This is an archive of past discussions about Kim Jong Un. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
South Korean naming conventions include the lowercasing of the third word in a name. However, North Korean conventions do not use a hyphen and the third component is in uppercase.
We can assess that if you provide an article or contribute text for this article with an appropriate citation. We don't know why Kim brought his own toilet, if he did. I guess those articles are psychoanalysing Kim without having met him. We know so little facts about Kim — when was he born? how many children does he have? — that I think it would be very difficult to properly assess his mental health problems.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
What psychiatry journal? There is more than one. To answer your question, probably not. While Kim is a dictator who is responsible for the suffering and death of his own people and who probably wouldn't be significantly hurt by this, Wikipedia's BLP rules are pretty rigid and armchair diagnosis by some random psychiatrists for a behavior that could have a lot of possible causes doesn't seem to cut it. If there are reliable sources about the behavior itself, it could probably be included. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Supreme Leader?
The article begins:
Kim Jong-un...is a North Korean politician serving as Supreme Leader of North Korea since 2011 and Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea since 2012.
This was discussed before in some form.[1][2] Announcing the succession in 2011, the KCNA did not use the term "supreme leader" (in upper or lower case).[3] Article 100 of the Constitution states that the chairman of the State Affairs Commission (previously the National Defence Commission) is "supreme leader" (lower case) of the DPRK.[4] However, according to the article, Kim did not become the chairman until 13 April 2012. According to the USA Today in 2011, "Since his father's death, North Korean officials and state media have given him a series of new titles: Great Successor, Supreme Leader and now Great Leader".[5] However, Daily NK, while listing his posts in 2012, did not list "Supreme Leader".[6] Reuters in 2016, said, "His full title is now the 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".[7] The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "After the death of his father in December 2011, Kim Jong-Un was declared the country’s supreme leader, an unofficial title that nonetheless signaled his position as the head of both the government and North Korea’s military forces. In April 2012 his status was validated by the acquisition of several official titles: first secretary of the KWP, chairman of the Central Military Commission, and chairman of the NDC, which was then the country’s highest bureaucratic authority."[8] Do we have sources saying that "Supreme Leader" is an official position in North Korea? And do we have sources that say that Kim took up that position in 2011? If we don't, we are just creating a factoid. I would suggest that it is better to simply say "leader of North Korea"--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree that it should be removed. Though a massively popular designation for Kim in the English language, "supreme leader" is not an official office, it is simply a title granted to the Chairman of the National Defence Commission (now the State Affairs Commission) as defined in the constitution since 2009. Notably, in the Panmunjom Declaration from April 2018, Kim signed as the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission, the highest office in North Korea.[9] – Nick Mitchell 98talk12:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello all. I have just removed the "supreme leader" moniker which seems to have been re-inserted onto the article without discussion here. I would tend to agree with the argument that this term should not be used for Kim Jong-un in the lede; in part, because of what Nick Mitchell 98 has mentioned about Kim signing both declarations with Kim and Moon Jae-in as Chairman of the National Defence Commission. "Chairman" seems to be more of Kim's international title, rather than "Supreme Leader", and "leader of North Korea" reads more neutrally anyhow. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! Adding to the validity of his title "Chairman", not only in the Panmunjom Declaration but also the Joint Statement at the Singapore Summit and speeches preceding the summit as "Chairman Kim". – Nick Mitchell 98talk01:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. "Chairman Kim" has been used by the Americans in the lead-up to the Singapore summit, but as discussed at that page it is not the most common title that North Koreans use.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know to what extent it is an official title or how and when he was given this title, but Rodong Sinmun's website has a section with this image as header: 경애하는 최고령도자 김정은동지의 혁명할동보도. A large portion of the header is Kim Jong-un's title: "Beloved Supreme Leader Comrade Kim Jong-un". The title Supreme Leader (최고령도자 / Ch'oego ryŏngdoja) is also used in a lot of articles, like this article from the 21st of June 2018. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment - it doesn't have to be an "official title" used in the constitution or any nomenclature. If that what he is widely known as, including in media sources, than WP:COMMONNAME applies, and "Supreme Leader" can be used to describe him in this article, and through-out this project as a widely known unofficial title recognized as being in common use. Personally, I think UCRN is one of the dumbest policies this project has, but we're stuck with it and it applies here. - wolf09:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The invitation to visit might just possibly be notable. But it's pretty obvious Vladimir is just a bit jealous of all that peacenik golden hair glow. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock: Just FYI, Kim is the last name (like half the country's population apparently), and Jong-un is the given name, so that we should write "if Kim visits Russia". — JFGtalk08:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It's over a month ago, so I don't remember, but I might have called him Jung-un because I was replying to a post where Putin was called Vladimir. Also, the MOS doesn't apply in talk pages. Trust me, I know that Kim is his family name (hint: Jack N. Stock is not my real name). Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Kim Jong-un is frequently referred to as a 'comrade' in North Korean propaganda. For example, current top news in North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun: it says "Comrade Kim Jong-un" (김정은동지) at several places in the article. Why do you think it's notable that someone outside North Korea uses the same title? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps because in the outside country the once-shared political ideology has been proven a failure and has had to adopt a semi-capitalist new guise just to survive? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It's silly and honestly ignorant to say that "comrade" means "communist." Putin calling Kim Jong-un a comrade is completely insignificant and doesn't earn a mention in the biography article describing Kim Jong-un. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The standard spelling of the Korean name between Kim Jong-un and Kim Jung-un ?
Currently the biggest sections are "Early life" and "Assuming official titles". There is relatively little about his time as leader, even though it has been somewhat momentous. This is unbalanced. I have just added brief information about his meeting with Trump into the body of the article, even though it happened in June... There must be some information from the summits that could update the "Personality" section...
