Jump to content

Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Verification of freely licensed images

If I were to (hypothetically) reach someone in Pyongyang and get an image of Kim Jong-un's picture displayed in a public place, and that person emailed it to me, would I have to have that person email permissions-commons or otherwise verify that they are licensing it freely or releasing it into the public domain? I want to make sure since it can be tricky to do properly and I want to be able to communicate it clearly to someone who doesn't speak perfect English. Tonystewart14 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I looked and noticed that it was originally uploaded to Flickr as a copyrighted image, but apparently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the CC-by-SA 2.0 license. My question was if that person sent it to me, but did not upload it elsewhere, would I have to take any additional steps to verify that the person who took it did in fact release it under a free license? In your example, I'm not quite sure how that bot verified it when Flickr said the user reserved all rights. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENT is what you are looking for to get the original photographer to acknowledge a free license on an image. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons OTRS has volunteers who use many languages, including Korean. Jonathunder (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tonystewart; others have answered your questions regarding consent. I just wanted to clarify the point about the cc-by-sa licensing of File:Laika ac Arirang Mass Games (7934629436).jpg. When the person who uploaded the image to Commons, the bot FlickreviewR checked the source and confirmed that at the time the image was uploaded to Commons, the licensing of the image as shown on Flickr was as indicated on the Commons duplicate. At some point after the image was confirmed to be under that license, the rights holder on Flickr changed the license to all rights reserved. They can do that if they like, but it has no legal standing. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Once you license something under that license, it is under that license in perpetuity. This is why it's important that the bot do its work, that we have proof via some process that the image was licensed as we attest it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your replies. I have read over those links and Hammersoft's last comment, and that has helped me understand everything better. I'll come back soon if I am successful in obtaining an image, and if so I'll have that person send an email to OTRS authorizing it as a freely licensed image. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there are any public pictures of Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and if any did appear, I think a tourist would donate a picture.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cannibalism

I don't think it's appropriate to have unsubstantiated reports of cannibalism in the "Human rights violations". The cited source describes these reports as "claims" and "lurid reports". The text is essentially copied on the North Korean famine page, where it seems more appropriate, and where it is noted that these reports conflict with what the World Food Program is saying. There is no specific connection to Kim Jong-un. I guess it was put here because it was sensational, but that's not a good criterion for inclusion. It's also not good to have a report of a supposed developing situation with no follow-up.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the last paragraph, as I agree that it belongs on the famine page, but isn't directly relevant to KJU. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be a support action for the Bolsheviks as Russians are believed to have been forced to commit anthropophagy and as a means of population subjugation since the twentieth century at the very least, in regard of Romanoff descent a disagreeable spiritual background and possibly Bolshevik allegations exist, possibly adjudged calumny and the Cheka was notorious for all we know. Humanity has committed isolated or more acts of cannibalism under anthropophagy under starvation,

Responses on image

I've received emails from three entities over the past several days regarding an image of Kim Jong-un. I asked AP Images, the University of Oregon, and Jaka Parker about providing a freely-licensed image of him. AP Images has a number of images of KJU, including this one of him waving. The University of Oregon has an e-Asia Digital Library website and a contact form where I inquired about the copyright status of an image on the cover of this book. Jaka Parker is an Indonesian who has lived in Pyongyang since 2012 and has a website with a number of pictures from the city and a few of other parts of the country.

Here are the responses I received from each:

AP Images:

This image will need to be purchased on our site and cannot be provided for free. Let me know the rights you are interested in and I can send over the steps on how to purchase.

University of Oregon:

Thanks for contacting us. Apologies for the delayed response. The E-Asia Digital Library was a project of a UO faculty member who has since passed away. My understanding is that everything on the site is presumed to be in the public domain or under Fair Use. The Foreign Languages Publishing House appears to be a state run publisher - in North Korea, documents for state management, current news or information data are not protected by copyright unless you’re planning to use the content for commercial purposes. As for the images themselves, I have no idea. For better information, I would suggest contacting the publisher. I hope this helps!

Jaka Parker:

Thanks for watch my videos on my channel , I hope you enjoyed it !

Formerly I wanna say sorry my bad english, my english is very very poor. So I hope you will understand it ..hehe

I already read the wikipedia link that you give to me, I agree witjh you, we must change the KJU's photo with the better one, I'll try find and taking picture the good one and then sent by email to you, I think I know where I can find it in Pyongyang.

From the looks of it, AP Images will not be a possibility; the Oregon site is a possibility, but the "unless you're planning to use the contact for commercial purposes" part might prevent any image from being considered freely-licensed by Wikipedia; and Jaka will likely be our best option. I received the email from him just four hours after sending it, but haven't heard anything in the past week. I'm not sure where he's referring to when he says he might know where an image is in Pyongyang, but to get an email from someone in North Korea who is also an avid photographer is a good start.

If anyone here happens to know someone who speaks Indonesian, it might be beneficial to email him in his mother tongue and ask if he was able to find an image of KJU in a public place, and if so, upload it to Wikimedia Commons directly with a free license. His email address is listed on his Instagram. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here. Sadly, North Korean state-run media and publishers are covered by copyright. See here [1], at the bottom of the page. (By the way, I don't understand why people assume there is a thriving private sector in North Korea. There isn't.)--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Precisely why is it "sad", Jack Upland, that the DPRK claims copyrights? The Beatles and the Disney Company and every bestselling author and recording artist claim copyright as well. Suppose you were an aspiring painter who had the talent to capture peaceful, relaxing imagery. Does some tea packaging company have the right to add a copy of one of your peaceful paintings to their tea packages without your permission, and without compensation? I don't think so. I own a microbusiness, and one of my tiny competitors poached some of my carefully written marketing language on their own website. Was I wrong to ask them to cease and desist? I don't think so. The DPRK has the same copy rights as I do, and as the hypothetical peaceful artist does. Please try to not infringe copyrights. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, "legitimate copyright" has nothing whatsoever to do with "thriving private sector". If that was the case, then I could reprint for profit the works of the full range of Soviet era novelists, without paying royalties. No, that is absurd, illegal and immoral. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You've totally misunderstood my comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Then why don't you clarify your comment, Jack Upland, so that other readers can understand what you actually meant to convey, instead of having to divine something radically different from the plain meaning of the words you type? Sadly, I do not have ESP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We really are going round in circles. It is "sad" in the sense that we can't use their images here. My comment about the private sector was in response to the reply from UO: "The Foreign Languages Publishing House appears to be a state run publisher". Well, of course it is. But, as you say, that doesn't mean their works are in the public domain. This would be untenable. The bottom line is that, as I said: "North Korean state-run media and publishers are covered by copyright". I don't know what you're arguing about.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The correct way to render the name is Kim Jong Un

"Kim Jong-un", with a hyphen, is the South Korean way to write Kim Jong Un and is incorrect. North Korean names are rendered as three separate names, with the family name first. The AP, AFP, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Economist and others all use North Korean convention (no hyphen) for North Korean names, and South Korean convention (hyphen) for South Korean names. South Korea changed its convention to include a hyphen in the first name if it was made up of more than one character. The Wikipedia rendering is a mix of North Korean spelling and South Korean style. South Korean spelling would be "Kim Jeong-eun". The current rendering "Kim Jong-un", is used online, is in large part propagated by the spelling on this page, and is ultimately incorrect. This, and other articles about notable North Korean people, should be using North Korean format (and no I do not mean writing the name large and in bold type face).Mrjaepres (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This may well be true. See here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mrjaepres and Anna Frodesiak: MOS:KOREA#Romanization:

"Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea."

(emphasis in original). To recap: we use a "mix of North Korean spelling" (more accurately: MR) but write names with a hyphen because this is the standard in all systems except for DPRK's variant thereof (which we don't use). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend. I thought there might be something in these archives, or maybe even MOS, but I didn't check. I figured someone here would know for sure and say. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And sorry to be a lazy-bones. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is the policy, but the effect can be very peculiar. Especially when people insist on adding hanja which North Korea also doesn't use.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Can I suggest this policy be looked at again? First of all, if we were using McCune-Reischauer here then "Kim Jong Un" would become "Kim Chŏng'ŭn" http://roman.cs.pusan.ac.kr/eng_result_all.aspx?input=%EA%B9%80%EC%A0%95%EC%9D%80. Secondly, in the interests of, among other things, objectivity, it seems fair to use North Korean style for North Korean names and places, and South Korean style for South Korean names and places. This would be consistent with the Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese Chinese methods of romanising Chinese on Wikipedia. Lastly, even South Korean style denotes that names should be romanised according to the preference of the person being named. In the case of North Korean names that would also technically mean ditching the hyphen. It seems odd that Wikipedia hasn't looked at this policy when most major media are using the "official" variant - Kim Jong Un. Which systems for romanizing are you referring to? There's Revised Romanisation (Gim Jeongeun), MR (Kim Chŏng'ŭn) then there is the South Korean standard, which includes a hyphen (Kim Jong-un). Wikipedia does not call Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou "Ma Yingjiu" in mainland Chinese style, so why does it call North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "Kim Jong-un"? Mrjaepres (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mrjaepres: all of your concerns are addressed in the guideline I linked above (MOS:KOREA#Romanization) as well as: WP:NCKOREAN#Given name. Specifically, while you are correct that MR for Kim Jong-un would be "Kim Chŏng'ŭn", the former guideline says: when common spelling found in English sources differs from any systematic romanization,

