Talk:Kim Jong Un

Survey about top image

File:Kim Jong Un Speaking.jpg

A

B

C

D

These are four candidates for the top image. A fifth option is nothing (E).

NOTE: Image A is currently up for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And now it has been deleted, and A becomes E.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

!Votes about top image

• I support Image A because it's photographic, and even though the quality is poor it's still realistic compared to sketches. My second choice is a tie between C, D, and E. I emphatically oppose image B because it's not realistic, and instead is overly-flattering. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Image A, but if it is hammered soft as a copyright violation, I support Option E: nothing. We have had so many debates about this. A sketch looks ridiculous and detracts from the rest of the article. I suggest we have nothing until we have a photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  If? Suspending my !vote until copyright status of Image A is fully clarified. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  User:Martinevans123, it's been at Wikimedia Commons for over a year. I merely cropped it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, ATYW. So a copyright expert (someone like User:Diannaa, for example) has made a conscious decision on its status, rather than it just being overlooked or forgotten? The upload date at Commons appears to be today? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  The commons page says it was extracted from another commons image. If you can get an expert to double-check both commons pages, that would be great. Here's the image that's been at commons for over a year. Anythingyouwant (talk)

  Ah yes, you just uploaded the cropped version today. Sourcing from Flickr is sometimes problematic, isn't it. Dianna is very good at spotting alerts and replying, so am expecting her advice before too long. I must say that the uncropped version is a much more informative image. But even the low quality of the cropped version may be preferable to a sketch. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  FYI, here's the commons file history, showing that experienced editors have reviewed this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  Plenty of Commons editors have seen it then. I guess that is reassuring. It's the first step from flickr that I'm probably most wary of. If the image originates in North Korea, surely we have to respect their copyright laws? Anything else would be a touch undiplomatic, wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  I hate to rain on the parade, it being the Day of the Sun, Easter, Passover etc, but we discussed this very photo a year ago: [1]. The short answer is that while the DPRK has "freedom of panorama", this only means that the original photo, with the giant TV screen in the background, is OK. Cropping the photo to home in on the image we want is not OK. If it was, copyright law would be meaningless. All you would have to do is take something outside and photograph it, and your image would be out of copyright. So, no, this is not a free image.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  Assuming for argument's sake that the image is not okay at Wikimedia Commons, it would seem still to qualify as fair use to have it hosted at Wikipedia instead of at Commons. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  We have discussed this before. An RfC in November 2015 rejected the use of a fair use image.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll also go for Option E (no photo in infobox) as this has come up repeatedly the past couple years and I believe we should see if this is mitigated by not having anything there at all. I believe most users wouldn't think much about just having text, whereas a ridiculous looking image will make them much more likely to head to this talk page to complain. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I have no idea why a normal photo can't be used from any of hundreds of news sources (more Wikipedia silly/edit-wars, I suppose). "Nothing" seems better than "very strange". 5.102.198.144 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Image A: This falls in line with nearly all biographical WP articles. I don't see why we shouldn't use a photograph if it's available (my condolences to Option E), and all the other image options come across as jarring or even ludicrous for a well-known person who is seen on TV quite frequently. Wolfdog (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Does that mean, Wolfdog, that you'd support Option E if no photo is available?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Ha... No, I guess I'd go with Option B. At least it's something. Wolfdog (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Image C as the best of limited options. Meaning no offense to the contributor that went through the effort to produce image B for our use here, but it's just not up to the quality standards of a lead image; it more or less accurately replicates Kim's features, but lacks depth (in the technical sense, not aesthetic) and contrast and has a not-quite-realistic colour palette to it. It's massively better than anything I could produce, but I still think image C, despite being a more minimalist work, better captures Kim's look, without standing out on the article (for all the wrong reasons). Snow ^{let's rap} 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Image C is the best available. Image B suffers from a bit of uncanny valley effect. I don't see any support for D, I'd say it's too faint/sparse of a sketch. Image C feels much more solid. Alsee (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Snow Rise, for catching my typo.[2] Alsee (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem--happy to be of assistance; I'm glad I was reading the situation correctly. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Image B is far better than C, in my opinion. Regarding opinions above, a bit of Uncanny Valley just shows how close to real it appears. As for 'unrealistic colour palette', at least it has colour! C on the other hand looks like a rough sketch you'd find on Deviant Art, and could pass for a lot of other people, and is monotone. Honestly find it bizarre the support is for C currently when B is a far stronger likeness in the absence of an actual public domain photo. 80.192.27.175 (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• My take on this is that we want it to either be a photo or an obvious sketch, as we don't want to confuse readers. This comment has been made here previously. I would recommend sticking with C until we get a real photo. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: as explained under "Consensus?", I have now inserted Option C.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about top image