It is problematic that some of the sections relating to his time as leader are chronological and some are thematic. For example, we don't want information on nuclear disarmament (real or projected) to be duplicated under "Nuclear weapons" and "Detente in 2018". The detente section logically comes after the nuclear weapons section. He has been leader since 2011, and this is going to become more acute over time.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
<sarcasm> I think it's better if all the editors keep switching the image every other day, just to keep things fresh. </sarcasm> Everybody has their favorite, and insists on having their favorite in the infobox. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Slightly more recent, but it's noticeably lower in quality and you can see the American flag in the background. Now that we have a selection to choose from (not long ago we had to choose from a handful of literal drawings of him) it's better that we use the one with the highest quality. None of them are exactly outdated, either. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨08:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, it's hard to find a palatable portrait of the man, but at least let's not make him appear more sinister than any other world leader. — JFGtalk17:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:JFG; The current image looks like a character of the comic. It would be fair to place the decent image portrait on this place regarding other world leader's pictures in Wikipedia. I would try to find the smiley face about Kim. (example: the similar image of Donald Trump ) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
That's an arbitrary criteria. Perhaps we should filter down for national leaders who don't have their left arm raised. I jest :) But, it does highlight that everyone has their own criteria for what is the 'best' picture, and thus is keeps changing. I don't care really. I do find it humorous that for years we contested about whether to have an image or not, and now we're on about which image to have. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually the current photo is worse because is has low resolution. I propose we use that April 2018 photo because although there is other people there the face is out of focus and the eyes isn't visible. Hddty. (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
* Hello User:Hammersoft, Thank you for your feedback about changing the viewpoint of our Wikipedians over the several years. I love your timely humor "filtering down the national leaders who don't have their left arm raised ". I would keep looking the better image that we can employ it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
What constitutes a "better" image is subjective. I suspect that now that we have several potential options, the image will keep changing based on subjective opinions. That's not a 'problem' per se. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed style is subjective, but resolution is objective; accordingly I have restored the higher-resolution picture from April 2018. If anything "better" emerges, let's discuss it here first. — JFGtalk09:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I straightened the cropped image from April 2018. I hope others consider it an improvement. If not, feel free to revert my change on Wikimedia Commons. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The final sentence of the health section reads:
In September 2015, the South Korean government commented that Kim appeared to have gained 30 kg in body fat over the previous five years, reaching a total estimated body weight of 130 kg (290 lb).
This claim is sourced to a Japan Times Article (source 158). I am unable to find this source.
I'm pretty sure the reference is to the print version of The Japan Times, which is perfectly fine. You can replace it with a source of comparable reliability that says the same thing but is easier to verify if you want to.
As for the criticism, everything we know about Kim Jong-un's personal details is through tentative reports of South Korean spy agencies and the like. It doesn't make a lot of sense to prefix every single sentence in the article with "According to tentative reports by South Korea's National Intelligence Service..." The report you link to talks about the issue in general terms. It mentions the weigh issue but doesn't actually say anything specific about it (that it's wrong, that it has been doubted by someone, or that some other information contradicts it) other than the obvious: photographs don't measure weight so it's impossible to know exactly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The information is signposted, but it's not very useful to know what Kim's estimated weight was in 2015, without knowing of any weight gain or weight loss since. This gives an update, but isn't very informative. The sentence about diabetes and hypertension is even worse, but the information could be completely wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Wealth
The article currently says:
Kim Jong-un's net worth is estimated at US$5 billion.
This is somewhat oddly tucked into the "Personality" section. It is unclear whether the source is talking about Kim or the "regime". This source links to another source which says:
In March 2013, a joint South Korean and American investigation found as much as $5 billion worth of assets and bank accounts controlled by Kim Jong-un and his family. These assets were found in more than 200 foreign bank accounts located throughout the world in countries including Austria, Lichtenstein, Russia, Singapore, China, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Many of these accounts are located in China and reportedly contain hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. North Korean government insiders have long been suspected of manufacturing illicit drugs, counterfeiting US currency and cigarettes.[My bolding.][10]
This is really saying that the North Korean government is estimated to have $5 billion in foreign bank accounts. It doesn't include assets in North Korea, or any liabilities, so it can't really be described as its "net worth". You can argue (or speculate) that Kim controls the regime's assets, and that means he owns them personally, but if so, his net worth is much higher than $5 billion. I don't think this claim belongs here. It is already dealt with at North Korea's illicit activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jack Upland that this content is weak and we have have no indication that this is his personal wealth to spend entirely as he sees fit. If he decided to take early retirement and move to Macao, control of this supposed "five billion dollars" would be taken by his North Korean successor. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedias contradict each other. There are the possibilities of 1982-01-08, 1983-01-08, 1984-01-08 and 1984-07-05. Another problem is that his passport also has 1983-02-01. 83.31.46.44 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I removed the following text under the heading "2019":
In his New Year Speech he made his threat that if international sanctions against his country were not lifted, the North would “have no choice” but to return to nuclear confrontation.[1]
This was reverted as "vandalism", which it wasn't. The source quotes the speech as saying, 'North Korea, however, would have "no choice but to defend our country's sovereignty and supreme interest, and find a new way to settle peace on our peninsula," if the US "misinterprets our people's patience, and makes one-sided demands and continues down the path of sanctions and pressure on our republic." The source does not say there is a threat and it doesn't mention a return to nuclear confrontation. There is much commentary on the speech, and we shouldn't misrepresent it by picking up on a single point. There is nothing dramatically new about the speech. We don't report every NY speech. We only report the speech last year because it led to a change in direction. With this year's speech we have to wait and see. Also, the existing text is not structured on a yearly basis.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that the part of the infobox re: the positions held by Kim Jong Un should be revised as follows:
1. Remove "Supreme Leader of North Korea" as this is only similar to the idea of paramount leader in China.
2. Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, with the assumed date set on 9 May 2016 and removing mentions of the First Secretary title and Deputy.
3. Chairman of the State Affairs Commission with "Preceded by" being corrected to say as Himself as Chairman of the National Defense Commission.
4. Create a separate line for First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea.
5. Retain First Chairman of the National Defense Commission.
6. Change Chair of the Central Military Commission to Chairman of the Central Military Commission and remove mention to him being "acting" following the death of Kim Jong Il and remove deputies as the CMC does not have vice chairmen.