"use the name most common in English sources"

. I don't think I have to tell you that "Kim Jong-un" is far more common than "Kim Chŏng'ŭn". Now, personal preference is found in the latter guideline. But there is no personal preference by Kim Jong-un. That the state news agency uses the standard spelling in that country is not his personal preference. I have not encountered a statement by/of Kim Jong-un declaring any preference over this matter. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: In so much as he is the all-powerful one-man dictator of a country which writes his name 'Kim Jong Un' in every instance in English and he manages everything from executions to catfish farms I think it's safe to say his preference is Kim Jong Un, as per North Korean style. But that's beside the point. Kim Jong-un is indeed a common rendering but part of my argument is it is this very page which has helped propagate that whereas major media have stuck with North Korean style for North Korean names and South Korean style for South Korean names. It's interesting because I note the style guide you link to uses North Korean style for North Korea places, and South Korean style for South Korean places, but for North Korean names it becomes inconsistent and uses South Korean style. So why the inconsistency? As I've said above, not only is it technically incorrect, it is also not particularly objective (see the Taiwan/PRC reference), not to mention inconsistent with Wikipedia's own sense of style. The arguments for changing it seem far more convincing than the arguments to adhere to the current policy (and what use is policy if it can't be changed and improved over time?). Mrjaepres (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mrjaepres: Reviewing that section of the MoS in light of your arguments, I am inclined to agree that the guideline is inartfully constructed--and I think some discussion on the appropriate talk page to address the issue couldn't hurt. However, with regard to this particular article, I think the issue probably comes down to a reading of the much more broadly applicable WP:COMMONNAME guideline. The weight of sources favouring "Kim Jong-un" over alternative variations is just too great to ignore in this instance, given that the point of that policy is to serve the expectations of English-speaking readers and conformity with our sources. Outside such cases, however, I agree that all common names (be they toponyms or personal names) should utilize MR romanization, at least insofar as concerns topics for which our sources do not overwhelmingly use a different methodology. Snow let's rap 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems even more absurd to claim that Kim Il Sung did not have preference for the official spelling.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Has there ever been an attempt to change the WP:NCKOREAN#Given name and MOS:KOREA#Romanization guidelines to remove the potential and unintended pro-South biases from them? Do any obsolete (versions of) guidelines with conflicting preferences exist? The hyphen stuff grossly disregards any "personal preference" from North Korean people. The guideline talk page was not helpful at all in this regard. I would strongly support changing that hyphen nonsense at the very least, as it annoys me the most.
I traced the current hyphen guideline back to 18 April 2006, and weirdly enough this editor who introduced the current guideline section has been banned for sockpuppetry. He was also known for disruptive Korea-related editing and image uploading. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby. Two days before he changed the guideline this discussion happened. I am not comfortable with having a banned user's hasty and arbitrary guideline change without a clear established consensus used in day-by-day cases. The last non-corrupted guideline is here for reference. It looks like that even the original worries about duplicate Korean articles are obsolete, and the hyphenation may have made sense back in 2006 for maintenance reasons, but certainly does not now. We should move this discussion to the guideline talk, right? Ceosad (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I wasn't sure how to kick it off. Can we link back to the conversation here?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. In the meantime I will try to find more ancient discussions about this mess. Ceosad (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's a new year. Let's go forward, and not look back.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think that is a better choice! (I did not find anything useful from the talk archives.) Ceosad (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here if anyone wants to contribute.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un photo article and book

I thought it was a funny coincidence that I stumbled across this article called "Photographing Kim Jong-un" that also included a link to a Korean website with a book called "Kim Jong-un.jpg". It's like it was written with us in mind.

I have also noticed that North Korea is going through a harsh winter with sporadic electricity and running water. It might be a while before we are able to get a freely-licensed KJU image even if we are able to get one from a source inside the country. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious: how would the harsh winter affect this?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
When I initially contacted Jaka Parker, I received an email back in just 4 hours and he said he might know where a display of KJU was in Pyongyang. However, I followed up the next week and even had a Wikipedia admin email him in Indonesian, but have not received another response since. I suspect part of the reason is that since there is a lot of cold weather, snow, and limited power and water, he is more concerned with that than he is with the KJU photo and may have got distracted. The power issue also affects the already sporadic internet there. He has been posting to Instagram and YouTube, so it is certainly possible that he could get it, but it looks like it got lost in his to-do list. Tonystewart14 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wax figure in China

This might seem like a strange suggestion, but what about using a photo of this wax figure on display in China, assuming a freely-licensed one can be found. I'm not sure how the copyright works for wax figures, but even if it would be necessary to get permission both from the original creator and the photographer, it would probably still be easier than trying to find an actual photo of Kim. Of course the true nature of the image would have to be noted beneath the photograph, but the wax figure has a very lifelike appearance, at least.-RHM22 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

China has freedom of panorama for outdoor works only. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

