Jump to content

Talk:Kim Jong Un

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't we use an actual picture of him?

I've noticed this page always uses a sketch instead of a real picture of him. Why is that so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.212.82.137 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is a free content work, we do not allow the use of non-free pictures when free imagery could be obtained, as is the case for nearly all living persons. As Jong-un is still alive and a publicly visible figure, it is possible to get a free photo of him, just none have come about as of yet. So we use a freely general sketch of him until we can get a free photo. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be dealing with an extrmist but you yourselves seem to be extremists in dealing with your stance on free content. w195.138.228.54 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the FAQ above.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still the old arguments... Many people have tried to explain that it is extremely difficult to obtain a free picture of him (which is the reason why we don't have one here) which would make him eligible to use an image under the fair use rationale. But there are a few users here who have, so far, blocked any initiative to find a solution. --Maxl (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the people against the use of a non-free image are a "few users" then the people in favor are an even smaller number, as has been proven in both RfCs to date. If your argument in favor of using a non-free image were strong, it would garner more support. It hasn't. I'm very sorry, but that's reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The set of people who read or comment on Wikipedia pages is greater than those who participate in RfCs. That's the reality, and I'm not sorry.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfCs is how we handle disputes such as these. If you don't like how such disputes are handled, please seek to replace the RfC system with something you think would work. Both RfCs were run and handled properly. Nevertheless, if you feel you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are welcome to move to the next step of dispute resolution; WP:SEEKHELP. Until such time as you either replace the RfC system or figure out someway to overturn the result of two different RfCs, neither of which agreed to allow the use of non-free imagery to depict Kim Jong-un, the status quo is we aren't going to allow a non-free image, regardless of some vague silent majority that may or may not exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on this topic again, is there a possibility we could leave the sketch as the image that's displayed, but in the caption add something like "For a photograph of Kim Jong-un, see this image."? That would be a good compromise as it would link to a real image of KJU while respecting Wikipedia rules on non-free content. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears to comply with Template:External_media. Specifically, the image is available online, it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia due to copyright and NFCC issues, and from the ad nauseum posts about this topic, meets the third criterion that "readers will expect this type of media in the article". Per the template page, we could use this until a freely licensed image of him surfaces. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template documentation is not policy. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read such a deep linking constitutes a usage under fair use law. Allowed under law? Yes. Allowed here on this article? No. It's not a question of whether we can technically do it. We can. The issue is the NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft is not a lawyer. He's just a judge in the highest court.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One, I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks which says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Two, I'm no judge here (not that we have judges, though the closest parallel is ArbCom). In fact, I have less privileges on this project than you do. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mistake irony for a personal attack. @ Jack: Wouldn't a judge be expected to be impartial? --Maxl (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling me a "judge in the highest court" is commenting on me. Quoting from Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Further meta discussions on what might or might not be a personal attack are pointless. Either restrain yourself to commenting on content and not those with whom you disagree here or expect to have this escalated through dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every comment on a person (or, account) is necessarily an attack. Please read beyond the introduction of the project page cited by you to find out what is an attack. --Maxl (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly insulted people on this talk page in the past. You've repeatedly been pointed to WP:NPA. I strongly recommend you take that policy to heart. It's not hard. All you have to do is not comment on people. It's quite simple really. Just don't do it. Easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. I just occasionally make known that I don't share your opinion. That's all. --Maxl (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is frequently the case that people who violated the NPA/CIVIL policies believe they have not. It's a meta discussion that lacks merit. The overarching issue is this; do not comment on people making comments. Instead, comment on content. I strongly recommend you take that policy to heart. It's not hard. All you have to do is not comment on people. It's quite simple really. Just don't do it. Easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what you look like. Mercster (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I find it a little hard to believe there are absolutely NO free real photos of Kim Jong Un on the internet...