7. Remove Leader of the Presidium of the Politburo as such position does not exist.
8. Retain Supreme Commander.
I know it's fun to replace infobox portraits with the latest one available, as if newer is always better (it's not). but I disagree with @Nick.mon: and @Corkythehornetfan: that File:Kim Jong-un 2019 (cropped).jpg should be the first image introducing the article. Just as it would be in bad form to start off Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln's articles with them in front of a Mexican or British flag, it is unprofessional and unbecoming to show Kim with the American flag behind him (albeit alongside the North Korean flag). In the absence of a formal, official photograph of Kim, I think a more neutral background would be preferred. Per WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. No reader with more than two brain cells would expect to see the stars and stripes in a portrait of Kim Jong-un. I propose that this photo or this photo or even this photo are better options for infobox portraits. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Look, Kim has prevailed over the US, so it is fitting that he be superimposed on the Stars and Stripes. Wikipedia is not censored. Let's move on. There have been more discussions about Kim's portrait than all the discussions about women in the Horn of Africa in the past 33 years. Enough is enough is enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm?? (scratches head) How has he "prevailed over the U.S."? And why would the North Korean dictator be associated with the flag of the United States? This is very weird, Jack. I don't find it appropriate, either. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
We're actually now fighting over which free image of Jong-un to use.... compared to about 2 years ago... :) --Masem (t) 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add to the infobox: 'Representative to the Supreme People's Assembly' '111th Constituency; Paektusan' 'Incumbent; 2014 - Present' Benjiwenjy2 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This fact (that Kim was elected from said constituency in 2014 but didn't stand for election in any in 2019) could be sourced, but I'm not sure if it should be in the infobox. There's a whole section above on what positions to include: Talk:Kim Jong-un#Infobox: Kim Jong Un's positions. Discussion should continue there on the subject of which positions are important enough to be mentioned. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Martial law
I've removed this from the article:
At the extraordinary meeting with his top defense and security officials on 26 January 2013, Kim issued orders on preparations for a new nuclear test and introduced martial law in North Korea effective from 29 January.[1]
I haven't found a follow up to this report. Is "martial law" still in force? I think without an explanation of what happened this is almost meaningless.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I raised this last year. "Early life", "Succession", and "Assuming official titles" take up half the body of the article. A good deal of "Personality" also relates to his early life. There is also an overconcentration on the titles given to him. The second paragraph of the lead is devoted to it. A lot of "Early life" is speculative and repetitive, and could be condensed. (There are six paragraphs about his Swiss Family Robinson.) Kim is notable for being leader of North Korea, not particularly for what happened before that. I intend to try to rebalance the article, unless anyone objects.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Moving information
Should we move the Vladivostok and Singapore summit from the opening section to the Leader of North Korea section? I personally think that this information isn't that important for it to be placed in the opening section. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The information is already included in the "Detente" section. I think it belongs in the lead, but could be summarised.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Well since Mr. Jong-un started going to summits recently I think that it would become very impractical for that information to be in the lead section. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
If nobody expresses disregard on my suggestion within the next 48 hours I will delete the info from the lead section and fill in the Détente subsection if necessary. CroGamer 1 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I think the material on the summits belongs in the lead. If it becomes excessive, then it can be cut back. There is no argument for removing it all at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Cut back? The lead section should only contain "critical" information of something or somebody. Summits are something that happends often and as such cannot be "critical" information. CroGamer 1 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
A summit between the North Korea leader and the sitting US President had never happened before Singapore. It is not something that happens often.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It happened again in Vietnam so there clearly will be more summits. Stacking them up in the lead section just gets the article cluttered up. It wouldn't be a bad idea to leave the Singapore summit in the lead since this is a first for North Korea and the USA. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Cant think of one111 is trolling and has added silly edits to this page and Chelsea FC and I was attempting to change it Toby Brann (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the personal details, remove link to the daughter Kim Ju-ae, as the article does not exits and just redirects to the wife. Gulgummiand (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Little attention is usually devoted to which other language a leader speaks, other than the country's official language. This is not irrelevant as languages can influence thinking and decision making. I wonder if this Kim III picked up German/Swiss German, French (Geneva) and/or English when he was young in Switzerland. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:40B0:5778:B47F:32E6 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
We don't know, unfortunately. The details of his education are not confirmed. He probably can speak some other languages, but seems to always use an interpreter.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Personality
You have not mentioned anywhere that the man fed his uncle to the dogs and is a complete disgrace to all of mankind. Please mention that in the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrasonic100 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The execution of his uncle is mentioned under "Purges and executions". The story that Jang was fed to dogs was a hoax. Wikipedia is written in a neutral point of view, so we leave it up to readers to make up their own minds.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Second youngest currently serving is outdated - should be third
Hi,
in the introdutory to Kim Jong-un it says: "Kim [...] is also the second youngest currently-serving head of government in the world.".
Second youngest actually has a link to the current youngest heads of gouvernment.
At the moment Kim is no longer second youngest, but third youngest.
Due to the article being semi-locked I can't correct that tough.
I don't think it is notable that Kim is the second or third youngest head of government (if he is a head of government, which has been debated). He is, unless North Korea has invented a time machine, getting older, year after year. He is now in his mid-thirties and cannot be described as notably young, if he ever was, which I doubt. I have therefore deleted this. This means we don't have to update this continually; for example if Trump releases his birth certificate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of sources
This edit[11] and edits like it mislead readers into thinking Kim is not the leader of the North Korean regime. All the sources, which have misrepresented in the edit, do is to recognize the obvious: that no authoritarian rules without some kind of negotiation, agreement and restraint with and from other elites, and to some extent, also the masses. There is a difference between saying that the decisionmaking structures in North Korea are opaque and pushing some kind of narrative that Kim might not be the leader of the North Korean regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the statement: "According to South Korean and American officials, Kim and his family controlled $5 billion worth of assets and bank accounts in 2013. Of these 200 foreign bank accounts, most were located in China". We discussed this last year. This relate to secret slush funds operated by the North Korean government. In North Korea's illicit activities, we say that they are run by Room 39. There seems no basis to say all of that is Kim's personal wealth.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an article about Kim Jong-un
I don't think we should have a summary of North Korea in the lead. We don't do that for other leaders.