KJU photo at Indonesian embassy

I came across this image on Facebook and noticed it had KJU's photo on a wall at a DPRK embassy. From my understanding, this should make it eligible for freedom of panorama and thus a freely-licensed image given that the photographer licenses it that way. If this is the case, please let me know so we can get someone in Jakarta (perhaps the same person) to retake it closer to KJU's image and license it freely or release into the public domain. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think images from Indonesia fall under our FOP..the best way to get him a pic is from someone in North Korea, if someone there can find a large pic of him on a public places like the side of a building or a wall, we can use that...until then, its bet to wait for him to travel to another country where we may be able to get a free pic ..--Stemoc 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Indonesia has no freedom of panorama to the degree we need it. Embassies seem to be a long shot. I asked about the Cuban embassy above. Cuba has FOP but only for permanent exhibitions, and this was not considered such. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Since we're still discussing the issue — some New Year's resolution that turned out to be! — I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that a photo of a photo is freedom of panorama. North Korea's copyright law says: "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied." Does that mean I can take a book into a public place and copy it? I don't think so. I suspect that to be legally compliant our image would have to include an amount of background scenery as well as the portrait...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
A photo of a photo, taken in a public place, is freedom of panorama, so long as the original is 'on display'. This probably means that whoever displays it has to have permission. If you construct a building, you obviously have a permission from the architect, as is the case if you commission a statue, display an ad, or - to bring things closer to our context - a propaganda mural. If you bring a book to a public place, that doesn't probably count. It isn't on display, either temporarily or permanently, with permission. As far as I know, the photo you take doesn't have to include anything else - this is at least how Commons interprets it. If you do include background, you can crop it and the resulting image is still free. Unlike de minimis, you don't need to concern how central the copyrighted piece is to your photo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your responses. I'm curious if one of the other embassies in fully FoP countries, such as Switzerland, has a display like this. According to Finnusertop's description above, it looks like this would be acceptable. Now we just need everyone to contact their Swiss friends and ask them to look!
On Jack's point, 90% of resolutions are broken, and alas, this was one of them. Although I don't want the photo issue to distract from the rest of the article, I do think we're on the right trail. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are making progress, and it's a good idea to air all these issues. I'm not convinced by Finnusertop's explanation, because I don't think I have to get the copyright owner's permission to display a photograph.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Sorry to disagree with the statements made, but embassies are legally extra-territorial, they are considered to be the 'territory' of the nation that owns the embassy itself, not the host nation. "Local" law is irrelevant in such a case, all that matters is North Korean law. Also, freedom of panorama itself is somewhat irrelevant here, in that FOP generally applies to the inclusion of copyrighted material in a wider image. If you crop an image to which FOP applies to include only the copyrighted content, then the resulting work is a 'reproduction' of that content, and a FOP exemption no longer applies. As a Commons admin, I have to say that I find it highly unlikely that a 'photo of a photo' of Kim would be considered allowable, unless it could be shown that the 'source' image was itself PD or freely licensed. Reventtalk 11:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective as a Commons admin. The photo of KJU is probably a KCNA photo, which would make it copyright, but perhaps if we included the entire display and captioned the image on the article with something like "Kim Jong-un is featured in a display (top center) at the DPRK embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia", then we could get around the 'reproduction' issue as it would only be one part of the display, albeit making KJU's image small in the article infobox. Please let us know if that would be acceptable (at least from a legal standpoint). Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a resource about FOP and cropping of wider images? Commons:Freedom of panorama says FOP images are derivative works in any case, so they include a 'reproduction' of the copyrighted work regardless of the how central they are to the image.
FOP images are usually taken with the purpose of including the copyrighted work as a central feature of the image (as opposed to them being incidentally present). In this sense, they are different from de minimis, which doesn't apply when cropped because they would become the central feature.
In the de minimis cropping case, the reason why they are considered trivial is changed: if the copyrighted work becomes central to the image, it is no longer just an incidental feature. In the FOP case, the reason why they are FOP isn't changed: they are FOP because it's a derivative of an original that was displayed in a public space, and this is true also after cropping. FOP isn't just a more lenient de minimis; the logic is entirely different.
In particular, what I think Commons:Freedom of panorama#Further derivative works is saying is that, under FOP, if I took a photo of a statue form the front, I can do whatever I want with that photo, which is a derivative of the statue. But it doesn't give me the right to make derivatives of the back side of the statue (or of photos from the front, taken by someone else). But the fact that the right to make derivatives of the original statue is not delegated, does by no means constrain my right to make derivatives of the photo I took (including cropping). Admittedly, this is about German law, but it only clarifies (or puts into law jargon) what we already knew and applies universally: a photo of a statue is not the statue itself, and thus only gives you the right to make derivatives to the extent of your photo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I've conflicted with you twice now, not rewriting again. :P
A photo such as that on Facebook would probably fall under de minimis, as long as it was clear that the intended subject was the display itself, and not the photo of Kim (which would disallow it being in the infobox). I can't really give you a good citation, because FOP is so variable, but the difference is that in FOP cases the copyrighted work is usually something three-dimensional.. a building, sculpture, or something similar... the photograph is not actually a 'reproduction' of the copyrighted object itself, but merely displays how it appears from a certain angle. It does not include the 'entire' work, but only a portion of it... a 'photograph of a photograph' is a different matter, since it includes the entire content of the copyrighted work. Also, and significantly, the works to which FOP are normally applied are things that were obviously explicitly intended for public display, because they were erected in that location. A photograph is an easily movable object, and can displayed by someone without the express permission of the copyright holder. (Please note that by using the word reproduction in quotes, I mean I'm not using it in the Berne Convention sense, but am trying to be explanatory.)
In 'reality', Freedom of Panorama is something that's not particularly compatible with discussion in terms of general principles, since it's 'highly' dependent on the exact laws of a specific country... from the translation of NK copyright law that I found, it's not very explicit... far less so than most nations, and I have no idea how to dig up any actual case law. The only actual 'precedent' I see in the Commons archives is a painting of Kim Il-Song, and it's not especially relevant because that exact image is displayed 'all over' North Korea, in 10-foot tall reproductions on top of buildings that are egregiously public. They are also obviously 'permanent'... not even a painting hung on a wall, but painted on a billboard.
If it came down to a DR on Commons... after actually looking at the translation of NK law, FOP could plausibly apply to this, even though it would not in most FOP countries, because the NK law is so vague... in translation, though. It would need a reasonably convincing argument, however, both that the actual location of display was clearly 'public', and, more importantly, that the display was authorized by the copyright holder (instead of just being the choice of a random local employee). If it just came up as a 'simple' DR with no comments, it would likely go away on grounds of general principles and the precautionary principle. Reventtalk 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe to clarify a bit more... an image of a three-dimensional work taken under FOP, cropped to include only portions of that three-dimensional work, still contains identifiable aspects of the creativity of the photographer (angle, lighting, etc)... it is indeed a derivative work. A photograph of a two dimensional work, taken under FOP, and cropped to include only the actual two-dimensional work, has expressly removed all aspects of the creative contribution of the photographer... it is no longer a derivative work, it is merely a (probably poor quality) reproduction, and is subject to only the copyright in the original two-dimensional work. Reventtalk 08:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I think you are misunderstanding the 'Further derivative works' section, which isn't incredibly relevant here, tbh. If I photograph a statue, and my photograph is legal under FOP, I only 'own' (and have the right to allow derivative works of) those aspects of the photo that are my own original work. That I took a photo under FOP does not allow someone to use my photo to create a duplicate of the original copyrighted work, or even only those aspects of it that are visible in my photo. Even if I can legally claim the 'use' of the original work in my photo, I don't own it, I only own my own creative contributions to my photo, and can only license the parts of the 'derivative work' (the photo) that I own. Otherwise, someone could simply photograph all aspects of a copyrighted work on public display, and then a third party could legally duplicate the entire original work from those photos. Reventtalk 16:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a common misconception that an embassy is "considered to be the 'territory' of the nation that owns the embassy itself" as our article on the subject explains. Jonathunder (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: I should have anticipated that someone would pick up on my 'technically incorrect' statement... I was, admittedly, just using the 'common notion' to avoid writing another few hundred words, since I thought it would be clear. Embassies are indeed not technically the 'sovereign territory' of the nation that is sending the diplomatic mission, they are still part of the host nation. They are, however, under the 'extra-territorial jurisdiction' of the laws of the nation sending the mission... what's relevant here is that it has in the past generally been accepted that for the purpose of copyright, the laws of the nation sending the mission apply... it is the 'source nation' of the work. For instance, photographs taken by US Government employees on the grounds of the embassy in London are considered to be in the public domain as US government works, disregarding the fact that no such exemption to copyright exists under UK law (if such images were treated as 'UK source' works, we could not host them without a license from either the photographer, or possibly the US government if the photographer assigned their rights to it). This is a bit irrelevant here, however, as the actual photo of Kim is itself presumably a 'North Korean-source work', actually taken in North Korea, and protected under a North Korean copyright. Since Commons, by policy, respects only the copyright status in the 'source nation' and the US, even if the display of the photo on the grounds of an embassy changed it's status under the laws of the host nation (and I am strongly of the opinion it would not) that would be irrelevant for our purposes. The suggestion made, that someone should find a display of the image at an embassy in a country with liberal FOP provisions simply does not work to change the status of the image of Kim itself. What matters with regard to it is the North Korean copyright law, and it's not clear that a display such as that shown would invalidate it's copyright protection. Reventtalk 08:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
A major part of the issue here is that the "consensus" clique have implied that it is somehow easy to get a free use image. But it's not. It appears we need to wait until Kim visits Russia.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It might be worth noting that there was a comment by the OP on the Facebook post saying that the display was on the outside of the embassy near the sidewalk, so that probably reinforces Revent's comment about FoP not applying.
  • For Jack's comment, there are quite a few Instagram photographers in the DPRK, so it's possible that KJU could make a public appearance and get photographed by them.
  • For Revent, thank you for clarifying this as it will save us a lot of time trying to get embassy photos. Even if it means not being able to get an acceptable photo for a while, at least we can stop spinning our wheels. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Kim was formerly known as Kim Jong-woon or Kim Jung-woon.[16] His name was first reported as 김정운 (Hanja: 金正雲; lit. righteous cloud), possibly as a result of an error in transliteration; the Japanese language does not distinguish between 운 (/un/) and 은 (/ɯn/).[citation needed] 

I believe this should not say the Japanese Language -Korean language is what it should say.


Kejjer (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Japanese is right, but it seems pointless to document a mistake. Maybe this whole paragraph should be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the "Name" section is justified. The first part is obviously confusing to readers, but appears to be only about an initial misreporting of the name. The second part is about an alleged order that no one else can have his name. The source states: "The authenticity of the official directive could not be independently verified, and Seoul’s unification ministry declined to comment on whether it was genuine." I will delete it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Executions of grandchildren of relatives of opponents in the lead

@Finnusertop: I think such a remarkable fact belongs in the lead. I agree that the wording should be clear. As a secondary consideration, I want to keep it short. In this case, I can't see how to do all three at once. I think the first two considerations are the most important. How about the following:

Since taking power, Kim has ordered a series of executions of officials he deems to have disobeyed him, and of their family members. In the case of Jang Sung-taek, this included the grandchildren of all close relatives. CometEncke (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, CometEncke, that's better. You can update it to read what you've suggested. Others might have an idea how to further improve it. I was only concerned that the bit about grandchildren was somewhat disconnected when you first added it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks, I agree with you that my original version could have been clearer. CometEncke (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The source concludes: "The reports have not been independently verified, though Yonhap, which has close links to the South Korean government, is regarded as one of the more reliable sources of North Korean news." This "remarkable fact" might well not be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting question. I would suggest we start at Yonhap[2], as the other reports appear to be based on it. Yonhap itself refers to "multiple sources" but does not say what those sources are (possibly for very good reason -- they may themselves be from North Korea). CometEncke (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I inserted "reportedly" in the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Which makes the text clearly true, but I'm not sure it's the optimal way to handle this. At this point, I'm not sure which of the three options (no mention, "reportedly", or without "reportedly" is best. I wonder if we should take this one to the BLP noticeboard. The regulars there might appreciate a case where the people who bring it there are not at war with one another. It puts the policy question into clear focus, without the noise of the battles that typically accompany such cases. CometEncke (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking of raising this issue in general, because it's come up several times in various ways. We could construct an article, supported by voluminous citations from "reliable sources", that said that Kim was addicted to Swiss cheese, was handing out copies of Mein Kampf, was recruiting "pleasure squads", had executed his ex-girlfriend, had poisoned his aunt, had fed his uncle to savage dogs, and had executed his uncle's grandchildren. It would be a very amusing article, and perhaps some of it would actually be true. However, in the sober spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines, and with the sombre realisation that many of such reports in the past have been total crap, I think we need to filter these "facts". If the "fact" is outlandish and the source itself does not endorse its veracity, perhaps the "fact" doesn't belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, in North Korea, "three generations of punishment" has been the norm for quite some time [3]. So, although outlandish to us, in the context of North Korea it actually makes perfect sense, I'm sorry to say. As for the rest of it, I think the things to do are these: First, we should find all the secondary sourcing we can. By "secondary sourcing", I mean, for example, the Yonhap report I linked above. Reports that are based on it are useful *only* for what they say about Yonhap. What they say about the event itself we can disregard, unless they have done independent reporting of their own. Once we've done that, we should use it as a springboard to raise the issue in general, yes. CometEncke (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I found this [4]. It refers to a report by Free North Korea Radio. Any Korean speakers out there who can find/listen to what Free North Korea Radio had to say? In particular, was it independent of Yonhap's reporting, or was one of them based on the other? CometEncke (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that article from the Economist cites the case of Shin Dong-hyuk who has admitted his story was fabricated. With regard to Yonhap, "one of the more reliable sources" is hardly a ringing endorsement. And since North and South are virtually in a state of war, being close to the South Korean government suggests that its reportage of the DPRK might be propagandistic. Take the case of Hyon Song-wol. Countless "reliable sources" and "experts" proclaimed that Kim had executed her, and provided copious "insightful" analysis. In fact, it was a transparent lie. I think we need to be judicious in including these lurid stories, particularly if sources say that the "facts" are not verified.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the "three generations of punishment" referred to in that article is known as Samjok (삼족) in Korea. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
benlisquare, do you read Korean? Part of our problem here is that the other contributors to this thread don't seem to So we can only go with foreign sources' descriptions of how strong the Korean sourcing is; we can't look at the Korean sourcing itself. Can you help us with that?CometEncke (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not very well. I wouldn't recommend relying on me for checking Korean-language sources, it would be a better idea to get the input from a native Korean speaker instead. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
South Korean sources are notoriously unreliable. Apparently Yonhap is considered more reliable than Chosun Ilbo, for example. They are also biased. In fact, they are not able to report neutrally. People can still be put in jail in the South for supporting the North. See 2013 South Korean sabotage plot.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

