Talk:Kim Jong Il

Proper spelling is "Jeong", not "Jong" as per revised romanization rules laid out by the Korean ministry of sports, culture and tourism. "Jong" is pronounced with a long "O" sound, whereas "Jeong" is pronounced like "uh"

Dead

Ap just reported his death. Tag please. Phearson (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-korea-supreme-leader-kim-jong-il-died-15185454 Phearson (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it was 17 or 18 December when he died? I suggest local time. --Octra Bond (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the 19th where he is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kowp stated that it is 17. --Octra Bond (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what day he died. But pretty sure his death was reported on 19 December (Korea time), not 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.229.51 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy dies, and within minutes his Wikipedia entry is updated! Amazing! PiCo (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

He prob. died some time before their news organisation was allowed to report it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.195 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says 17th and the article says the 19th. Whichever one is the one we are going with, I think that we should stick to it :-/ . 99.51.12.212 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The death was reported on 19th local Korean time not 18th 180.181.22.171 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's when the death was reported. But when did he actually die? I initially read 18 December but 17 December and 19 December have been mentioned above. What do the best sources say?
• Also, dictatorial regimes might be tempted to avoid mentioning the leader's death for a little while so it's possible that future sources will give a slightly earlier date... but let's not jump the gun on that. bobrayner (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Found one: "The 69-year-old leader died on Saturday, December 17, at 8:30 am (2330 GMT Friday), a weeping announcer on state television said" [1] bobrayner (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

    Concluded. --Octra Bond (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It was only announced about 30 mins ago. The BBC states that the announcement was made 19 December 2011 (that'll be about noon local time). However the BBC says the announcement stated that he actually died "in the early hours of Saturday." (an earlier report said 8am). BBC breaking news page and BBC Obituary. Astronaut (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth date and age

it says he was 69 at death, he's 70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.112.9 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It is already clear from his birth year. --Octra Bond (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

His age might be 69 (western style) and 70 (Korean style) because I think your age in Korea is counted as the year of life you are in which is one more than typical western age counting which is the number of years of life you have completed. I am not an expert on this. See East Asian age reckoning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justapassingnote (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A date is a date, regardless of how one reckons age by cultural tradition. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why for his age at death do we chose to use the Japanese date rather than the Soviet one? I mean, I have no preference, I'm just wondering why we're using one over the other. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is North Korean record, not Japanese. Isn't his nation more reliable than another? --Octra Bond (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the same government that claims Kim regularly gets hole-in-ones while playing golf, has composed 6 operas, and other propaganda? Astronaut (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No matter what, unless there is creditable proof that the date is incorrect, I would say that the date from his record should be used. 204.106.255.122 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of stretching rules such as WP:SPS far beyond their original shape... North Korean media are not independent sources on Kim. Their role is to praise him and say what he wants. Independent sources are foreign sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose to any sources. We just hesitate to use which one to compute his age, so I suggest NK because it is his nationality. --Octra Bond (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Paektusan birth location is heavily suspicious since it is a place seen as culturally important amongst Korean people. On the other hand, some small fishing village at an obscure location somewhere in the Soviet Union is probably seen as culturally unimportant amongst Korean people. I suspect that the North Korean authorities like to claim that their Dear Leader was born at an important place, and so they changed the location. Because of the events during the war and the Great Leader's involvement in it, it is unlikely that his family may have been at Paektusan on 16 February 1941, so the North Korean authorities presumably changed the year to make things look less suspicious. The Soviet records look like a reliable source, but on the other hand, I think that we need to quote both sources in order to follow a neutral point of view. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But this is about facts rather than opinions, and N. Korean records aren't a reliable source, unless you think it's likely that Kim's birth actually was foretold by a swallow. Shiggity (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the Soviet Russian record for birth date and place of birth. The North Korean record says "... his birth at Baekdu Mountain [in a secret military camp ... in Japanese Korea on 16 February 1942] was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens." Seriously?? It's laughable. Leave the North Korean version as a footnote explanation, just so that the Wikipedia record is complete. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a footnote, it seems an asterisk is what would have been used in a published encyclopedia. Unless we want to be consistent and lend credibility to both versions, the Soviet records should be the de facto source rather than the North Korean propaganda machine. Shiggity (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please add (aged 69/70) to his death record because of the other record of his birth from being born in Siberia. Thank You. 70.171.41.112 (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)WikiaFreak