Since we're on the topic, and this discussion subheading hasn't been used until now, does anyone have the direct KCNA link to the image found in this article? The KCNA link the article has doesn't point to the correct page. I posted about it when it came out last May, and assumed it was copyright KCNA although it doesn't have the standard KCNA lettering on the bottom right of the image that the others do on the kcna.kp site. If it is either not copyright or we could request permissions, it would be a perfect photo as it is a high quality and unretouched portrait of KJU. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's copyright by default. It's obviously not 50 years old, and we have no explicit statement from the owner waiving copyright. As you know, we attempted to get permission a year ago but got no response [3].--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for info, which is the sticking point here? The less than 50 years old, or the no freedom of panorama for the original? If the former, why is it even still displayed on this Talk page? Paging User:Diannaa. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A tale of two photos. One is Option A which is a cropping of an apparently free image. The cropping defeats freedom of panorama. It's no longer a panorama. Mr Stewart has just brought up a second photo, a unretouched picture of KJU of which he is apparently fond. There is no basis for saying this is copyright free.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see (I think). I see from the deletion discussion over at Commons that the freedom of panorama argument is moot Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, for the purposes of a photo of KJU, it's not complicated. We need explicit permission from the copyright owner of the image, waiving copyright. That's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the intricacies of copyright law. I had thought that "freedom of panorama" meant, essentially, there was no copyright owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read Commons:De minimis. I believe that the original photograph from which Option A is extracted fails the De minimis test, but the admin closing the deletion discussion for the original photo apparently did not agree (I don't think I argued the point very strongly). But there is no way that De minimis applies to the extracted TV frame of Kim Jong-un, and I am sure that any Commons admin who has a good understanding of copyright will close the current deletion discussion as delete. Everyone here is welcome to take part in the discussion on Commons! BabelStone (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll still reserve my !vote until it's deleted (or not). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Question: is this image acceptable?

I found it online. Is it indeed a photograph of Kim Jong-Un, and if so does it meet the copyright requirements to be used on Wikimedia? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said above: "Basically, for the purposes of a photo of KJU, it's not complicated. We need explicit permission from the copyright owner of the image, waiving copyright. That's it." Do we have permission from the copyright owner? No, we don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, due to his age at the time, it might be immaterial. Even if we had copyright permission, he is much older now and this would not be a good representation of him, plus we would need to crop it and it would then be low quality. Of course, you could argue it's a bit better than we have now, but I don't think it would be appropriate for the lead image. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. You could have it in the body, but using it as the lead image would create more problems than it solved.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

This survey has been going on for a month. Option A is now out of the picture. I don't see a consensus so far for Option B which has been the image for a while. Should we try Option E (nothing), which at least has two clear votes?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Option B would be the best since it is used in other wikipedia articles such as Leaders of North Korea --Figfires (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we could change those articles to reflect the decision here.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have looked through the archives, back to 2013, and there seem to have been strong opinions against sketches (including by longstanding editors who support the "no fair use" line). There was a survey in July 2015 which included Option B, but it was inconclusive. I can't see a consensus for a sketch, and certainly not this one. I suggest unless and until a consensus forms, we have nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd at least like to go without it for a couple months to see how many comments we get about there being nothing versus how many we currently get with a sketch. I'd be partial towards whichever garners the least discontent until we can find an actual picture that's freely licensed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This survey has been going on since April. Option C now has gained the lead, but there are many more people active at this page that haven't commented than have. MB298 has restored Option B, arguing we should use it until consensus has been achieved. However, Option B has little support. Meanwhile, we now have a whole page devoted to the image issue, often rehashing old arguments. This is not good. We need to move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As Option C has taken the lead, and since this survey has dragged on for far too long, I have now inserted Option C in the place of B. While B has its fans, it has been consistently attacked for years. With people commenting about the "uncanny valley" etc. If people object, please make reasoned responses on the Talk page, rather than engaging in edit wars.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Restore the "Photorealistic" sketch

@Tonystewart14: I think it's quite obvious that not having any picture will result in endless edit wars of editors putting it back. We don't have to try that for months; it has happened a dozen times in just a matter of two weeks already.