Change the photo to an actual photo of Kim Jong Un

Harry3670 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Not done: Sorry, but this has been heavily debated. The most recent RfC was this past November, which failed to achieve consensus to use a non-free image of him. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am curious to know whyy he doesn't have a non free image,that's seems strange... Prompri (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • We've debated many times about whether to use a non-free image of him. There's never been consensus to do so. The most recent discussion was the November RfC, which did not achieve consensus to use a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KCTV videos on YouTube

A lot of footage of Kim Jong-un is published on the official KCTV channel on YouTube. Is it possible to use it under YouTube licence? Same question about the AP archive. Al-Douri (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Both would be treated as non-free on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with Masem. Publishing of content on YouTube under their standard license does not constitute release of the work under a free license. While it is possible to publish content on YouTube under a free license, both of these resources are not published under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses on requests for donated photos

After the RfC on using a non-free image three months ago, various people made attempts to contact copyright-holders and request an image be donated. Would they mind documenting their results for future reference?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Here's something I posted in January. I contacted three different entities, one newswire, one academic, and one freelance, to try to obtain an image. Anything from AP Images would violate NFCC #2 as it would eliminate any commercial opportunities if they released an image under a free license, and the site indicates their images are for editorial (non-commercial) use only. The University of Oregon images, which are from a North Korean publisher, do not allow commercial use either. Jaka indicated initially he thought he knew where a photo of KJU would be in North Korea, but never got back to me on it despite me (and even an Indonesian-speaking admin) following up with him about it. And this was posted before the comment by Revent, so it looks like the only way that would have worked anyway is if Jaka or one of the photographers there, like Shane O'Hodhrain, Eric Talmadge, etc. actually took a picture of KJU directly and made that image freely licensed.
Here are the responses I received from each:
AP Images:
   This image will need to be purchased on our site and cannot be provided for free. Let me know the rights you are interested in and I can send over the steps on how to purchase.
University of Oregon:
   Thanks for contacting us. Apologies for the delayed response. The E-Asia Digital Library was a project of a UO faculty member who has since passed away. My understanding is that everything on the site is presumed to be in the public domain or under Fair Use. The Foreign Languages Publishing House appears to be a state run publisher - in North Korea, documents for state management, current news or information data are not protected by copyright unless you’re planning to use the content for commercial purposes. As for the images themselves, I have no idea. For better information, I would suggest contacting the publisher. I hope this helps!
Jaka Parker:
   Thanks for watch my videos on my channel , I hope you enjoyed it !

   Formerly I wanna say sorry my bad english, my english is very very poor. So I hope you will understand it ..hehe
   I already read the wikipedia link that you give to me, I agree witjh you, we must change the KJU's photo with the better one, I'll try find and taking picture the good one and then sent by email to you, I think I know where I can find it in Pyongyang.

Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Per User_talk:Rolf_h_nelson#The_Kim_Jong-un_image, I'm asking here if there are any objections to the use of an image of an alleged warhead like [5] at North Korea and weapons of mass destruction; the image obviously meets fair-use criteria as these images have specifically been commented on by experts, for example [6]: 'And it is possible that the silver sphere is a simple atomic bomb. But it is not a hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear bomb," he said, explaining that a thermonuclear device probably would be a different shape because of its two stages.' I guess it's theoretically possible the alleged warhead will visit the U.S. someday and get its picture taken here and be added to the public domain, if a photographer had a really fast shutter rate and could upload the photo really quickly, but it's more likely no public domain photo will ever be available. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Kim may not be the most prominent feature. I should maybe restore the image and let others decide its fate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Can/should it be used as the lead image in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you are direct, my friend. I'll give you that. Any reason? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Anna, Hammersoft's short and to-the-point answer is correct. Non-free use images are normally only included in a single article that the image is directly relevent to, and for which there is a compelling non-free use rationale (see Meeting the minimal usage criterion). As the image is already included in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction it would not normally be allowed to be included in any other Wikipedia article, and furthermore there is no good non-free use rationale for including this or another similar photo in the Kim Jong-un article. BabelStone (talk)
Hi BabelStone. Very educational indeed. I've been here for years and am still trying to understand all the nuances of non-free images. I actually might have known that but forgot. Thank you kindly for the valuable info. I will remember it and cite it if such a case arises again. All the best, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • AF, please forgive my abrupt answer. I've often been accused of being more verbose than a writer being paid by the word. Rare is the occasion that I'm accused of having a short answer :) I'll revel, for a moment, in the glow of success. Ok done. :) BabelStone answered to the gist of it. Another related issue that sometimes comes up is people think that if Image X is in use in Article A, then it would make sense to use it in Article B since we already have the image here on the project. This sidesteps the issue of per article minimum and more abstractly that the project's product isn't image space or any other space but the main article space. If we use Image X on Article B we just doubled the use of the image. Now, if there were a solid reason to use it, then sure. But, to use it just because it's already in use somewhere else isn't permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Abrupt answer, forgiven, dear Hammersoft. Literary Minimalism. Artistic, not abrupt. (Anna-style Haiku)
Sidesteps! Yes, I was wondering about that. I was chatting in IRC about the guidelines and I said "loophole". Nobody gave a clear yes or no. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This is covered under WP:NFCC#10c, in that every use of the item has to have a fair use rationale, justifying its use in each instance of use. Thus, if you use Image X on Article A and Article B, it has to have a rationale for both articles. Even beyond that; there are rare cases where Image X might be used multiple times on Article A, in which case it needs an independent fair use rationale for each use on Article A. A case example of this is Love Symbol Album, where File:Prince logo.svg is used twice, but there's only one rationale for usage on that article; that's a failure of WP:NFCC#10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah the old sneak-it-in-right-at-the-bottom trick. I must have read that page a zillion times and zoned out each time just before then. I promise to stop scanning and start reading more thoroughly! Thank you again, Hammersoft! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Since we're back on this topic, can we look at expanding the FAQ and linking to the RfCs? Also, would it be possible to have a link near the image?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that whole fair use discussion on an image of Kim Jong-Un needs to be reopened and the overly rigid policy reexamined, as I find it ridiculous that we can't justify the use of a single photo of Kim Jong-Un to display on the page about Kim Jong-Un Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Except that the resolution on the non-allowance of non-free for living persons extends from the Foundation, our policy reflects that. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As I noted, the last RfC on the matter closed just 3 months ago. It's unlikely consensus has changed since then. Further, the number of people supporting a view that we should allow an exception to our fair use policy in this case would need to at least triple. That's highly unlikely to happen in any new RfC started in the foreseeable future. You are welcome to your view that the stance is idiotic. Nevertheless, it is clear your opinion does not represent the consensus. Not withstanding the above, if you feel so motivated to start a new RfC, nobody stands in your way. Instructions on how to proceed are located here. I dare say though you will be disappointed at the result. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting that during those three months, a Wikimedia Commons administrator clarified the rules on obtaining an image through freedom of panorama provisions. Previously, it was argued that we could get an image from somewhere with liberal FoP provisions as long as it was on an embassy or other public building. It turns out that is not the case - see the discussion with the user Revent above. So we will need an image that is freely licensed from the start. We did not realize this during the first RfC, so a subsequent one is likely to be even less favorable to your stance. As absurd as it may sound, and as much as I also wish that we could get a high-quality image added, Wikipedia and copyright rules simply do not allow it at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that argument cuts the other way. It's far harder to get a free image than defenders of the status quo argued.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There wasn't a consensus at all. We only have a result, if one that is VERY unsatisfying for this article. A consensus, however, would mean that we found a common solution with which everyone is content. We don't have that at all. Quite the opposite is the case! In fact there are some people who keep using the same old arguments as ever. Those aruments, however, don't become more relevant just by repeating them over and over and over. How many times have some here claimed that someone just needs to go to North Korea to take an image of Kim Jong-un? Dozens of times, maybe hundreds. But it very obviously never happened - simply because it is not possible! The point is, North Korea is a fierce dictatorship where you cannot do things the same way as in other countries. In the USA you may have a good chance to take a selfie with President Obama when visiting the White House. Or even the Queen in Buckingham Palace. If you tried to approach Kim for photograph you would very likely end up being arrested by North Korean officials and sentenced to ever so many years in a labour camp. Trying to take a picture of Kim would, by all means, be considered a lot worse than trying to snatch some propaganda paper. Well, yes, he is a living person. But, "incarcerated for life", that's the truth - Kim HAS incarcerated himself in his own country! That changes everything. Therefore the fair use rationale makes a lot of sense. Let's use it!--Maxl (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not an exceptional case, that's the thing. NFCC#1 is based on the possibility of a free image being available, not the difficulty. It's recognized that barring an external agency, to get a picture of Jong-un would require the cost of going to NK and the timing to get a photo while he was outside in public, but it remains possible; neither of these are impossible tasks. Counter that to the few times we do allow non-free: people that are in prison (where access is impossible for the average person) or on the run from the law, or someone that is a known recluse that would normally not allow themselves to be seen in public. If we weaken the case here just because of how important Jong-un is to world politics, it creates slippery slope for using non-free for any person simply because it's difficult to get a free image. NFCC#1 and the WMF is irrespective of difficulty as long as a reasonable possibility exists. (And no, it is a invalid argument that Jong-un "incarcerated" himself in NK. He doesn't travel much but he does. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Just the old argument again... Of course it is an exceptional case - or we'd have an image already. And an argument is not invalid just because it doesn't support your own arguments. The point is not that he isn't traveling but that he is not allowing anyone to approach. That's the kind of incarceration I meant. And that would fit into what you said about a "known recluse". You say the NFCC is "based on the possibility of a free image being available". But in this case the "possibility" is so extremely diminuitive that it borders on non-existence. This is why this case is an exceptional one, and your denial does not change things one little bit. And if you don't like the fair use rationale being used for an image in this article you could at least look the other way. I understand that there is more than enough to do elsewhere on the Wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
No it is not exceptional. There are lot of BLPs articles out there that lack free images of the person (see Category:Wikipedia requested images of people). There's only the emphasis here being that Jong-un is a world leader, but for an encyclopedia, we don't make a different between, say, an academic professor or an athlete and a world leader. And no, the chance of getting an image is not non-existant, given how many press images there are of him. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course it is exceptional. It's not "not exceptional" just because you say so. It's your private opinion to which you are entitled. Well, I didn't bring up the world leader thing. But since you did: If YOU don't wish to make a difference between an academic professor and a world leader that's up to you to decide - but why do you use a "Royal we" if you mean yourself? The case however, is exceptional not just BECAUSE he is a world leader but also, and more importantly, because he is so exceedingly inapproachable. As I said before, if you don't like the fair use rationale being used on an image of Kim just look the other way. You arent'r required to like it. But you can be expected to accept sense. --Maxl (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