Kim rules a dictatorship where elections are not free and fair, government critics are persecuted, media is controlled by the regime, internet access is limited by the regime, and there is no freedom of religion.[1][2][3][4][5][6] His regime operates an extensive network of prisons and labor camps; the regime convicts people for political crimes and uses collective punishment whereby members of a family get punished for the crimes of one person.[1] According to the United Nations, North Koreans live under "systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations" where the regime "seeks to dominate every aspect of its citizens’ lives and terrorizes them from within."[1][7] The regime exerts extensive control over the North Korean economy, with substantial state-controlled economic enterprises and significant restrictions on North Koreans' ability to engage in foreign economic activity.[8]
And this is a biased summary. We could talk about healthcare, education, culture, the military etc. We have an article about North Korea, and anyone who wants to know about it can go there. Secondly, we shouldn't put information in the lead that isn't in the body.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a balanced summary of Kim's government. When we write about the presidency or premiership of a person, we write about the policies, events etc that he or she has been involved in. This doesn't do that.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Crikey, what an uninformed discussion. There is no disagreement at all among top quality RS, in particular peer-reviewed assessments, that Kim Jong-un is an authoritarian leader of a non-democracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Autocracy is a perfectly fine term, as is authoritarian and non-democracy. These terms are all used interchangeably in the academic literature, as far as I can tell. Update: Milan Svolik's award-winning 'The Politics of Authoritarian Rule' (p. 22-23), which seems to be the most highly cited book on authoritarianism in the last decade: "Throughout the book, I use the terms dictatorship and authoritarian regime interchangeably and refer to the heads of these regimes’ governments as simply dictators or authoritarian leaders". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The link I gave you included two sources featuring several seasoned observers of North Korea which show there isn't a consensus for calling Kim a dictator:[13][14]. You described this as "uninformed". You then cited one author, the citation having no direct relevance to Kim. I don't accept we should use political terms interchangeably. We should use the appropriate term. If Wikipedia followed Svolik's typology, we would have to call Tutankhamun, Kublai Khan, Queen Elizabeth I of England, William Wallace, John Calvin, the Dalai Lama, and Pope Francis dictators. Thankfully, Wikipedia does not have that policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The two sources that you mention do not dispute that he's an authoritarian leader. There seems to be a definitional confusion here: you attach some values to the term 'autocrat' or 'dictator' that no academic use of the word does. Not a single expert on authoritarianism would reject that authoritarian rule is shaped and constrained by other elites and the masses (e.g. your sources). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
As for your examples for why describing regime types is pointless: democratic government is a historically rare regime type, so it seems pointless to describe regimes from periods when it was rare as "non-democratic". However, it seems fairly obvious that the regime type should be described, e.g. characterizing something as monarchical rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm noting that I agree that we are not in a place to call Kim an "autocrat" or "dictator" in Wikivoice, but it is perfectly fine to allude to numerous high quality RSes that make assertion; I have modified the wording slightly to reflect that. --Masem (t) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If multiple high-quality reliable sources make an important descriptive statement, and this statement is not contravened by equivalent high-quality sources, then it is perfectly fine (and in fact, necessary) for the encyclopedia to accurately repeat/reflect that descriptive statement in Wikipedia's own voice. We should not and cannot improperly distance ourselves from the cited sources through needless in-text attribution. And historically we have not done so. Pinochet's first sentence states plainly that the subject was "a Chilean general, politician and dictator of Chile between 1973 and 1990"; Franco's first sentence describes the subject as "a Spanish general and politician who ruled over Spain as head of state and dictator"; Mussolini's lead plainly states that he was "dictator of Italy." Because there is no dispute whatsoever in the reliable sources (including both academic and journalistic work) that Kim is a dictator and North Korea is among the most repressive regimes in the world, that salient fact should be simply stated, not hedged with "often described as" or similar text. Neutralitytalk16:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
However, the other factor to keep in mind is RECENTISM. All three are examples of regimes long since past, making it much easier to judge with the passage of time if they are truly dictatorships given what has happened in each country since. Jong-un's regime is still fairly new and thus would not be appropriate for academics rushing to conclusion. Additionally, the argument "if major RSes present a statement "X is Y" and no other major RSes refute that, makes "X is Y" factual" is not true, especially around the use of labels. It justifies saying "many consider X is Y" without having dozens of sources to back that up (you just 2-3), but again this is where RECENTISM is critical , as it is impossible to have the required hindsight to say "X is Y" in a factual voice. (Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I do think their use on those three articles is appropriate. Just that that doesn't apply to a current regime). --Masem (t) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Whether we describe a person as an autocrat or not is driven by the universe of reliable sources, not a current/past distinction. The fundamental thing here is that Wikipedia editors do not determine what conclusions by reliable sources are "true" or "appropriate for academics to make" or "easier to judge." That distinction is up to other peer-reviewed journals, university presses and other reputable publishers, high-quality newspapers, etc. Our task, as editors, is to (1) determine what the reliable sources are, and (2) summarize the reliable sources in encyclopedic style and in accordance with their proper weight. And the reliable sources are unequivocal that Kim runs an autocratic regime. Neutralitytalk19:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The time factor is set in policy at WP:NOT#NEWS #2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." We 100% should be clear on distinctions between long-form news articles (which can be good journalism) about a subject that is presently "active" (like Jong-un's regime), and academic sources that can review the situation from years out to write about the past. Having that hindsight is critical to an encyclopedia particularly in an opinionated area. And what I'm saying doesn't dispute WP:DUE. If many good RSes say "X is Y, currently", that's still appropriate to include, just with attribution; and in a case like this, just by the attribution of "many say" with 2-3 additional sources. It does not omit critical content, but places it in context of being current opinion. --Masem (t) 19:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS says we should write like an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. That has little or nothing to do with when we should give in-text attribution. The actually relevant policy is WP:YESPOV, which is very clear that we do not give in-text attribution to assertions that are uncontroversial within the community of the best and most reputable authoritative sources. "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion." It is not seriously contested that Kim is an autocrat. This is not a case in which "different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter" (to quote WP:YESPOV again). Neutralitytalk19:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Except, of course, the NK constitution and his official titles and position. Not disagreeing that all major appearances of his regime look like that, but that's not what it says on paper, and that contests with the wide opinion. So YESPOV still applies, but to make sure it is clear we aren't expressing opinions as facts here. --Masem (t) 20:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me??? I provided two sources which raised doubt on whether Kim was a dictator, drawing on people considered expert in the field. These sources have been described as "unimportant" and non-existent. No one has produced a source which has an in-depth analysis concluding that Kim is a dictator. You can talk on and on about reliable sources, but where are they??? How ridiculous!!! Secondly, I don't think having a long and somewhat misleading spiel about North Korea in the introduction is really appropriate. This is an article about Kim Jong Un. People can click the link to North Korea if they won't to know about it. The article already mentions assassinations, executions, human rights abuses etc. As previously discussed, this article should be about Kim and what he has done, not an article about North Korea. I am thinking there should be a section about Kim's actual role in government, as opposed to his official titles, gathering together opinions and facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't believe everything you read about North Korea, so many previous reports have proven to be incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That tweet appears to have been deleted. The CNN report says: "The US is monitoring intelligence that North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, is in grave danger after a surgery, according to a US official with direct knowledge. Kim recently missed the celebration of his grandfather's birthday on April 15, which raised speculation about his well-being. He had been seen four days before that at a government meeting. Another US official told CNN Monday that the concerns about Kim's health are credible but the severity is hard to assess." I don't think this is very noteworthy. "Monitoring intelligence" doesn't mean much. It just means following the story. The officials quoted are anonymous, so we don't really know where this is coming from.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It may be official that after a botched heart surgery, he is dead. But it’s North Korea, so you may never know. LegioV (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
In the crazy world we are living though right now, I don't think I've seen anything as sad as these unsigned comments from people believing that we should trust a twitter post for something as important as the death of the leader of NK. Thank you Wikipedians! Sgerbic (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no definitive news of this. A photo is circulating on twitter of him lieing in state, but it's suggested to be a photoshop. Tytrox (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes but it’s reported in a country’s state media. I agree it shouldn’t be stated that he’s dead, but there should be something about the reports Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
On April 25, 2020, it was rumoured that Kim Jong-Un underwent a botched heart surgery allegedly leading him into a vegitative state.
-- as reported by multiple news outlets "Kim Jong-Un in a vegetative state" by the Sun.