Remove semi-protection

The article currently states semi-protected because it is a biography of a living person. However, due to the recent passing of Kim Jong-il, can someone remove the lock? Kclbm4 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate just yet. He was a very controversial figure and we can expect considerable gravedancing (and other unwelcome attention) over the next couple of days. bobrayner (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should remained locked, in my opinion, to protect against vandalism. 204.106.255.122 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is living or not, he was a controversial politician and unprotecting this page would be an invitation for vandalism. -- Luke (Talk) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I changed the template from pp-semi-blp to pp-semi-indef in response to his death. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Bob, Luke, Safiel.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Y=why not just word it 'NK reported his death to be at time x', and leave it at that? You can't really get more objectively accurate when dealing with state propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.180.206 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Succeeded by:

Should the Succeeded by: TBD in the info box be changed to Kim Jong-un? In the death section of the article, it says: His son, Kim Jong-un was announced as his successor in the same broadcast. Jibbsisme (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very wary of assuming succession by default; but if we have a source which definitely says that Kim Jong-un is taking the reins (not just one of the many rushed newspaper articles which are using careful wording and assuming that he will take the reins) then articles should certainly be updated to show Kim Jong-un's new job title(s). bobrayner (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro Cao de Benos has stated that the current leader of the country is Kim jong-nam and not Kim jong-un on his facebook. Not sure if I can link the statements directly (it could be marked as spam as it happened to me while citing other social networking sites) but I'm posting them here anyway if anyone is interested.

• First link "Our President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly and maximum DPRK representative, Mr. Kim Yong Nam *** Nuestro Presidente del Presidio de la Asamblea Popular Suprema y máximo representante de la RPDC, Sr. Kim Yong Nam", includes an image of Kim Yong-nam.
• Second link "Nuestro máximo dirigente es ahora Kim Yong Nam, Presidente del Presidium de la Asamblea Popular Suprema. Lo demás es todo especulación." (Our maximum delegate is now Kim Yong Nam, President of the Presidium of Supreme Popular Assembly. Everything else is pure speculation.)

The facebook profile is real, he has multiple references about it on this official blog (in spanish).--Kmaster (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, regardless of who commented. We need more definitive confirmation, in terms of a real North Korean government statement (e.g. KCNA), and not the comments of a Catalan sympathiser on Facebook. This has not been picked up in any media publications. The threshold for including something is verifiability, and it has not been reached here. Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Change

Can we change "myocardial infarction" to "heart attack"? Seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.119.239 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. IMO, calling it "myocardial infraction" is just editors being pretentious.67.1.72.74 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong word...it's actually being pedantic, which is bad. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of a criticism section

Nearly every public figure with a Wikipedia page has a Criticism section yet there is only passing mention of the extensive human rights abuses perpetuated by Kim Jong-Il. This information should be included in this article because it is a defining characteristic of Kim Jong-Il's rule and a fairly large component of his job performance as a world leader. --Ambigera 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to echo that exact sentiment. This article is a complete and total whitewash. There's no mention of the status of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as one of the poorest nations in the world, the public executions, the concentration camps, and other issues. Is this the best Wikipedia can do? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There already is criticism of the DPRK, just go to the country page. Whitewash nothing, you just have to look in the right place. User:n/a (User talk:n/a) 013:29, 30 May 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.155.151 (talk)

I agree. This man is responsbile for starving millions of North Koreans to death, he has concentration camps placed around the country that enslave and murder families. This article doesn't say one peep about it. In fact, I'd go so far to say that someone actually FAVORS Kim who wrote it and that is disgusting. Shame on the editors for portraying a murderous dictator this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then change it! Just use RS or they'll shoot ya down real quick. Like, you have to get evidence of SOMEBODY ELSE who criticized the regime. There are plenty of sources for that.67.212.40.244 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sry, but this lack of a criticism section makes this article totally ridiculous; Kim Jong-il's crimes against human rights are an epitome character trait of him as a public person, so having critics spreaded between the lines in stead of dedicating this aspect an own section is totally inappropriate. I mean, you wouldn't get the idea to leace out a principal criticism section on a Hitler-article, as well, would you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.56.104 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.59.8 (talk)

The whole article looks like criticism. --Kmaster (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. There's no real point in having such a section; it's like reminding people that Lex Luthor stealing forty cakes was terrible. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Family tree

Is the family tree supposed to be somewhat complete? The Kim Pyong-il lists several more siblings for Kim Jong Il. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Kim Il Sung political family article? Seems like a need for one. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku/Military brat

Unless someone can explain the importance of Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku, to be in the "See also" section but not in the article, I will remove it. He is categorized as a "Military brat", which to me doesnt make any sense. Thats a cultural self identifier, and unless he described himself as that, or commentators somewhere described him as that, I dont think we can categorize him as such. The term may be too Western centric to apply, but if no one called him that except us, thats OR.(previous discussion from feb 2011 now archived) As an alternative, we can apply Category:Children of national leaders. unfortunately, we dont yet have a category for national leaders who are also supreme commanders (are all national leaders the commanders of their military?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See also sections usually contain articles that have not been linked in the main article. The reason of why it was there in the first place is because one of the characters in it is Kim Jong-il. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 12:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In office