"exceedingly inapproachable" is not true. Yes, for, say, an American, it can be difficult to get into NK (but it's not impossible), but we do not consider that part of the difficulty, and given recent talks between SK and NK, that barrier is getting easier for SK citizens to enter. He's certainly around in public areas in his country, we've got plenty of press images. Now, no, we're likely not going to have a perfectly-framed portrait image of him, sitting and posing for the photo, that was taken by a user, but we also don't care about quality - we want free content over anything else. That's why this is so important here: the lack of an image of a world leader seems like the poster case to allow for non-free, but at the same time that would completely undermine the WMF's resolution and NFCC#1, and why this is a critical page to avoid falling back to non-free just because it's "hard" to get an image. It's not impossible nor improbable to get, nor requires a person to risk life and limb to get, it just requires working with the right editors that are in the right places to figure out how to do it. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Obtaining a picture of Kim in North Korea is so improbable as to be practically impossible. Kim only appears at tightly controlled events where the media image/message can be fully controlled, he doesn't press the flesh with the general population and certainly not with groups of foreigners. I visited NK some years ago and all of our movements were strictly monitored, I understand that major events which Kim would be likely to attend are even more controlled and largely closed to foreigners, so I don't see any realistic possibility of any non-North Korean obtaining a usable photo in the forseeable future. In these circumstances and given that attempts have been made unsuccessfully to obtain permission to use other images, this seems an obvious case where an image can be fairly used until a free use image becomes available, probably when he does a trip to Russia as that seems to be where most of the Kim Jong-Il photos come from. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But he still appears in public events, even if he's surrounded by security; for all purposes, he's as accessible as someone like President Obama to the average person (in that you will likely never be able to get close to him) No, we're not going to get a nice tight framed shot, but it still remains possible to get a photo of him at such events. NFCC#1 doesn't care if other attempts have been made and failed, just that the possibility exists, which still does. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Mztourist, I have not and will not accept the usage of non-free content until such time as a free image becomes available. The only time I permit non-free content is when it can not be created in a free form. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maxl: Consensus does not mean everyone is content. From Wikipedia:Consensus; "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". The last RfC was closed by an uninvolved editor who noted we can not use a non-free image of Kim Jong-un. You are welcome to make a request to review the closing decision, but given the weight of arguments voice by many opposing inclusion of a non-free image it is exceedingly unlikely to be overturned. Also, while arguments that are repeated are not more valid due to repetition, they are not less valid either. If it is not possible to take a photograph of Kim Jong-un, then please explain this. Regardless of your opinions of North Korea, Kim Jong-un is not incarcerated. The proof of that is we have obtained free images of his father and grandfather. If we can obtain free images of both of them, we can get one of Kim Jong-un.
  • To get to brass tacks here; you apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) adamantly oppose the closing decision of the last RfC. You apparently believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that those of us who disagree with the use of a non-free image here do not "accept sense" (quoting you). You are welcome to your opinion. You are also welcome to start a new RfC. As I noted to Mztourist, given that the last RfC closed just a few months ago, it's extremely unlikely that consensus has changed. Nevertheless, you are welcome to do so. I dare say that continuing the debate via this talk page will be unsuccessful. Nobody has apparently become convinced of the veracity of your position, nor have you become convinced of the veracity of the consensus opinion expressed at the last RfC. A thorough read of the archives of this talk page would be quite instructive. The most polite thing to do at this point is to agree to disagree, and follow the outcome of the last RfC unless a new one is initiated. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be of any use to try to make you see sense. You just CLAIM that it is possible to get an image of him, and whenever someone tells you that's not true and tells you why it is not true you repeat yourself like a cracked record. What I see here is that we have a few people who are extremely opposed to finding a sensible solution to this problem. And if I read the archives of this talk page I'll just see that you repeated the same thing over and over, not that repeating things again and again makes them more true. The problem is that you are sticking with your opinion claiming it's the only valid one and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong per se. As long as you refuse to see sense it's not much use continuing this discussion. The archives just prove that you have been sticking to your opinion and have claimed again and again that Kim Jong-un is approachable when he isn't. I've been involved with this discussion for a while, and I've heard your arguments for years and in several years you have not brought anything new. You keep making claims that Kim is approachable and you discard all arguments to the opposite. And when someone tells you to prove your arguments for a change, let's say, travel to North Korea and try to get an image, you say that's not what you need to do because you don't need to prove anything. I just wonder what really is behind your fierce opposition to adding a sensible image of Kim to this article. --Maxl (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue here is understanding that WP is a free content encyclopedia, built on the idea that we do not use non-free content if free content can be obtained otherwise within reason. The last part is where there is wiggle room, as the WMF and our policies recognize there are legit cases that we can't make free images of living persons: people that are known recluses that avoid public appearances, people on the run from the law, and people that are prison are core examples. Jong-un fits none of those. He has appeared in many public events in NK, and while of course he's well protected and separated from the common citizen there, that doesn't mean he's hidden from view. NK is not a closed country to everyone else outside it, so no one would be risking their life or violating the law to get into NK. Obviously, if you ran up to Jong-Un's face to grab a photo, that would get you in trouble real fast, but a photo taken from a distance that still has him image rather clear would be reasonable and without any possibility of breaking a law. We're treating the availability of a free image in the same manner that we expect information to be verifyable - it may take time, it may require travel, it may require money to access, but as long as there are no other special privileges needed to get there and no breaking of the law or risk to ones life, then we'd consider there to be a possible free photo that someone can take, and that we disallow the non-free to be used. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maxl, what you describe as "sense" and what I describe as "sense" differ. That doesn't make me wrong and you right, or vice versa. We disagree. That's all. Presuming that I lack sense because I can not see your point of view is encroaching on a personal attack. I don't care that you insult me. I do think you should care that making insults towards other people does nothing to enhance your position; rather the opposite. I encourage you to find other means of sustaining the veracity of your opinions than descending to such depths. That is, unless your goal is not to convince other people to use a non-free image. As for repeating arguments; you accuse those who oppose you of doing this, yet do it yourself. For example, in the last RfC you've claimed Kim Jong-un is a special case. Yet here in this very discussion you are once again claiming its an exceptional case. This idea of it being an exceptional case was refuted in the RfC. Yet here, months later, you're still repeating it. So, we're criticized for doing this, but it's ok for you to do it? Since you are so confident there are only "a few people who are extremely opposed", why don't you start a new RfC? That's where your solution lies. You're not convincing me obviously, nor anyone else in this thread. We're not convincing you either. Continuing this debate will not change the status quo. Continued discussion seems rather pointless, no? So, start a new RfC! Directions are that way. I look forward to your well thought out argument as to why we should violate core principles and policy on this issue. Looking forward to the new RfC, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
MASEM North Korea is a "closed country", entry is very tightly controlled and the suggestion that you can just travel to NK and snap a usable picture of Kim at a public event is implausible. Hammersoft, Maxl wasn't making any personal attack on you, rather he was querying your rigid approach and refusal to contemplate any practical solution to this issue, but you're right this is not the place to discuss this further so we will have to open a new RFC. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course its tightly controlled, but that does not mean it is impossible, and it doesn't have to be someone from a Western country that takes the necessary photo. NFCC#1's free alternative is not based on everyone having the opportunity to take a free placement, but that anyone that is a member of the general public can take one. Just because no one in this discussion is likely in a possible to take this photo is inconsequential to NFCC. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
as I said above, so improbable as to be practically impossible, you and Hammersoft are being completely unrealistic in persisting in the view that a visitor to North Korea or a North Korean or North Korean resident will be able to take a usable photo.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
all very tightly controlled, so not a single free-use image among them...Mztourist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Re "practical solution"; There's really no such thing in this case. There's no middle ground to be compromised to. We either allow a non-free image or we do not. There's nothing in the middle. If I'm guilty of refusing to contemplate using a non-free image, you're just as guilty of refusing to contemplate following our policy preventing the use of a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We have been following policy...for years...and so its time to see if that policy (or its interpretation and application) makes sense when after all this time no free use image has become available Mztourist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Policy and the WMF resolution are not based on how long that no free image has been unable to be located, simply on the possibility one can be generated, which still is a non-zero possibility for this case. (Otherwise, we'd have people going "Oh, X years have passed without an image of this person, let's use a non-free". This doesn't happen). It might be frustrating, but this is core to the nature of Wikipedia's free content mission. To give up simply because its "too hard" is not helpful and is a slippery slope to worsening non-free usage. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, if after a number of years a non-free use image is not available, then the policy (or its interpretation and application) needs to be revisited. We are talking 1 image of a world leader here hardly a "slippery slope to worsening non-free usage" Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As I've previously noted, nobody is convincing anybody of anything. We're just going around in circles. If you do not like the status quo, then I invite you to start a new RfC. While it is highly unlikely that consensus has changed given the last RfC closed just 3 months ago and that circumstances haven't changed, there is nothing stopping you from trying. There lies your only chance of getting what you want. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't propose to start a new RfC, rather a change to the policy and/or guidelines either to clarify a timeframe or sensible limits on "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible)" and "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia" or to provide a specific exception for world leaders.Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can't change policy, you'll have to ask the WMF to change their stance from m:Resolution:Licensing policy, which has " An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." And we can't make exceptions for world leaders because that's a slippery slope to any other notable individuals that we just don't happen to have pictures of. Remember, Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world, we are not required to have pictures of every person we have an article about. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Who says the policy can't be changed? You mention "reasonably expect" which just follows from the same wording I quoted. Once again with the slippery slope argument... Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