I support putting the "photorealistic" sketch (File:Kim Jong-Un Photorealistic-Sketch.jpg) back in. While there probably wasn't an exhaustive discussion that determined we should use that image, everyone seemed to be fine with that particular image for years. And that's consensus too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there was never any discussion that concluded in favour of the sketch. In fact, there have been many attacks on it. It hasn't been there for years, but has been interchanged with other sketches over time. You can argue there was consensus, but I don't think it matters now. Since the issue has been so contentious, it would be good to have an explicit consensus on the issue, so it would be helpful if other editors could give their opinion. The attempts to restore the sketch have been mainly the one editor, and none of those people has made a comment here, despite being prompted to.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see no image of the leader. I believe the sketches need to look like sketches so readers can discriminate between hand-drawn/computer generated artwork and a photograph. I would discard Option B. I would pick Option C because it has stronger contrast (easier to see the artwork) than Option D.  Honette 09:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo idea: link to external photo

Here's an idea for slightly improving the photo situation: why don't we just link to an external image instead of embedding an image? This is not unprecedented; it is done quite frequently using the {{External media}} template. Here's the description from that template's documentation for when it should be used:

If an image, 3D model, audio or video clip:

1. is currently available online,
2. cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under fair-use rules, and
3. readers will expect this type of media in the article,

then it may be appropriate to use {{external media}} to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.

This situation seems to perfectly meet all of those criteria. I admit I don't think I've ever seen this used for an article's primary infobox photo, but this is a very unique situation and I think an exception to the norm is warranted. My vote would be to this Washington Post article which includes a very hi-res supposedly-untouched portrait photo of Kim Jong-un released by KCNA (and an explanation about it). I would have preferred to link to the original AP story that the photo came from, but unfortunately, the version of that story on apnews.com is bizarrely missing the photo. There's a couple syndicated copies of the story floating around the web with the image, but most of them are much lower quality than the Washington Post version.

Please share your feedback:

1. Do you support putting an external image link in the infobox of the article?
2. What link should we use for the image? My Washington Post article, or something else?

Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• We discussed this about 9 months ago at Talk:Kim_Jong-un/Archive_7#Why_don.27t_we_use_an_actual_picture_of_him.3F. In short, no. Long before we start discussing WHICH image to use, we have to determine if it is even legal to do so. Court rulings on the issue are equivocal, at best, and at least one company had an injunction issued against them indicating they violated fair use by deep linking. I do not recommend this as a solution. At a minimum, we would need to contact WMF legal counsel to better understand if it would be considered fair use. But, even if we did get approval, we couldn't do it; NFCC would still apply, as that governs our use of non-free content. We would be using such a link under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a fairer summary of that short discussion would be "In short, no consensus." Also, we are not empowered to consider the legal issues here, only matters regarding our internal policies (which yes, have been informed by legal and licensing considerations but on a much larger platform than the idiosyncratic discussions on a talk page), so speculating on that front is useless. I don't object to reaching out to the WMF on the matter, however. Barring objection from the WMF (which I tend to doubt will occur) I for one would support this as being consistent with our (very plainly written) fair use policies regarding very exceptional circumstances; if we have another article that more conforms to the exact circumstances that exception was meant to apply to, I haven't seen it. But I support hosting a single low-res photo on our own servers on that rational, so it should come as no surprise that I support this middle ground variation. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is it is not a middle ground. Whether we're hosting non-free content natively or remotely, we're still hosting it. If so, it has to adhere to WP:NFCC, which it won't, as established by two prior RfCs here. So, it's a moot point whether it's legal or not. We wouldn't accept it anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It may not be close enough to the middle for you to endorse, but it does at least remove the aspect of hosting a non-free image ourselves, which is a significant difference with regard to the licensing, and does thus have an impact on the issues at hand. I agree that WP:NFCC must still be satisfied, but I (and many other editors) have long been satisfied that it is. (which is why I would be just as fine with hosting and using the image in our conventional fashion). And the previous RfCs you mention did not "establish" your position; they were "no consensus" and thus we defaulted to the status quo of not including the image. There are a number of us who have never stopped thinking that the lack of an image here is highly problematic, but have nevertheless dropped the issue for years at a time so that it doesn't constantly outsize all other discussion on the talk page and grind other work to a halt. But that doesn't mean a working consensus was established--not nearly. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether your call it consensus or not, if there are "many others" who want a non-free image, there are 2-3 times as "many others" who don't. That's the prevailing opinion. Start another RfC if you want to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL, 2-3x? Where are you pulling that number from? Each of the RfCs over the last few years has been close to even numbers of support/oppose !votes; early on, the supports were actually in the majority. There just as never been enough to settle concretly on one approach or another, so the status quo (born out of a respectful approach to NFCC) has prevailed. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change the standing consensus (and that last RfC was closed with "a clear consensus exists here" against using a non-free image), then by all means please start a new RfC. Until that time, the reigning consensus stands. As I've said many times before, consensus can change. So, have at it. Let's see if consensus has changed. I doubt it has, as nothing's changed in the last year and a half to change the circumstance. But, I encourage you to try if you feel motivated to do so. --Hammersoft (talk)

