Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

new source

For the heath section change

collapsing for readbility

=== Health === In 2009, reports suggested that Kim Jong-un was a diabetic and suffered from hypertension. He is also known to smoke cigarettes. Kim Jong-un did not appear in public for six weeks in September and October 2014. State media reported that he was suffering from an "uncomfortable physical condition". Previously he had been seen limping. When he reappeared, he was using a walking stick. In September 2015, the South Korean government commented that Kim appeared to have gained 30 kg in body fat over the previous five years, reaching a total estimated body weight of 130 kg (290 lb). In April 2020, another period of absence from public appearances led to speculation around Kim's health. Kim had been absent on the Day of the Sun, 15 April, celebrating the country's founding father, Kim Il-sung, and was last seen four days prior on 11 April at a government meeting. Daily NK reported that Kim had gone to a hospital for a cardiovascular surgery on 12 April, but according to CNN reporting from U.S. agencies monitoring intelligence from North Korea, by 21 April Kim's state was in "grave danger" from the surgery. South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported in response to these stories that there were "no unusual signs detected" in regards to Kim's health. Reuters reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April to North Korea to monitor Kim's condition. South Korea's foreign policy advisor Moon Chung-in issued a statement on 26 April, saying that "Kim Jong-un is alive and well. He has been staying in the Wonsan area since April 13. No suspicious movements have so far been detected." On 1 May, Korean Central News Agency published pictures of Kim, purportedly from a ribbon-cutting event that day at a newly-opened fertilizer factory.

to

collapsing for readability

=== Health === In 2009, reports suggested that Kim Jong-un was a diabetic and suffered from hypertension. He is also known to smoke cigarettes. Kim Jong-un did not appear in public for six weeks in September and October 2014. State media reported that he was suffering from an "uncomfortable physical condition". Previously he had been seen limping. When he reappeared, he was using a walking stick. In September 2015, the South Korean government commented that Kim appeared to have gained 30 kg in body fat over the previous five years, reaching a total estimated body weight of 130 kg (290 lb). In April 2020, another period of absence from public appearances led to speculation around Kim's health. Kim had been absent on the Day of the Sun, 15 April, celebrating the country's founding father, Kim Il-sung, and was last seen four days prior on 11 April at a government meeting. Daily NK reported that Kim had gone to a hospital for a cardiovascular surgery on 12 April, but according to CNN reporting from U.S. agencies monitoring intelligence from North Korea, by 21 April Kim's state was in "grave danger" from the surgery. South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported in response to these stories that there were "no unusual signs detected" in regards to Kim's health. Reuters reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April to North Korea to monitor Kim's condition. South Korea's foreign policy advisor Moon Chung-in issued a statement on 26 April, saying that "Kim Jong-un is alive and well. He has been staying in the Wonsan area since April 13. No suspicious movements have so far been detected." On 1 May, Korean Central News Agency published pictures of Kim, purportedly from a ribbon-cutting event that day at a newly-opened fertilizer factory.

New suspicions of Kim Jung Un's death have arisen after Kim Family portraits and statues were removed from the Kim Il-Sung Square in Pyongyang, which were blocked off from the public. This is suspected to be from plans to make a statue for Kim Jung-Un, which is only done after the current dictator of North Korea dies. In addition, there is skepticism of the footage of Kim Jung-Un opening the fertilizer factory. The footage could have possibly been pre-recorded and released as a cover-up for the Great Successor's sudden passing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk • contribs)

• I am suspecting, without reading word by word, that what you want to see added is the very last paragraph in your post beginning "New suspicions..." So, I've collapsed the prior paragraphs in each section for readability. With respect, I doubt we'll add it. This is just another unfounded speculative rumor, and nothing more. See the section above titled "Health in 2020", especially where it notes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  
  
  

Fair enough, I understand. 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Express is also a source to tread caution with. Look up "Daily Express" here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources -- Tytrox (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• For convenience: WP:RSP#Daily Express. Glades12 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The theory seems incoherent anyway. Firstly, they are covering up his death. Secondly, they are making a memorial to him. What!?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

collapse refs

Edits

Are there any more current edits we should be making to this page? Of course I’m only talking about accurate information, but is there any more of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B101:B48:BC57:E66F:98FA:DA11 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection was downgraded back to Semi a few days ago. If you want to contribute, best register and do your dues to become auto-confirmed/confirmed. -- Tytrox (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Human rights violations