I think the picture of Kim Jong Un should be changed to an actual picture of him rather than an artist's rendition. This picture would be a good choice http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/external?url=http://content6.video.news.com.au/g4NmplbDpm8fZ-WPYFuu8BX5kigd-Gfu/promo220143216&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc. --Teelo888 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exclusivity

I recently went back to the AP Images site where I found this image and noticed that if you login and click "Get price", it has a line at the top of a pop-up that says "Need exclusivity or personal use?" and lists a phone number. I'm wondering if "exclusivity" means that you can pay for the image to be freely licensed. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I might email the rep I talked to a few months ago (and wrote their comment in Jack's post above) and ask what they mean by it. I want to run it by this talk page first to see if anyone knows more or if that would be an acceptable way to get a Wikipedia image if they allow that.

It would fit both NFCC #1 if they freely license it (I'll ask for CC BY-SA 4.0) and NFCC #2 if they set a price that will be fair to them and compensate for whatever income would be lost by having it freely licensed. They might also make it "royalty free", although I'm not sure that would be considered freely licensed by Wikipedia's standards. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI "exclusivity" generally means you pay extra so that your competitors in some narrow domain can't use the image. It doesn't generally give you extra bonus rights with the image. I kind of get where you're coming from, that you could ask the salesman if there's precedent for the AP to make a really broad "exclusive" deal such that nobody else on the planet could license a photo, and point out that if so, their management might be talked into allowing the salesman to make a deal to freely license it for the same price, since arguably it's the same forgone revenue either way (although one might also argue that the AP loses more money in the freely-licensed situation if it provides a free substitute for other photos the AP owns.) Even so, though, I'm skeptical buying the image, rather than leaving the article with a drawing, would be an optimal use of money for anyone. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I noticed a page on Getty that briefly described it, but AP didn't and it was still unclear. I agree about the AP revenue coming from an exclusive license would be from one source anyway, so a free license shouldn't be an issue, although it might be too much of an unusual circumstance for them to custom license it. They do have some royalty free images, although the KJU one I asked for was primarily intended for editorial use only and required contacting the sales rep for commercial licensing. As for the price, you may well be correct, especially considering the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but if nothing else it would settle the free vs. non-free image debate once and for all if they at least offer a freely licensed image of him.
Also, an interesting coincidence: When I contacted the AP sales rep, I received an auto-reply saying that person was out of the office until Thursday and suggesting other people to contact about various specific inquiries. One of them was for VICE, who we have tried to reach out to in the past but didn't get a response likely because we were talking to generic VICE or HBO contacts. I can ask this person about getting a still frame from their Dennis Rodman documentary, which wouldn't affect the value of the documentary overall and would give us a real image of KJU. This might at least be a backup if the AP image can't be freely licensed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I received a generic reply from the AP contact about editorial (non-commercial) licensing, so I replied back and asked about commercial use and if any images of KJU from their library are eligible for commercial licensing. I also asked about using a still frame from the VICE documentary. It might be too soon to mention free licensing, so I'll just ask about commercial use for now to keep it simple and go from there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have been exchanging emails with the AP contact and was told that the VICE contact was someone else, but I also emailed the generic VICE photo contact listed on their website (photoeditor@vice.com) and will post in Jack's section above once I get a response answering whether an image can be used on Wikipedia. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Funny thing: I just noticed in my spam box that the VICE email was rejected because their inbox is full. I'll try again next week. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

New FOP images found

I've found two FOP images of Kim:

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. The images work (cropping to include the screen so that its clear its an artifact of the LED video) to illustrate, but there's a question of whether the video source on the screen is a copyrighted work that FOP itself wouldn't cover, just as an ad poster on the side of a building isn't necessarily free. I don't know enough on the image source, and the nature of the broadcast to say its not possible, and the copyright laws there, just that I think we need to assure a few things. I would note that the first one, even if the video source was copyrighted, it would fall under de minimus and still be fine as a free image, just that it doesn't illustrate Jong-un well. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The thing with FOP is that we only[1] need to care about what the law of the country the work was created in and the photo was taken in say.[2] The relevant law may or may not set additional restrictions on either the nature of the original work (such as permanence of display, certain types of three-dimensional artwork only, etc.) or on the subsequent use of the photograph (e.g. no commercial use, no derivatives, etc.).[3] Here, we are concerned with the North Korean copyright law only, because that is where both the KCTV broadcast seen in the picture was made and the photograph was taken. This is the entirety of what that law has to say on FOP: "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright holder in the following cases: [...] 8. when a copyrighted work in public places is copied;"[4][5] Crucially, this means that there are no restrictions on the nature of the reproduced ("copied") work, except for that it has to be "in public places".[6][7] Neither does the copyright law set any constrains on the subsequent use of the reproduction. This means that we can make any derivative we like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. The KCTV broadcast is copyright, and while we can readily presume they were gave permission to have it displayed in this public space, that doesn't cause the copyright of the work to disappear. That screen image is still copyrighted to KCTV. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Good finds. Unfortunate that the quality is so low, and probably too low really to use in the infobox. But, one thing this definitively shows it is possible to get a picture in North Korea and have it usable for our purposes. We just need a better one. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ On Wikimedia Commons the image must be free in both the source country and in the U.S. (c:COM:L), hence, strictly speaking we do need to concern the laws of U.S. as well as the country the uploader is in. This is, however, entirely trivial as we are not dealing with expiry issues that this might have been affected by U.S. law (WP:NUSC); no discrepancy can arise from public domain status earned by FOP. However, see c:Template:Not-free-US-FOP which discusses theoretical exceptions, but concludes in: "The current policy on Commons is to accept photos of artwork and sculptures that are covered by freedom of panorama in their source country."
  2. ^ c:COM:FOP:#Choice of law: "The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken." (emphasis added)
  3. ^ See e.g. c:COM:FOP:#Nuances in the panorama freedom for a study on what the German copyright law says and how it translates into such restrictions. These particular restrictions do not apply in this case.
  4. ^ http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/kp/kp001en.pdf#5 Article 32 (Use of copyrighted work without permission) of The Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (2006), English translation at WIPO.
  5. ^ In addition, some definitions on the terms used in the preceding passage can be found in the law. E.g. Article 9 posits that both television broadcasts and photographs are copyrightable works ("objects of copyright").
  6. ^ This is also how Commons has always interpreted it. See c:COM:FOP#Map and c:COM:FOP#Korea (North). See also the relevant FOP cases of cropped images: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Il Song Portrait-2.jpg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Il Song Portrait.jpg
  7. ^ The only reservation is that the work needs to be placed or performed in public with the permission of the copyright holder, of course. Taking a work outdoors to snap a photo of it doesn't cut it if you have not consulted the copyright holder. Here that fear is mitigated by the fact that it's a public institution (the city of Pyongyang, or some related authority) broadcasting the work of KCTV (the public broadcaster). There is no doubt that this was done with permission.
I think these photos are only acceptable under FOP because the image of KJU is so low quality. Despite what the NK law seems to say, I don't think a photo of a photo would be acceptable.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth bringing up this discussion where a Commons admin said in part, "freedom of panorama itself is somewhat irrelevant here, in that FOP generally applies to the inclusion of copyrighted material in a wider image. If you crop an image to which FOP applies to include only the copyrighted content, then the resulting work is a 'reproduction' of that content, and a FOP exemption no longer applies." It looks like that is still the case here, alas. The photoeditor@vice.com email still says the inbox is full, and I haven't got a reply from AP (which is already a longshot anyway), so I don't have too many ideas beyond that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The contradiction in the consensus clique is that they claim there are "millions" of photos of Kimbo, then shoot down every example given. In fact, it is very difficult to get a usable photo. Wikipedia doesn't demand a free photo in every instance, but here it does. Let's just accept the recent RfC and wait for Putin to give us a free photo. There is no point in continuing to discuss this.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If we can, and do, use photographs of paintings of his father and grandfather, I don't see why we can't use an image of KJU taken in a similar way. Jonathunder (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that there are paintings of Il-Sung and Jong-il everywhere in NK, but not for Jong-un. Also, BLPs are more stringent than articles of those who are deceased. But like Jack said, if we can't find an acceptable picture or use "de minimus" or some similar argument, then perhaps it's better to let it rest until we find one that is not a derivative of a copyright image - or at the very least, make a better "illustration". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The BLP is irrelevant. Take a careful look at the license on the Kim Jong il Portrait we are using. It's a free license which could be used whether the subject is alive or not. Jonathunder (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi-res KJU image