That RfC ended with four editors !supporting the use of an image and six !opposing. Again, that's 4:6 (not "2-3x", as you tried to claim just previously). And that "clear consensus" comment was made by a closer who had all of a few months experience on the project. The RfC previous to that had an opposite ratio in favour of inclusion and had more participants. So if that's your idea of "clear consensus", then I see where the disconnect between you and I on this matter is. But that's nothing remotely like consensus. It's a shame that this issue has dragged on for years, but that's something I can live with, letting the issue go because the !votes have been too close. But any editor who has been participating in the discussion know that there has never been anything that genuinely looks anything like consensus on this page about that issue, and I think its incredibly disingenuous for you to say there has. That or an indication of massive confirmation bias.

I don't mean to be invicil about this, but any editor can go back and check those RfCs for themselves and see how contentious and very much the opposite of consensus-bearing this matter has been. Cherry-picking one sentence from a novice editor who got ahead of themselves (4:6 is never "clear consensus"), from an RfC that was not even the nearly the largest discussion we've had on in this matter (the previous one attracted much more community involvement), does not change the larger history here, which the longterm editors here are all too familiar with. There is no "standing consensus" and your insistence that there is on the basis of that RfC makes it feel like you're trying (consciously or otherwise) to put one of the two perspectives on the backfoot, when it has always had more or less equal support here, with just slight variations over the years. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First, have another look at that last RfC. The view that achieved the highest support had 7 supports to your view's 4, That's pretty close to 2:1. Or, 75% higher than yours if you prefer. If you look at the first RfC, the strongest view in favor of keeping had 4 supports. The strongest against has 12. that's 3:1. I stand by my statements. I don't think you're being uncivil. You do feel strongly about this, and there's nothing wrong with that. I reiterate what I've said twice now; start a new RfC. Nothing has changed in the 19 months since the last one. But, you are very welcome to try. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think it would be a productive time to have another RfC right now. I think it would just end in another deadlock (and potentially raise the heat). But Masem's signal that the circumstances may have changed his views on this matter (or could down the line) suggest to me that a change could be in the winds eventually. I've always suspected that eventually some !oppose votes would eventually change their minds with the passage of time., and Masem having been won over (if he eventually is) is significant, because he was one of the more resolute advocates for not using the image in the past; if he is convinced by the way things have played out, then surely others will be too. But I don't think it does us any good to have that conversation yet. I would not have launched the last RfC when it was opened either, for the same reason (though once another editor did, I spoke my position at length). But an RfC tomorrow would only get people on both sides more entrenched, and leave us where we've been on this issue for the last couple of years (that is to say, deeply divided). Not only will I not be opening an RfC for a while yet, I encourage everyone else to wait until we have a significant enough change that it is a worthwhile discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Decide on a sketch and impose an indefinite moratorium until a free image appears. MB298 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent news in relation to the photo

The US is imposing an indefinite travel ban for all Americans visiting NK, requiring special permission to do so; currently this is in light of the Otto Warmbier issue, but one can read between the lines and see possible other reasons, ones that the EU may follow suit on. If it does become the case that a similar ban is enacted in the EU, I would definitely consider it now reasonably impossible that we could likely get a free image of Jong-un, as to allow a non-free. Yes, there are other countries besides the US and EU that can visit and get photos, but for all practical purposes, these are the two most likely sources that a free image would have come from.