Although I don't doubt the fact that he died on December 17, I would argue that his term in office didn't end until December 19 (when the news of his death was announced publicly), or possibly even later (his dead father is still president). 109.68.255.104 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While Kim Il-Sung may be the Eternal Leader of Korea DPR, no such 'eternal' standing was (as of yet) bestowed on Dear Leader. He stop serving when he died unless the Supreme People's Assembly says otherwise. -Achowat (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, but surely he served until December 19 when his death was announced? Even though he died on December 17. If you would have asked any north Korean who the leader is on December 18 I'm pretty sure the answer would have been Kim Jong-il. 109.68.255.104 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That people were ignorant of the death for 2 days, doesn't change the fact that he died. GDallimore (Talk) 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, he would remain in power in the point of view according to any person until that person has been informed about the death. For example, the announcement came about 12 hours ago (when some people learnt about the news), but I didn't hear about it until about half an hour ago. By your logic, I would list his end of term as being half an hour ago. I think the only sensible date to list is his date of death. Unlike his father, the Dear Leader has never had any eternity clause. The interesting thing, however, is the date when Kim Jŏng-ŭn assumed office. Was he immediately appointed, or was the position vacant for a few days? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question but I don't think we can second-guess what the North Korean authorities will do. Perhaps the recently-deceased leader will be made "eternal". Perhaps his title will be retired out of respect and his son gets another title. Maybe his son gets immediate promotion or maybe the regime goes through a pretence of having a few weeks of due process to select a new leader, or maybe (fingers crossed) the regime takes a less dynastic path. We just have to sit and wait for new sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Thank you for permitting me to eavesdrop on how a wikipedia article is pulled together. You guys are great.Theresavalek (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're seeing is what it looks like when people try to write history while it's taking place, and before people really know what has happened. It's fascinating, but it's not pretty. I feel fairly confident that in a year or two, nobody is going to question the fact that the man left office simultaneous with his death, which is only logical. And they can call Kim Il Sung "President Eternal" all they want, but he stopped being president when he died. President Eternal, I guess that's an even better title than "President for Life," but it still doesn't do you much good when you have ceased to be. Neutron (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Texts on current affairs - and controversial modern history - are like laws and sausages; they're usually fine to consume, but if you go into the factory and look in detail at how they're made, you might lose your appetite. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Re: "He is widely regarded to have been one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of all time." in the opening paragraph.

This has no citation next to it and is a typical weaselly-worded sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterolson (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of the first paragraph:

"He is widely regarded to have been one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of all time."

Is this any way to speak of someone who has just died? What if hisd family reads this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.69 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, instead of removing one act of vandalism which was only in place for an hour, do people just come here and complain? This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit... GDallimore (Talk) 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't have enough contributions to fix it, since the page is locked to edits from noobs like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterolson (talk • contribs) 07:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to use Soviet birth records as de facto source, move N. Korean records to footnote

The North Korean record discredits itself by claiming other nonsense, such as Kim's birth being foretold by a swallow and heralded by a new star in the heavens. This is a proposal to use Soviet records as the de facto source and move N. Korean records to a ref tag and footnote. Shiggity (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Rather, cite them both, readers tend to be smart about this kind of thing. Also, there's nothing untowards about citing reliable sources which have something to say about the two dates. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Does someone have an exact textual quotation of any official biographies in which they state that Kim jong-il birth was "at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens", because the source cited is not very neutral, so to speak (An American business publication) and this statement has been denied by DPRK Government officials (same goes for the "mood weather control" thing). --Kmaster (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They should both be cited, especially as the North Korean claim is "official". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The official DPRK position is reliably published. It is weight worthy as a major claim. However, as the major claim isn't heavily weighted as accepted in the general scholarly narrative it could be legitimate to move it to a footnote. It could be legitimate to keep it in the body text. It seems to be a matter of editorial style. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, the only thing we can site this as is an example of ridiculous propaganda. The most ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy freak nonsense seems rational by comparison. ----DanTD (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't ask you, we're an encyclopaedia, we ask reliable sources. As an encyclopaedia we also report notable myths. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Kim Jong-il pardons of Lee and Ling" - appropriate for inclusion in this article?

The "main" is 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea. Text in this article does not mention K J-i until concludes with what could arguably be only a passing mention:

"In the early morning hours (UTC+9) of 5 August, KCNA announced that Kim Jong-il had issued a pardon to Lee and Ling."

Should this to be kept in the Kim Jong-il article?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)