). And I see it as very significant why a great many publications would do that. It smells thoroughly political. What my 2015 AP Style Guide says, precisely, is

The style and spelling of names in North Korea and South Korea follow each government's standard policy for transliterations unless the subject has a personal preference.

North Korean names are written as three separate words, each starting with a capital letter[...]

If that's right, the widespread use of "Kim Jong-un" is an act of unified political defiance against the North Korean government. A second layer is, of course, that one or the other government (or both) might be deliberately using a different convention than the other; but it does seem that using the conventions preferred by the respective governments is the least politicized position we can take. --Pi zero (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the political sword swings both ways. One could just as easily say that it's the DPRK just wanting to be different and following their wishes — in lieu of adopting a consistent style — is kowtowing to their whims. Keep in mind, we call the countries North Korea and South Korea, which is a style neither country endorses. We are not — and should not — be beholden to foreign governments when it comes to using our English language. Take the city of Kiev as an example. Ukraine says it should be Kyiv. Well, they can cry all they want. (A little aside here, even though they share the same basic alphabet, Russia doesn't even spell it the same as Ukraine does.) --SVTCobra 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I did specifically remark that either or both governments could have deliberately chosen to differ on this; and my wording was carefully chosen when I wrote "it does seem [...] the least politicized position". Sometimes the least political choice one can make is to acknowledge who is actually in charge of a country. This has all been strongly reminding me, for several rounds back in the discussion, of the choice of "Myanmar" versus "Burma". --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying, without much success, to find if there was a style before the Koreas were divided. In addition to Burma/Myanmar, there's Peking/Beijing, Bombay/Mumbai, but I think the common thread in adopting those changes was it represented a fundamental change in the pronunciation. --SVTCobra 16:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Tbh I don't think it matters whether there was a standard before, but in any case my guess would be there wasn't. --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The real trick seems to be whether this is a matter of national variants of language (like British and American English), in which case we'd focus on internal consistency, or whether it's about proper nouns, in which case we'd go with the individual's preference. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Names aren't quite like anything else. Individual preference matters especially, but in this case we're only discussing transliteration anyway so the individual might not have a preference. --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)