However, this is only a suggestion, and if the EU or other states do nothing, then the current stance should still stand. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly it complicates things, but I would still disagree with allowing a non-free image of him. Both his predecessors traveled to countries that were not likely to agree to such things were they around today, and both were photographed there, and we have those images. I consider the same possible for Jong-un. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• It may also be worth noting that popular NK vloggers like Jaka Parker and Aram Pan are from Indonesia and Singapore, respectively, so they would not be affected by either US or EU travel prohibitions. Both of these countries have much better relations with NK than the US or the EU. While I appreciate you bringing it up, as I would really like to get this resolved, it just doesn't hold water when you look at who actually travels there, particularly who could give us a free photo as opposed to AP or another news org that would copyright all their photos. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think if we are going analyze this situation properly and move past this deadlock, we really need to end this "People of country X can still go there, so clearly there's always a chance that 'someone' (its always vague as to who this someone is) could snap a photo (and then after risking their lives to get it, give the license away)." We're only talking about this at all because of Masem's reconsideration of his position in light of the fallout of what happened to Otto Warmbier who was one of those legal foreign travellers you allude to and was (from all apparent indications) tortured into a coma that ultimately proved fatal for stealing a propaganda poster. What do you think happens to the guy who tries to take a photo of the Supreme Commander? And please don't tell me I'm being histrionic or speculative about what happened to Warmbier; this state of affairs has long preceded his especially public death. Neither the general citizenry of North Korea nor any foreign party capable of giving us a free license image is ever going to have an opportunity to take a photo of Kim in North Korea, period. The man is surrounded by the most insular state propaganda and security apparatus in the history of the world. It's never going to happen. It takes a lot less than even considering taking such a photo for a person to end up in detention in the DPRK. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any indication that Warmbier was tortured into a coma, but, yes, it would be very risky to take an uauthorised photo of KJU.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happened to him, the North Korean explanation is apparently bunk and torture can come in forms other than blunt force trauma. But it's not worth speculating on anyway; at the very least, the man was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour in a prison camp for taking a propaganda poster off a wall (didn't even take it), and within a month was in a coma. And the case is hardly unique. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Masem, I for one appreciate your willingness to reconsider your position in light of new circumstances--even if it turns out that European states do not follow suit and you thus do not change your ultimate conclusion on the feasibility issue. This has been a long debate over all of these years, and I think there have been times we have all felt like we are slamming our heads against the wall, but the discussion has also stood out to me (against other content disputes of anywhere near this length that I have observed on the project) for mostly staying very respectful and civil, not withstanding the strong positions on both sides. It's very helpful to continuing to discuss in that vein when a party qualifies their own argument without being prompted, reminding both sides not to be too dogmatic. Let's see what happens from here (with regard to what happens with the travel restrictions) and then we can reconsider thereafter what the consensus on this issue now looks like. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this changes the issue fundamentally, but it does underline the difficulty in getting a photo. I'm not clear on how the travel ban will affect journalists.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If it operates in a similar fashion to past travel bans that the U.S. has imposed on its own citizens, then there will probably be a process by which journalists can ask for an exemption--but in practice, very few will try and there's no guarantee that even a single one will be allowed for some time. Not that it changes the equation much; as best I have been able to determine from working on this issue over the years (and trying to find someone with a photo that we could request a free license on) almost all foreign news agencies get their photos of Kim from the propaganda reports of the DPRK itself (which is why the non-portraiture ones always have a staged quality to them). Foreign journalists and photographers are just not allowed access to the man. And even if the AP or some other news organization did get a photo, it would not be licensed under creative commons--that much is certain. So I'm inclined to agree with you that not much is changed here, except that the added burden of the travel ban has proven enough to possibly change some perspectives of some of our long-term editors on this page. But we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out, as news of the travel ban develops. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Artwork

So, so simple. The community has wasted how many hours on reads and keystrokes over this image matter? It has to be in the hundreds now.