I just came across this article and it was too good not to share here. Of course, it is copyright KCNA, but if we can somehow get permission it would be a perfect infobox image.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/12/heres-the-giant-hi-res-photograph-of-kim-jong-un-you-never-asked-for/ Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Why are we using a sketch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.224.91 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Biased Sourcing

I'd like to start a discussion as to whether it's valid to be using unconfirmed South Korean news sites as a source for the more outlandish and propagandish claims about Kim Jong Un. For example, as the article still stands today it states: "In early February 2016, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that Chief of the General Staff Ri Yong-gil had been executed on charges of corruption and forming a political faction.[123][124][125]." Worth noting that this claim cites the BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian, otherwise legitimate sources, but the articles themselves rely entirely on unconfirmed reports from South Korean organs.

As with many stories about the DPRK, it turned out to be completely false: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/world/asia/north-korea-execution.html

I'm wondering if I could get consensus to remove remarks and sources that rely entirely on unconfirmed South Korean "reports" about the more outlandish claims found in this article. Aerdil (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I raised the same issue back in February.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this should be done, on a case-by-case basis. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
1. I just removed the reference to Ri's execution. I assumed that it already had been deleted! The other information in the "Purges" section seems questionable. Based on their articles, it doesn't seem true that all the four men mentioned in the first sentence have been "purged".
2. No, I don't think we should be using unconfirmed reports (whatever their source). Given our experiences going back to the case of Hyon Song-wol, there is good reason to treat reports of executions with scepticism. If a senior person is executed, it is likely that this will be announced, as it was with Uncle Jang.
3. The problem with assessing items case by case is precisely the example with Ri. When the false information was entered into the article, it wasn't flagged as a problem. Now, even though we know he is still alive, the information has remained in the article. It would be better if stories like that were not put into the article until they were confirmed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Also note that CNN's report of Ri Yong-gil's execution is being used as a source in the article Ri Myong-su. In my opinion, CNN is not a reliable source in this situation as the main thing in the article (Ri Yong-gil's execution) turned out to be wrong, and the statement being made isn't even mentioned in that article. Do we have a reliable source for that sentence, or should it just be removed from the article Ri Myong-su and the timeline at the bottom of the article Ri Yong-gil? I found this BBC article which mentions the statement being made in the article, but I find it hard to tell if a source is reliable or not as a lot of information about North Korea seems to be incorrect in one way or another. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence from the article Ri Myong-su because of the problems with the source. I'm not sure what to do about the timeline.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
After consideration, I have removed this from the "Purges" section:
Ri Yong-ho, Kim Yong-chun, U Tong-chuk and Kim Jong-gak were handpicked to groom the young leader and were close confidants of Kim Jong-il. They have either been demoted or disappeared. A 13 November 2015 article in the Korea Times stated that Ri Yong-ho was executed in 2012.[1]
According to this, there were reports that Ri Yong-ho was executed earlier this year. In any case, he appeared with Kim Jong Un in January, so he obviously wasn't executed in 2012. According to his article, Kim Yong-chun was made a Marshall in April this year. U Tong-chuk turned up to an event in 2013. According to his article, Kim Jong-gak is head of a military academy. In the case of Ri Yong-ho, there is clearly confusion about his fate. With the others, there appears to be no evidence that they have been "purged". These are all men in their 70s, so if they have "disappeared" it might only mean retirement.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm questioning the accuracy of this statement:
The source listed, [8], says that they are out of power but doesn't say that they have been purged. Another article names eight men (not seven): Kim Jong-un, Jang Song-thaek, Kim Ki-nam and Choe Tae-bok on one side, and Ri Yong-ho, Kim Yong-chun and Kim Jong-gak on the other side, and U Dong-chuk somewhere at that place. This list includes the four people that Jack Upland mentioned above, so the problems with the sentence removed by Jack Upland also seem to apply to this statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I've removed that sentence, and the preceding one because it dealt with the same issue. With the obvious exception of Jang, it is misleading (on the evidence we have) to say these men were "purged", and it's not appropriate to include this in a section called "Purges". The sources used were basically outdated speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And I've also removed this:
On 22 March 2012, the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported that a military officer was executed by a mortar round. Kim Jong-un had ordered to leave "no trace of him, down to his hair".[2]
This refers to Kim Chol. This source describes it as a bizarre rumour, and this suggests it originated with gossip. These sources cast doubt on the execution of Hyon Yong-chol:[9][10][11][12][13]. These sources point out that the story about the execution of Jang's extended family is unverified:[14][15][16].--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'd like to start a discussion as to whether it's valid to be using unconfirmed South Korean news sites as a source for the more outlandish and propagandish claims about Kim Jong Un." Huh? Claims that "Ri Yong-gil had been executed" turned out to be incorrect and needed to be removed once it was debunked, but was hardly an "outlandish" claim. The majority of reports appear to be correct. If unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) reports are covered in the mainstream media, they continue to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, with the usual appropriate caveats. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding news organisations, WP:RS states: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." It also states: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Relatedly, under WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The misinformation about Ri Yong-gil was put in the article without any "caveats", apart from noting that it had been reported by Yonhap. I think it is OK to note on the person's article (if they have one), that there are unconfirmed reports that they have been executed. Kim Kyong-hui has died many times. But I don't think these reports belong here. It would become a case of fighting a hydra. For example, I have removed the claim that Ri Yong-ho was executed in 2012 Because he was still alive in January this year. However, the BBC reports a claim that he was executed later this year. Should that be added to the article? When he is confirmed alive, no doubt there will be another claim that he was executed. How long will this go on? This is getting silly, and it isn't supported by Wikipedia policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel your pain, but welcome to the world of "reporting on substantive allegations of human-rights violations that can't be directly confirmed because they took place in a totalitarian country" (or, as you seem to call it, "gossip"). I get that you feel disdain toward Yonhap, but in the future when the NYT and others take a claim by Yonhap seriously, then so should we; in particular, given that I don't follow Yonhap closely, arguments of the form "Yonhap was wrong about X" aren't going to be persuasive with me because I have no way of knowing if you're cherry-picking. So no, Aerdil doesn't get carte blanche to remove any alleged human-rights abuses covered in the NYT that don't meet his idiosyncratic threshold for plausibility. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not gossip, but the guidelines still apply. The issue isn't about Yonhap. The issue is about unconfirmed reports and lack of neutrality. In the case of Ri Yong-gil, the source of the misinformation was South Korea's National Intelligence Service. These spies are not human rights defenders. This source states:
Cheong Seong-Chang, an analyst at South Korea's Sejong Institute, said intelligence authorities under back-to-back conservative governments have tended to disclose incomplete, unverified information about North Korea if they thought it would justify South Korea's hard line policy by portraying North Korea as an unstable, dangerous country. This explains embarrassments like the Ri case, he said, and underlines the need to get multiple sources to verify information, even if it's coming from someone in Pyongyang.
A lot of mainstream news outlets like the NYT have expressed reservations about these kind of reports, but when the information is put into Wikipedia these nuances usually disappear. And NPOV still applies, even in NK. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a human rights indictment. In any case, pushing false stories only discredits the human rights issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you claify what guidelines you think inclusion of reports of executions passed on by credible sources (such as the NYT or the BBC) would violate? You're the one who quoted WP:BLPGOSSIP but then agreed it's not gossip. I'm objecting to the original proposal (which sounds to me like saying that it's effectively proposing that MSM reports of executions shouldn't be included at all). If we can accept that there isn't consensus for the original proposal, then we can focus more on how to make it clearer that such reports sometimes prove incorrect (and, indeed, that almost all of the information in this article is unconfirmed). We could go on to make the content on executions more insightful, such as by summarizing about how many he's executed, comparing with the previous leaders counts, briefly mention analysis of the reasons for the executions, maybe break out a new page for more detailed info such as this usa today summary. There's also a lot of information that *is* gossip, that I would like to remove (such as where he inherited his ideology, leadership, character, virtues, grit and courage from, whether he was awkward with girls growing up, whether the state media reports that he sits up all night feeling painful sometimes, and what he thinks of Eric Clapton.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is going in circles. I've already quoted the guidelines that I think apply. It's hair-splitting to argue that it's not gossip. It's rumour. It's unsubstantiated reports, often attributed to anonymous sources, often couched in weasel words. I think your question misses the point. The point is, what do we do when, as in the case of Hyon Yong-chol, the NYT says Some doubt that North Korea executed a top general?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
We have three options: report it as if it's a fact, don't report it at all, or report it and cite doubts and reservations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's notable enough to be mentioned in Hyon's own article, but shouldn't be mentioned here. By the way, the USA Today summary of executions that Rolf cites actually illustrates the nature of the problem. It includes: Ri Yong-gil (confirmed alive), Hyon Yong-chol (debatable), Ri Yong-ho (according to the BBC still alive in January this year), Kim Yong-chun (appointed as a Marshal in April), Kim Jong-gak (not dead, just in academia), Kim Chol (rumours of his death described as bizarre), Chang Ung (still a member of the International Olympic Committee), U Tong-chuk (appeared at an event a year after his supposed execution), Kim Kyong-hui (death denied by the South Korean spy agency), Jang's family (debatable), Unhasu Orchestra (highly dubious), and Ma Won Chon (confirmed alive). There is only a few on that list that I haven't been able to quickly find a rebuttal to. The only execution that is actually confirmed is Jang Song-taek, which was reported in North Korea media. I think this confirms that the reports of executions are not reliable. And I think the question of whether someone is executed is more important than whether someone likes Eric Clapton.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Ri Yong_il: yep, reported alive by SK Unification Ministry; it's good that claim was removed. Hyon Yong-chol: probably dead, but I'm fine with removing it given SK's backpedaling. Kim Yong-chun, Kim Jong-gak, Chang Ung, U Tong-Chuk: purged, but as far as I can tell never reported dead outside of the USA Today list I cited, looks like an original mistake by USA Today. Kim Chol: sorry, he's probably dead; neither of your weak sources disputes that he's dead, but just speculate that "it's weird, so maybe it was by firing squad rather than mortar round". Kim Kyong-hui: debatable whether dead, should be omitted. Jang's family: probably dead. Orchestra: probably multiple people executed, it's unknown which ones. Ma Won Chon: debatable whether dead, should be omitted. Out of 70 in USA Today's list, I count 4 possible original mistakes by USA Today, 1 probably alive/should be omitted, 2 debatable/should be omitted, 1 probably dead/can be omitted anyway. Sounds like a reasonable accuracy level to me. The remaining 62 can and should be documented in Wikipedia if I cross-index the list against the original report, although the majority that didn't receive widespread press coverage obviously shouldn't be itemized in this article. Part of the disconnect is that your verification often seems to be "I found an op-ed saying 'nobody knows what happens in NK, so maybe NK is right in this case, and SK is fundamentally untrustworthy'" and counting that as "confirmation" that they're alive. It sounds like we both agree we should omit cases where NK loudly claims a person is still alive, even though that's hardly proof they're alive; but why should we omit cases where SK claims a person is dead and NK's only response is "yeah we execute people we think are internal enemies from time to time, we refuse to comment on exactly which people because it's none of your business"? As a sanity-check, if these 62 people have not been sighted, even though many of them were reportedly executed four years ago, don't you think that's a little weird and that it conflicts with your view that these are baseless rumors? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In answer to the question on Hyon Yong-chol: the current opinion by SK seems to be "We do have intelligence information that he had been killed by gunfire but that is yet to be verified," so it's a judgement call, I'm fine with omitting it altogether given SK's current stance. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There are only 27 executions mentioned on the USA Today list, not 70, and some of the people are unnamed (and so hard to check). With so many turning up alive, I don't think that's a good level of accuracy. I didn't say that everyone I mentioned was confirmed alive. In some cases they have been; in other cases doubts have been cast on the story. With Kim Chol, the sources describe the story as a rumour from an anonymous source. With the Unhasu Orchestra, the execution as originally reported included the singer Hyon Song-wol who later emerged alive. The lack of a reported sighting is hardly evidence they are dead. It took almost a year for Hyon Song-wol to be confirmed alive, and she was prominent, being identified as Kim Jong Un's girlfriend. As I said before, a lot of these people are in their 70s, and it isn't surprising if they're not in public view. I'm not aware of the North Korean government responding to these cases along the lines you've described. The North Korean ambassador to Britain said that the report about Jang's family was "political propaganda" and "fabricated", but that he didn't know if they were punished, which is a bit inconclusive.[17] However, in most cases that I've seen, no response is recorded. Anyway, I think the edits you have made to the article are going in the right direction.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
My bad, I should have noticed there were far less than 70 actual names on the list. Things described by the source breaking them as "a rumour from an anonymous source" are unlikely to get significant mainstream media coverage, so I don't see that likely to be an issue. I'm skeptical that it's difficult to tell the difference between people who have been purged and who have successfully retired; NK seems to follow the stalinist procedure where purged officials tend to get airbrushed out of history by state media. The uncertainty is in who is getting merely purged (and could be rehabilitated later) vs. who is getting executed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a fair bet that something has happened. I think in the case of the singer Hyon Song-wol, she took time off to have a baby: see [18]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to Rolf's comment on 28 May, and in the absence of any objections in the past week, I've removed the text about General Hyon Yong-chol as the South Korean authorities have backpedalled on the report.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Kim Jong-un's reign of terror continues". koreatimes. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
  2. ^ "Kim Jong-un's Barbaric Purge of 'Unsound' Military Brass".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Jong-un. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

Type: Individual List: SDN Last Name: KIM Program: DPRK3 First Name: Jong Un Nationality: Title: Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea Citizenship: Date of Birth: 08 Jan 1984 Remarks: Place of Birth:

sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=5370

notice the link is the official treasury.gov website

174.21.108.138 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (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. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done [19]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


As a note, how authoritative would the US Treasure Dept be for his DOB (Jan 8 1984) as to avoid the clunkiness that the infobox has now? --MASEM (t) 22:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is another hot debate. The Reuter reported “The U.S. Treasury Department identified Kim's date of birth as Jan. 8, 1984, a rare official confirmation of his birthday.” The Chosun Ilbo also reported that the birth year coincides with the South Korean government’s recognition. It says that Kim’s exiled aunt Ko Yong-suk said Kim’s birth year was 1984 in last May.[20]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Human rights

According to some sources, the sanctions were about human rights: [21]. Also, if sources say that he is personally guilty of human rights violations, it would be good to spell out what they are.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

I would like to request permission to change Kim Jong Un's birthday from 8. jan. 1983 to 8. jan. 1984 because of newly acquired information of the US treasury department. Source:

</ref> http://nordic.businessinsider.com/age-of-north-korean-kim-jong-un-2016-7?IR=T </ref>

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). While this was notable at the time, I think it has been overtaken by events. Was Kim Jong Il lying? Was Wen lying? Was there some kind of mix-up? Or a change of heart? We do not know, but it seems pointless to include it here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Birthday holiday

I have removed this:

His birthday has since become a national holiday, celebrated on 8 January, according to a report by a South Korean website.[1]

However, Public holidays in North Korea states, "Kim Jong-un's birthday is not a public holiday".[2] This is backed up by:[22][23][24][25]. This appears to be another case of FAKE NEWS.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That story is from 2010, before Kim was yet to succeed his father and rumors were abound. No one has seen any celebrations for seven years in a row since, so it's safe to say this story was unfounded. Unfortunately, as recently as this year, Human Rights Watch propagated this myth (probably because they run a similar story on Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il's birthdays every year in order to attract interest in NK's human rights issues at a time when NK trends in the news). It's sad if even a respectable human rights organization thinks they can say anything because, hey, it's NK and no one cares if it's accurate. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There has been an assumption that Jong Un would quickly acquire a cult on the scale of that of his father and grandfather. It would be good to go through the article to check for any other factoids that haven't stood the test of time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "North Korea declare Kim Jong-un's birthday a public holiday". The Daily Telegraph. London, UK. 23 December 2010. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
  2. ^ Seol Song Ah (7 December 2015). "Kim Jong Un's birthday still not a holiday". Daily NK. Retrieved 13 January 2017.

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 [26] 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 [27] 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)

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)
Just a postscript on the "plan" to bomb US cities: this [28] describes the story as hysteria.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Un/Archive_6&oldid=1149754399"