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove current event template, it should not be used when the edit is not "change rapidly" because the page is fully protected. Hddty (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: Ehhhh, wording is 'may be affected'. Sooner or later there will be something interesting, I suspect. Izno (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 25 April 2020
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It’s reported in the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post. I would consider these both reliable sources. However, there are some other unreliable sources that have reported this too. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 26 April 2020
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Kim Jong-Un has been rumored of death by a recent attack at the heart. Korea's government can't confirm this theory until they find a new leader. 174.44.177.62 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
He’s probably dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabass1506 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Chances are he is dead. If he wouldn’t be, it would have been very disrespectful of the person who said he was dead.
First, we'd want an RS to be reporting on the death. If that does happen, we'd just work it like we do for all bios - report the death, start working tenses to past tense, report on the change of gov't etc. No different practice from the past. --Masem (t) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Bernspeed (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC) This article is at a very high protection. I am curious about why this happened. Even some other articles like Donald Trump are only extended confirmed protected. It says "feel free to edit" even though almost nobody can even if they wanted to.
I’m not an admin but this protection level is used only in emergencies when the edits are so numerous for an unconfirmed death reports. The article will not be updated to show he’s died until most North Korea confirms it themselves. North Korea keeps things pretty tight related to the Kim family. The official family tree isn’t even known.--Rockchalk71702:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Basically, there's a lot of unreliable sources reporting he is dead whereas we have no reliable sources reporting that he is (at best, they are reporting on the rumors that he is dead but not confirming them). Users were trying to add that, and as this is a BLP that requires the highest level of sourcing, protecting this was appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand how it was so important to keep this information out that regular/confirmed users from adding any information on the entire page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It’s an easier way to keep the death rumors out of the page due to the volume of edits.--Rockchalk71704:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Because what we have here is a genuine content dispute between confirmed editors and unconfirmed/IP editors. My position is to keep the current event template but not to update until we have a reliable source. Chess(talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first footnote explaining that 'Kim is the family name' should be removed and {{Korean name|Kim}} added to the top of the article instead. NixinovaTC08:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The lead and infobox says he was born in "1983 or 1984" but §Early life says "1982 or a year later or 1984". Which is it? NixinovaTC08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The contradictory info is a product of the uncertainty, which the sourced content addresses. El_C09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Someone added that same "1982" source into the info box over the last 24 hours, which I reverted, but then I hadn't noticed it was already under Early Life. We can review it once the full protection has been dropped. Tytrox (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying the info is contradictory, I'm specifically saying that the article itself is. The lead and infobox do not mention 1982 at all, but Early life does. That needs to be fixed. NixinovaTC00:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we should give the official date and just have a note that this is disputed by some. This isn't very important.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Birth year confirmation
According to [1], Kim Jong-Un's birth year has been confirmed by his relatives to the CIA as 1984. Is this evidence sufficient to nail down the birth year in the article? Quote:
"They can reveal, for example, that Kim Jong Un was born in 1984 — not 1982 or 1983, as has been widely thought. The reason they’re certain? It was the same year that their first son was born. 'He and my son were playmates from birth. I changed both of their diapers,' Ko said with a laugh."
@Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus: It's already in both the Early Life section and info box. If sources conflict, then sources conflict. Not sure it's within Wikipedia's power to "make the call" beyond that. The other sources will need to be proven as falsehood. Are you willing to go that extra mile? -- Tytrox (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Kim is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia in February 2017. However, according to the point of view of Kim Jong-un himself, he is an idealist who fights to defend socialism, a system which he considers to be noble and advanced. On 12 June 2018, Kim and US PresidentDonald Trump met for a summit in Singapore, Lenmoly (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Not doneEdit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. - as there is objection above, assume this is now at phase 3 of WP:BRD and establish a consensus for the change first. — xaosfluxTalk16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 27 April 2020
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The Guardian reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April to North Korea to monitor Kim's condition." should be Reuters[15]. The source cited in the article is a newswire from Reuters only republished by The Guardian. 17jiangz1 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because KJU has not been seen in public since April 11 does not mean that we have to fully protect the page. Can't we institute something less severe such as allowing autoconfirmed or extended autoconfirmed accounts to edit? We have already implemented pending changes to the article. It therefore seems excessive to me to fully protect the page. Banana Republic (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit history of persistent recentism/vandalism and you'll appreciate why full protection is required.Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, which I and many others do not agree with. What do you want to add to the page that's so urgent? Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Banana Republic: You need to observe the history of over the last couple of days. The vandalism is based on the frequent posting of sources that make mention of the rumours of his death, but none have been substantiated. This can breach WP:TOOSOON, WP:RUMOR, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the like. In this Talk page alone, there have been several times where people have requested to post his rumoured-death info, behind IP accounts, despite the suggestions being declined each time. Those sections have since been removed. It's not vandalism/edit-war of just 1 or 2 accounts, it's the flooding of the same unconfirmed material. -- Tytrox (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I added full protection because on Apr 25 there was massive addition of unverified info and edit-warring which included edits by confirmed users (example). Whoever needs to edit the article before the protection would expire tomorrow is welcome to add a protected edit request to this talk page. There was of course no vandalism prior to the protection because the article was semi-protected, and normally one does not expect autoconfirmed users to vandalize articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
As Wikipedia should be open to all editors or at the very least those who have an account, could someone please ease the restrictions? I think it’s clear that confirmed users can govern each other and don’t need to be blocked from access Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Golly! What's the rush yall? 03:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.88.85 (talk)
Protected edit request on 28 April 2020
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018 and the highest amongst Koreans." to
"Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018, the highest amongst Koreans." since there is no distinct ranking for Koreans warranting the "and". 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