All photos of Kim are copyright, unless the owner says otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a fair use justification for using a widely-published photo rather than a (free) propaganda image? 86.139.252.166 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we don't go by fair use, be go by Wikipedia's non-free content policy which is purposely stricter than the fair use provisions of US law. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapons

1. I think this section is not neutral or accurate. The section starts off saying that Kim threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike in 2013. I can't access the source cited, but this [1] shows that, overblown rhetoric and garbled translation aside, the statement was about defensive action. In any case, given that the US has not pledged No first use, why is North Korea's talk of pre-emption be so significant? Following that, there is mention of a threat to Baengnyeong Island, but this wasn't a nuclear threat. Then, the article describes a "plan" to bomb US cities. As this [2] shows, the story was purely speculative, with no evidence of a concrete plan. Overall, there is no context, no mention of the US forces in the South, no mention of the US warheads targeting North Korea, no mention — in fact — of why North Korea might possibly want nuclear weapons.

2. The section also says: "As of March 2016, experts believe North Korea is not yet able to carry out such nuclear strikes on the US". The source for this appears to be a brief South Korean defence department statement. However, the section also cites a source from 2013 which reports that the US Defense Intelligence Agency "assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles; however the reliability will be low." I think we could say experts are divided, but we need better sources.

3. I'm not sure how much information should go into this section: for example, the latest missile test — there have been so many. I'm not sure how much of this relates directly to Kim. He didn't initiate the policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this, Jack Upland. Go ahead and make any changes to 1. As for 2., I think pending good sources we should present both the South Korean and US views in the article. For 3., I think this is a perennial problem of North Korea-related articles. "Kim=KPA=WPK=NK" and soon enough most of the content in these articles are not about the article subject but some tangentially related topic. We should be more prudent with this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a postscript on the "plan" to bomb US cities: this [3] describes the story as hysteria.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another sketch

How about this public domain one? Looks a bit better, if anything I can colorize it, etc. Brandmeistertalk 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kim Jong Nam

I don't think this article should say that Kim Jong Nam was assassinated until there is more confirmation. There are conflicting reports, as indicated by these sources: [4], [5], [6].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a BLP, let's keep rumors off it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Kim Jong-un half-Russian?

Based on his father's nationality that he was Russian and Soviet (more likely half-Koryo-saram), can we presumably consider Kim Jong-il's children half-Russian including him as well? We noticed Kim Jong-un has his father's Russian heritage. 24.212.149.50 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can find a reliable, published source that says so. General Ization Talk 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is Korean by ethnicity. The fact that his father was born in the Soviet Union and may or may not have held a Soviet passport doesn't make Kim Jong-un Russian. --188.99.140.78 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realigning sections "Early life and education" and "Family"

The sections "Early life and education" and "Family" need realignining. They were present the information 'independently' of each other (in both cases as if this is the first time the information is presented in the article; and the information does not entirely coincide.

  • his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong, is believed to have been born in 1987.
  • Kim Jong-un has one half-sister and an older full-brother. He also has a younger full-sister, Kim Yo-jong, who was believed to have been born in 1987. He also had a half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, who was reportedly assassinated with poison on 13 February 2017

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is messy. The information in the "Family" section is also awkwardly worded. This is then triplicated in the family tree that follows. I wonder if the information about brothers and sisters is necessary in the "Family" section...
I also noticed that the article had two different accounts of the birth of his daughter. There is one source (Chosun Ilbo) which claims he has two different daughters (from two different women). I think this is dubious. Most sources say there is one daughter but give conflicting birth dates. I will change this unless someone objects.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jack. Glad you can make sense of it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've tidied it up a bit. On reflection, I've decided to keep the speculation about multiple children. The sources don't agree, and we shouldn't create a false consensus. Bizarrely enough, Rodman seems to be the only one with hard information. I've eliminated the references to the rest of his family, except for Yo Jong, who seems to have an ongoing close relationship with him. I've moved the material about his American uncle and aunt to North Korean defectors. I've moved the information about Jong Nam to sit with the previous mention. (We might need to add something more about him now.)--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the word "dictator" not on this page when according to all dictionary definitions he is?

By dictionary definition Kim Jong-un is a dictator, yet the word doesn't appear anywhere on this page except in reference URLs. Just "Chairman". This is illogical. Is NK keeping Wiki "clean"?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator a: a person granted absolute emergency power; b: one holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power. c: one ruling in an absolute (see absolute 2) and often oppressive way fascist dictators.

Cambridge Dictionary - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictator a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people. a person who gives orders and behaves as if they have complete power

Oxford Dictionary - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictator "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force."

etc etc, of course I could go on.