If only this could be put to rest with a one-hour drawing by a decent artist. WMF's tight purse strings is in the way. I wish Wikipedia:Donated artwork could be revived where donations to the general coffers of WMF could instead be given directly to commission a tendered image of Kim Jong-un. Artists at DeviantArt are poor and good. We're talking about a hundred bucks here. Thoughts? It could kill two birds with on stone: get an image and solve this problem for other articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see here! That has to be easier than another 100 hrs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the only solution is a photo. Even if we have a good artwork, people will ask why there isn't a photo. Short of that, we should all avoid rehashing old arguments, and refer anyone who comments to the FAQ.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I "think" readers have come to expect a photograph. In this context, it may be "awkward" to have a sketch, whereas other articles use photographs.  Honette 07:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to obtain a free picture, but, in case, it's fruitless

Here it is, taken by some Russian tourist, however, it's too small. Should I try to contact this guy to get a permission? He's not a regular guest on the forum, by the way. Al-Douri (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's certainly worth it to contact them to see if they have a higher resolution photograph. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Done, but the request needs to be applied by the moderator, what I can hardly imagine because of... you know, that spam cautiousness. I can't even send him a message, that goddamn forums. In addition, I can send a message to his company because of photos posted on its official site, but I think it would be inappropriate. Al-Douri (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Free photograph

I think i found a free photograph here Searingjet (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting find, but if you look at the album and scroll down, you'll see that he's photoshopped in, like in this one. The original image with KJU in it would still be copyright unless it was taken by a photographer who didn't copyright it (the link in the section above this one from the Russian might be an example). However, it appears that the ones here would be copyright KCNA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Here's another version [4], and possibly the original from which it was extracted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Honorary alma mater

Should we really include universities that give "honorary" degrees as part of Alma mater in the biography infobox? By that logic we should put Harvard University in Steven Spielberg's infobox. If he never attended HELP University, I would suggest removing it from the infobox. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out. Thanks for the suggestion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I never understood why his role as "Supreme Leader" is downplayed in the infobox to being a note under being "supreme commander of the army". I assume supreme leader is a more noteworthy and relevant title than commander of the army (which the corresponding role in America doesn't even show up in the POTUSes' infoboxes). Shouldn't that be changed? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - "Children"

I have removed the listing of his alleged children from the Infobox due to the speculative nature of that information. If the information was of a factual nature, then it might have encyclopedic value. This information is speculative, and it has no place in an encyclopedia other than, perhaps, to state some source has speculated about it.
In place of a listing of his alleged children in the infobox, I have, instead, made a entry to reference the main article where details regarding his alleged children is given ("Speculative. See text for info."). Such entry is consistent with the article on Kim Jung-un's wife, Ri Sol-ju, where two other editors have already stated information about his children is speculative ("Speculative. See text for info."). Please do not change the current entry without first seeking consensus. Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than being his wife, almost everything about her and her children is speculative, including her name. There is a general consensus about some things (like her name) but official sources say almost nothing, so differentiating between what is "known" and "reported" can be helpful. -- GreenC 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un's brother

In the third paragraph of the article, it is stated that Kim may have been responsible for the assassination his brother Kim Jong-nam.

Through the rest of the article, Kim's brother is referred to as Kim Jong-chui. Since he only had one brother, which is correct? And if, for some reason, both are correct, then it needs to be explained.

--Tickledpuppy (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that he only had one brother. Kim Jong Nam was his half-brother. There is a family tree at the bottom of the article, and this is also explained in the lead of the Kim Jong-chul article. I will try to clarify this in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

image

First of all I know I have left a message about this before, and that there was a huge discussion and consensus months ago ^^, but can someone explain briefly why we don't have a real portrait of him? I just do not understand, especially how he's a popular figure lately and ofc to NK. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians living in North Korea

Doesn't Wikipedia have a WikiProject for North Korea ? We could ask its members if they reside in North Korea and request them to get a photo of Mr Kim by going to one of his rallies or launches or what you call it. How's my idea ? Also, on a completely different note, shouldn't this article be written in British English since English in Korea follows British grammar and spellings and according to WP:ENGVAR Mr Kim is of national importance to North Korea. 86.97.128.199 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• In North Korea, Internet access is restricted to a very small set of elite individuals. Thus, it would be extremely unlikely for us to have a community here of people who reside in North Korea. We might have a few North Korean ex-pats, but no in-residence community. As to variety of English, not sure that it matters. I think we can continue as we have been. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @86.97.128.199: In what conceivable way does North Korea have "strong national ties" to British English? AusLondonder (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rocket Man

The article should mention Trump's nickname for Un. It's newsworthy (and funny).