In the past (on other articles) contradictory birth dates generally led to the birthday of the subject to be removed until there is a credible consensus. Why is this article promoting the contradiction? *Note: I'm not opposed to it, just curious* -- Sleyece (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the contextual nature of how strenuous it can be to get info about certain topics in and about North Korea, it's not something that can easily be backed, but as long as there's consensus that the given source material is deemed credible, as well as best information provided. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We have discussed this issue many times. The essential point is that some say that the official date is false. I don't think we are likely to progress from there.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we'll just need to ensure the info box and "Early Life" sections are consistent with each other. -- Tytrox (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It is unique among Wikipedia pages. The consensus on the rest of the encyclopedia is that when birth data is contradictory, it is removed until credible sources come to a consensus on the date.... That's why people bringing it up and discussing it (for the record). -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that it is likely to be resolved without some dramatic development. There is an official date, and no one has produced any North Korea records to show this to be false. I think the best approach would be to give the official date, and just note that some disagree with this. Is there another article with a comparable situation to this?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the evidence against the official date is the "numerological" parallel between the birth dates of the three leaders: 1912, 1942, 1982. This, of course, could be real, except that we know Kim Jong Il's birth was registered in the USSR in 1941. Some have said in previous discussion his birth date was changed to 1942, so that he could be born on Mt Paektu, but in fact he could be born on the mountain in either year. (He could also, by the way, be born on the mountain and have his birth registered in the USSR, but he couldn't have his birth registered in Korea.) That appears to be all the real evidence against the official date. Rodman's comment doesn't really mean much at all, as he doesn't say Kim told him the official date is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I just want to point out that my effort to make the infobox more streamlined was totally in vein. There is now a third birthdate in the box making it more convoluted and less encyclopedic. No one is going to read that and take away useful information. The editors of this page are just intellectually masturbating at this point. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2020
This edit request to Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP(talk • contribs)19:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced statements
I decided to browse this article and I'm shocked to see there are several unsourced statements on it. The article of a high coverage dictator shouldn't have uncited statements, and while I'd always amend it myself, the page is on full protection for obvious reasons. Could an admin take an in depth look over the page and either add references to the unsourced statements or remove them? – DarkGlow (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not seeing anything that looks unsourced on a quick visual parse. Keep in mind the lede does NOT need to be cited as long as that's in the body, and we don't require a cite after every sentence (but every paragraph should end in a citation); if a sentence lacks a cite, presume the next immediate citation(s) applies to that sentence too. You will need to be more explicit thus for any other concerns. --Masem (t) 03:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: In the personal life section, it states: "He said Jong-un was a big fan of The Beatles and Jean-Claude Van Damme.[citation needed" – so there's one right there. And despite the personal life section being mostly sourced, a lot of it reads as a WP:TRIVIA section. Is it encyclopaedic to list what music he likes and what teams he supports? – DarkGlow (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed that. No doubt it is true, but it is unsourced and trivial. Who isn't a fan of the Beatles and the Muscles from Brussels? Baseball has been a feature of North Korea's cultural diplomacy, so that is worth noting in some form. I guess that Kim is such a mysterious figure that this stuff gets coverage. I think it does show his personality and his knowledge of the rest of the world, so it is worth including in some form.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
First line of entry
The article leads with "Kim is a North Korean politician." He's not a politician. He didn't win an election. He's a hereditary dictator. When he dies, newspapers will correctly call him that in the lead to his obituary.
I note that Wikipedia calls Pinochet and Stroessner dictator in the lead, but not Fidel Castro. A political bias?
Kim Jong-Un is a head of state, therefore he is a politician. He also won an election: "On April 14, 2012, during the fifth session of the 12th Supreme People's Assembly Kim Jong Un was elected as the country's supreme leader." [1]Daxar (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"head of state" being a politician or no depends on the constitution of the country. The UK is a constitutional monarch which disallows the royal family from holding any political power/office, urgo Queen Elizabeth is not a politician. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
North Korea does not run on your typical western democracy type government/electoral system in the way that you suggest. You should read more into how politics works in one-party states. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tytrox: You're wrong on that part. There's a difference between a dictatorship, where power is concentrated in one person, and a one-party state, where power is concentrated in one party. There are many one party states that are not dictatorships, such as the historical Soviet Union after Stalin, (disputably) Singapore, or the post-Mao People's Republic of China. Some dictatorships aren't based on party rule either, such as some military juntas or Ancient Rome. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chess: Fair. My point was mostly addressing Sajita's statement on invalidating his recognition as a politician based on absence of democratic election. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The lead doesn't claim he rules a western democracy, it claims he's a politician (specifically, the supreme leader) in a dictatorship -- and yes, it does refer to North Korea as a dictatorship. This is an accurate portrayal of his position. - Tga (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Politicians are not necessarily elected representatives, and even elected politicians are not necessarily elected by universal suffrage. --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sajita: The lede (although not the first sentence) refers to him as "ruling a dictatorship" and goes on to list numerous human rights atrocities. In all honesty though you're right about the inconsistency here. The lede sentence is what gets grabbed by Google and other places for their knowledgebox. It's also what most people read. I would support changes to other articles to remove "dictator" from the lede sentence and shift that characterization elsewhere in the lede to maintain the emphasis on purely descriptive & factual information rather than value-laden terms like "dictator". Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"Autocrat" is the technically correct term to describe KJU's rule. "Dictator," while far more accurate than the disingenuous and ingratiating term "politician," may be perceived as derogatory or disparaging. Autocrat, however, is a more neutral descriptor. But "politician" is totally inappropriate because it appears ridiculous in this context, is patently incorrect, and allowing it to remain reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. - JGabbard (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@JGabbard:A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an office in government. Kim Jong Un is: 1) a chairman of the WPK; 2) holds 4 offices in the DPRK. Incidentally, I know that referencing Wikipedia is incorrect, but Mohammed bin Salman belongs to Category:21st-century politicians - by definition, even monarchs are politicians, let along the elected leader of the DPRK.--Adûnâi (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Adûnâi: In both cases, the choice of the euphemism is at best risible, akin to referring to a stripper as a 'dancer' or an 'entertainer'. Whether technically correct or not in totalitarian regimes, its use still appears disingenuous and ingratiating when a more precise term could be, and should be, used. - JGabbard (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@JGabbard: Let us throw out all pretense - you support turning Wikipedia into a mouthpiece of Koreaphobic capitalist propaganda, with explicit support for a regime change. "Totalitarian"? Feel free to mention it in the appropriate section - as slander by the imperialist forces of the West. Am I arguing on the Netanyahu page that we should call him a baby blood drinker because blood libel says Jews drink baby blood? No. Then why is it acceptable to be Koreaphobic? Bias on Wikipedia!--Adûnâi (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Adûnâi: Your rabid and unhinged response is entirely unwarranted, and your despicable antisemitic remark is uncivil, extraneous, and over the top. I'm not advocating that we use "Communist dictator," although that would not be at all wrong, but simply "autocrat," the only type of leader North Korea has ever had. I submit that "politician" is the pretentious term as used here. "Politician" describes the type of beneficent leaders they have in South Korea, a great country. - JGabbard (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Every nation, including South Korea, has had at least a few atrocities which they attempt to spin/cover up. But not every country is run like a slave labor camp, with starving citizens isolated from the world community and living in mortal fear of their "dear leader" and his whims. He is the only 'phobia'-inducing thing about Korea. As for whitewashing? DPRoK may pretend to have elections, but its government is not "of the people," and is therefore neither truly democratic nor a republic. So not only is the euphemism currently in place for its autocrat misleading, so is the nation's very name. We can't change what they call themselves, but we can employ an accurate descriptor of their "chairman," a term used exclusively in Communist regimes. - JGabbard (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@JGabbard:: well, talking of accuracy, dear colleague, Kim is not usually called "chairman" in North Korea, though he is chairman of at least three bodies. He is also not called "dear leader". That was a epithet given to Kim Jong Il. Perhaps you should do some research rather than just quarrelling.