Well, is there any evidence that he has absolute power? I've never seen any.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
search Kim jong un "absolute power", no shortage of news articles to choose from. Or, search Kim jong un "absolute power" site:.gov -- No shortage of Government pages. Or, search Kim jong un "absolute power" site:.edu -- No shortage of educational institution pages. Provide evidence that he DOESN'T yield absolute power, and explain to me how somebody who doesn't yield absolute power is free to execute military leaders with anti-aircraft cannon at his will? Looking at your wikipedia contributions they appear heavily biased towards removing anything negative about North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this [7] shows that there is a range of views about Kim's power. There have been no major changes of policy since he replaced his father. As previously discussed, those accounts of executions are dubious. There are mountains of negative information about North Korea on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to remove things that are inaccurate or biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're _censoring_ facts and opposing established _dictionary definitions_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also [8].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research and synthesis to connect a label like "dictator" to a living person without any reliable sources explicitly stating that. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but it's also true that anybody can plug "dictator Kim Jung Un" into a search engine and see literally dozens of reliable sources doing exactly that. So I'm not sure why you bring this up. It looks to me from Google like virtually every source that discusses Kim in politics refers to him as a dictator at some time or another. "Original Research" is not using the term because Jack Upland wants to be personally convinced according to his understanding of the definition.24.198.110.136 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't get better images for this article

Since photography is a crime in North Korea, we may not get a better picture. So the thing on the top has a very low chance of achieving. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photography is not a crime, and many people (including me) have taken photos in North Korea, many of which have been used by Wikipedia. But I agree, a Wikipedian is unlikely to get a chance to snap Kim Jong Un. The most likely possibility seems to be Kim visiting Russia and the Russian government releasing a free photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of an official statue seems preferable to a "photorealistic sketch". The photo of the statue actually looks more realistic than the sketch. I've inserted it at the top of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a statue of a young Kim Jong Il (his father) - hence the glasses.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been reverted to the previous. The caption says "sketch", but to me it looks like far more than just a sketch. The source description says "photorealstic sketch", although no details of the media used are provided. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been a burning issue. I think it would be better to have nothing than this sketch. We could have a notice explaining that a "free" image is not available. Or we could have a picture of Pikachu. As it is, we have to face accusations that we are treating the dude like Mohammed or that we are North Korean hombres (which really hurts).--Jack Upland (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. Now I am very motivated to get a correct picture. Will get back to you soon. The present image is awful, not least because it looks like he just went to Jenny Craig.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd go for the sea slug, although I realize that it has no obvious Muslim connection. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded the pic at right.[[:File:Kim-jong un With Shoe.jpg|thumb|"Just uploaded this... but I just ain't gettin' no answer!"]]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks. And I always thought he wore something more Audrey Hepburn. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the dictator would publish more copyright-free photos then we would have more to choose from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a heartless comment! Have you no sole? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this image is nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons.[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did think it looked Flickrwashed when searching on it earlier. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an abuse report to Flickr using their online form:

I'm reporting abuse on the following page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147463525@N04/29883338246/

It was apparently published in a 2014 newspaper article, with a credit to "Korean Central News Agency/Reuters", so I don't see how it could be public domain, or how it could have been created in 2016.

Here's a link to the newspaper article:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-jong-un-looks-things-redux-1461494

On the other hand, the U.S. is still technically in a state of war with North Korea, so maybe we don't respect their government's copyright?

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent a fax to North Korea asking that they release a copyright-free image of KJU in high heels. If they do not comply, I will take further action.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, your timing here is not brilliant? I think we might see some toys being thrown out of the cot. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're all fishing for Kim Jay-Un in fishnets. (Australia, my beloved homeland, appointed a emissary for NK, Alexander Downer, who did indeed pose in fishnets - Google the image... if you dare.) I think if Kimbo is slugging it out with the Last Trumpeters, and possibly hard pressed, he will acquiesce to Wikipedia's reasonable request and ignore the pictures of bottoms I drew on the fax I sent, on the grounds that he doesn't want to fight on two fronts. I need to replace the toner cartridge for my fax machine, but I hope to replace it before Easter so I can receive any NK missive/missile that can resolve this crisis.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

Should we fill in April 17 now, or wait until we have confirmation? And, should the cause of death be listed as suicide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.88.70 (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Un&oldid=775484156"