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that this restriction, or at least part of it, should be lifted. In the talk page, I feel that editors have reached the consensus that it should not be listed that Kim is dead. Wikipedia is good at governing itself and I feel that opening up this page again would feel less restrictive to confirmed users. It does not seem like anything is changing anytime soon. What do other non-administrators think of this proposal? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that you were until a few days ago actively pushing the Kim is dead narrative, I question why you now want page restriction reduced.Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Same questions than above, Wikipedia isn't news and we should wait before reporting him dead. What edit is so urgent that you need protection lifted ? Daxar (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason to lift protection early. And from the edits to the article before protection and then to the Talk page after, I think it was necessary and a good call. TMZ said he was dead and the article was flooded with people wanting to be FIRST! to make it so. When Kim Jong-un is verifiably dead, every media outlet in the world will be carrying the news and we'll have our choice of reliable sources. Only then should it be in the article. In the meantime, unconfirmed speculation has no place in it. If there is some critical bit of information that the article needs, anyone can post an edit request. Schazjmd(talk)14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So today the full protection expired at 18:41, and the first attempt to say he was dead (without reliable sources, again) happens just 28 minutes later [16], and then once again by a different IP just eight minutes after that [17]. The page has been re-protected, albeit a lower protection than before. I think the current protection level is probably sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Can’t it just be up to other editors to revert changes and warn users who put up information without sources? This seems better than blocking everyone out. Once again, opinions from those who are not administrators are very welcome Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that the unconstructive edits stay for too long and thousands of readers see the unconfirmed "facts". That is the problem. — J947[cont]01:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It was deleted after 3 minutes, Wikipedia is good at governing itself. Make the ban less restrictive and leave it up to the editors. As for personal comments from some other editors, I stated my sources and you stated yours. We came to a consensus that he is not dead. That’s why there’s a talk page. This has nothing to do with my opinion on whether Kim is listed as dead or not, I’ve never even edited this page. Just please lift this restrictive ban on Wikipedia editors Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wjrz nj forecast: This is a very sensitive article per BLP and it received 401,865 views yesterday. A BLP violation that stays for 3 minutes is viewed 837 times. That is terrible. There are 6 million articles to edit here, not just this one. — J947[cont]02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I concur with J947. Keep in mind that when it was set to pending changes protection, it was being changed to indicate he was dead without a source to support it [19]. The lowest level of protection that would prevent that sort of disruption is extended confirmed access, which is where it sits now. Until this rumor is either confirmed or quashed, it seems reasonable to retain this level of protection given that it is a BLP. and a highly viewed article. In fact, this article is THE most viewed article on Wikipedia for April 19-25, with 2.6 million views (see WP:TOP25). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
There’s a reason that there are warnings to editors. Also there are editors who will spew misinformation. This is just a fact. I don’t support this and prefer consensus on the talk page, but there is misinformation all around us. However, preventing editors from accessing these pages is against what Wikipedia stands for. Unlock the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely with bradv, preventing misinformation is far more important than allowing page access for non-urgent and often questionable edits and I question Wjrz nj forecast motivations in pushing for this. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow, this has gotten out of hand. First, I never requested any false edits. I simply stated my facts (and I always provided my sources) and it turned out to be inaccurate/based on consensus. That’s what the talk page is for. I completely agree that Kim should not be listed as dead. That’s why I’m advocating for removal of anyone who adds this information. If you want to question my motivation, feel free to. I’m motivated to keep Wikipedia open to editors, which is a principle of the website. I am eager to restore this on this article as soon as possible and I think it’s now possible to let it up to the editors of Wikipedia to govern the article. For these reasons, I want this article to be reopened. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I feel inclined to agree with @Wjrz nj forecast:. We've reached a point of consensus about the issue. I'm happy for edit restriction to be lifted to allow confirmed Users. It's the IP address edits that need to continue to be blocked for now. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Wjrz nj forecast has been on WP since 30 March 2020 and is arguing policy issues, sorry but I don't AGF here. Reopen the page and see how long it takes for the rumormongers to return. Mztourist (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
TytroxandMztourist, I’m not sure why the amount of time I’ve been on Wikipedia matters when talking about policy. This argument seems to be getting personal. I know that there will be vandalism/false information but it’s up to Wikipedia to surveil these editors. It’s time to reopen the article to editors. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wjrz nj forecast: It's not personal. It's one of those things where with time comes experience. While I do somewhat accept that we _could_ now lift editing to just regular confirmed accounts too (so we can then deal with potential vandals on individual basis as they'll be uniquely identifiable), I'll reserve judgement for Admins to decide. If they implement the restriction, there's a reason for it. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mztourist I’m not sure I follow, similar to you, I am an editor. I have the right to make changes and come up with ideas in the talk page. I can argue a fact, a policy, or reach a consensus in the talk page if I want to. I have not broken any rules in doing so. As an editor who has been around for a while, I’d expect you to encourage new editors, not tell them what they can’t do. I would assume that you’re an administrator, so I guess you feel that you have some executive decision over people who have been around for one month Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
So, since I’m not experienced, you believe I should not comment on this issue. I really find this as being unsupportive and irresponsible as an editor. There were other editors who I was able to learn from based on their comments but suppressing new users seems against what Wikipedia is about. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You have supposedly been on WP for 1 month and here you are engaging in policy debates, I don't find that credible. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wjrz nj forecast: We never suggested you can't or shouldn't make comments/opinions. At the moment, you're the only one outright suggesting to lift the restriction, and it's coming across as a form of protest with the level of assertiveness you're showing. Time of experience can suggest level of understanding. I think I'm the only person so far who has made the willingness to give some support for your argument to lift the restriction. The rest of us had been more than happy to wait for the full restriction to lift when it was in place. Please do us all a favour and just wait it out, or take it up to the relevant area. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I guess since I’ve only been on Wikipedia for one month I won’t discuss policy because I’m inexperienced and don’t know any better Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wjrz nj forecast: I removed your request for a third opinion because it involves more than two editors. If you want, you can follow the instructions over at WP:RFUP to request a reduction in page protection. Having said that, I believe it will be declined due to the sheer amount of unsourced additions along with gross WP:BLP violations. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3(Talk)22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
When are we going back to Wikipedia values?
The rumor is over by now. There’s still going to be vandalism, there is on every page. How much longer to we plan on keeping it locked from everyone? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It's to Extended-confirmation protection aka 30/500 - either have 30 days as a registered account or 500 edits. This is reasonable for what's still out there. --Masem (t) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been on for a month and I am unable to edit. I’m not saying that I have anything to edit, but someone like me should be able to edit the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that when the protection was lowered it was shortly thereafter vandalized. I don't think anyone is suggesting you are an untrusted editor. Get to 500 edits and you can edit the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Why such a rush to lift restriction ? You commented on three threads here about protection level but you say "I’m not saying that I have anything to edit". I must say that I am questioning your motives. If there is an important edit to be made, people can use the talk page and sourced proposals will be taken into consideration. Daxar (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, Hammersoft, it’s clear that Daxar believes that I’m not a trustworthy editor. What motive do you think I have? I want to open a page which I believe is possible. Leaving it open to all editors is a Wikipedia value. I know that there are vandals but that’s why there are people like you and me who will direct them to the talk page, or if necessary, report them. Users like Mztourist and Tytrox need to stop saying that I can not argue policy. I understand that it’s easier to block lots of people. However, I think it’s against Wikipedia. It’s more about values and less about what I personally want. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As long as these rumors are still active and unconfirmed, there will be a flood of editors who will change the page to say Kim is dead. This is not just a hypothetical, this is what happened a few days ago before protection was applied. Wikipedia will then be a unstable source of misinformation, violating even more important core principles. This is standard Wikipedia policy and the intended use of protection, and I suggest that you simply propose your edits here until the time has passed. — Goszei (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As the rumors have settled now and a “flood” of vandalism is unlikely (there will still be some) I think that locking this page indefinitely is not the right choice. Especially for editors. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that the pageviews suggest that the rumors have not yet settled. You can submit a request for un-protection by following the instructions at WP:RFP if you are so inclined. — Goszei (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Wjrz, this isn't going to go anywhere. I'm sorry. Goszei has laid it out very well. It's not about denying you or anyone else the privilege of editing the article. It's about having a stable article with reliable sources supporting the prose. Since the rumors of his death erupted, the article has been vandalized to say he is dead at least nine times, and one of those was within minutes of an earlier protection expiring. Until the rumors die down, the protection is warranted and appropriate to the level of accounts that were vandalizing the article. He supposedly made an appearance today at a factory. Perhaps the rumors will begin to die down. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Keeping this page locked indefinitely is too strict, considering a US official just said that the photos from North Korea look legitimate. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I've not had anything to add in argument since the last thing I said the other day, but to date you are the ONLY person complaining about the extended-protected restriction. I recommend you read up on Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guide. You've now had 2 whole chat topics about this, which have both swayed in consensus against your favour. I don't want to come across as a dick about all this or assert myself, but perhaps this is not the place to discuss your issue. Consider the perspective of why no one else is raising this argument with you. PS: If you are referencing a "US official" about the legitimacy of photos, please provide the source of this news. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Listen Mztourist, I do not appreciate the way that you are attacking me. As a newcomer, I find it inappropriate that you are calling me a “not credible” editor. This makes me believe that you’re an immature user. You should not makes attacks like this. Instead, maybe try to be helpful while exerting your opinion. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been on WP for over 10 years and I know that real newcomers don't engage in policy arguments the way that you do. We are tired of you wasting our time as you are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@ talk That is very insulting to me. I am here to make Wikipedia a better place in both policy and content. If you believe I’m just a troll then go ahead and attempt to block me. As a user for 10 years you should be trying to guide new users, not insult them and dissuade them from using talk pages. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If you really want to contribute then go add useful RS content and stop arguing on talk pages, that's my guidance Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wjrz nj forecast: You can't play the "I'm a newcomer" card like that when your attitude the whole time has been highly argumentative and defiant. We've all given you reasons why lock downs are/have/had been in place, and why it won't be lifted. This is not a "we have been here since forever, and you only a month, therefore we overrule you and you don't know what you're on about" argument, but it's only coming across as that to you because you seem to be unable to accept the collective rationale as to why your requests are repeatedly denied. We're more than happy to treat you how any newbie should be treated, but first of all you need to demonstrate respect and understanding. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Just adding my two cents, but the principle that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" has many asterisks attached, an important one being "...except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism" (from WP:ABOUT). The trade-off of extended protection is that vandalism is stopped but newcomers with reliably sourced additions cannot edit immediately and must take an additional step by requesting their changes on the talk page. The general consensus is that the positives outweigh the negatives in this scenario because newcomers are not outright prevented from making contributions, they just have to take an extra step. Hence why nobody is rallying against this supposed contradiction of "Wikipedia values", because the notion that this protection discriminates against newcomers unfairly is just not true. CentreLeftRight✉23:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Listen, I have not been argumentative or defiant initially. In fact I tried to settle the argument early on so that things didn’t get out of hand. CentreLeftRight makes a lot of good arguments. However, users such as Mztourist have made fun of me for being new and have been discouraging me from using the talk page or stating my opinions. That’s what I meant by saying don’t bite the newcomers. That’s also the reason I may have come off as argumentative. I completely support listening to everyone’s opinion which is why it frustrates me when people refuse to listen to mine or discourage me from sharing it. I hope everyone understands this. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You have stated your opinion, repeatedly, and many experienced Users other than me have rejected your opinion, but you won't accept that and instead have been forum-shopping [20], [21] to try to get support. It seems to me that you're just here to argue and not build an encyclopedia. Mztourist (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Is he the second or the third son of Kim Jong-il?
In this page it is stated that "he is the second child of Kim Jong-il" but in Kim Jong-il it says "his third son, Kim Jong-un, was promoted to a senior position". I think Kim Jong-un is the second son from one woman, Ko Yong-hui, and there's one more son from another woman, Song Hye-rim. That makes Kim John-un the third son of Kim Jong-il. It's a second son for the couple. --Bonbonenata (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I can see what you mean. It could mean to read as mean the 2nd son to Jong-Il by Ko Yong-Hui and printed without noting that relationship. Submit an edit suggestion for it. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why a formal edit request would be necessary here; it's pretty clear what should be changed. What's needed now is for an admin to be bold and make the change. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the article is currently under full protection, no one but admins can perform the edit, hence my suggestion for @Bonbonenata: to make an edit suggestion request. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Meh, the protection is set to expire (presumably back to semi?) on the 28th, at which point someone can presumably address both this imprecision and the missing word in "though had" that I raised in a section above. -sche (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says, In December 2015, Kim stated that his family "turned the DPRK into a powerful nuclear weapons state, which reflects the source. But other sources say it was the work of Kim Il Sung or his forebears' work that did this. I haven't been able to find the KCNA article that's being quoted. I'm not happy with the article saying "his family" if that isn't what he said, because the meaning is quite different.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
". I would keep looking the better image that we can employ it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
_v3.jpg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Already done reverted automatically by ClueBot NG Zingarese talk · contribs 17:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done.Kim Ju-ae is mentioned and linked in the infobox. But this redirect link is correct, as it links to the section at Ri Sol-ju where she is discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Done --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Emphasis on "rumored." Wikipedia is not news. ~ HAL333 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done. Reliable source required. El_C 05:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Izno (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