The UN Commission of Inquiry chaired by Michael Kirby did not find Kim responsible for human rights violations. The NYT article we cite quotest Kirby telling Kim that the Commission 'would recommend that the United Nations Security Council refer the situation in North Korea to the International Criminal Court, to make all those responsible for crimes accountable, “including possibly yourself.”'[1] This quotes a letter Kirby wrote to Kim, published as an annexure to the summary report, which said: "The Commission wishes to draw to your attention that it will therefore recommend that the United Nations refer the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court to render accountable all those, including possibly yourself, who may be responsible for the crimes against humanity referred to in this letter and in the Commission's report".[2] This page also says the inquiry was intended "to document the accountability of Kim Jong-un and other individuals in the North Korean government for alleged crimes against humanity". However, the source cited does not say that. I think this is a big difference because the article currently implies findings were made against Kim personally, and that is not the case. I will amend the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening section quite unusual for Wikipedia

"Kim rules a dictatorship where elections are not free and fair, government critics are persecuted, media is controlled by the regime, internet access is limited by the regime, and there is no freedom of religion.[6][7][8][9][10][11] His regime operates an extensive network of prisons and labor camps that has imprisoned and killed millions of people; the regime convicts people for political crimes and uses collective punishment whereby members of a family are punished for the crimes of one person.[6] According to the United Nations, North Koreans are subjected to "systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations" where the regime "seeks to dominate every aspect of its citizens’ lives and terrorizes them from within."[6][12]"

This kind of defining a state and its affairs in the negative "doesn't have, isn't" seems very strange. Presumably Wikipedia has defined some default characteristics for a state, and if one veers from that, those differences will be listed in this fashion? I'm not seeing a "Donald Trump" or "Angela Merkel rules over a state that lacks such-and-such civil feature, x-and-y go wrong on the regular, this-and-that are missing". It wouldn't really be a rational way to treat states and their leaders encyclopedically. And it isn't here, either. Surely there is some kind of neutral point of view available, rather than comparing the state of affairs to an unstated ideal. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and that is what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias is okay as long as it perfectly replicates the same bias in sources, which themselves tend to be American commercial media? Glades12 (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This paragraph was inserted to make a point. It has very little to do with Kim as a person.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Argubly, we need one sentence as a preamble to the third para of the lede to the extent "Jong-un's rule of NK is seen unfavorable by the rest of the world" (but not so tersely), as what the IP saying does look like we're coming with a statement of opinion in WP's voice. Adding one line that lede the rest of the paragraph that establish that "no one likes Jong-un's rule" would do wonders to improve the tone, because the rest then are presented as "how the rest of the world is cataloging him" and take it just a bit out of Wikivoice. I just don't know the best wording for that. --Masem (t) 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This source which is cited three times in the paragraph (footnote 6) only mentions Kim Jong Un once, in passing. We already have articles on North Korea and Human rights in North Korea which we link to. The quote from the UN should really be in the body. The sentence about control of the economy, while true, doesn't seem to be cited by the source at all (and the source is actually a blurb). This paragraph could mislead readers into thinking these issues only arose when Kim took power. On the contrary, the sources say the opposite. Most importantly, the lead should reflect the body. We should just have a few sentences about human rights etc in the lead, and they should be focussed on Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think point Kim is not covered by media for personality or likeability. Kim covered because he rules North Korea. Beobaer (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, coverage of North Korea is not coverage of Kim. This is an article about Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes of how NK's rule under Jong-un is appropriate here or how it compares to past Chairman's, if it varies that much. If his rule is effectively maintaining the status quo due to the Communist setup in NK and it is little of his doing, then yes, we definitely should not be ascribing those elements to him, but he's still wholly responsible for how he handles foreign relations. --Masem (t) 13:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree per the user who began this discussion and with the previous commentary - this section could almost entirely be removed - this article is about Kim himself rather than North Korea as a country/system. JLo-Watson (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I would replace the lines of the third para, up to " Since coming to power, Kim has ordered the execution ..." with something like "Kim's leadership has followed the same cult of personality style as his grandfather and father." based on what I what I see supported in the article to describe what is different or consistent specific to Kim in this line of thinking. There might be more but this is the type of idea that I think we need; NK is established as this totalitarian regime, that is not what Kim did or is doing, so it is completely inappropriate to tie the faults of Communism on him, but things like cult of personality and human right violations and push on nuclear missile tests, those are all his. --Masem (t) 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles written in this way only uncover the bestial face of Wikipedia as a mouthpiece of Koreaphobic capitalist propaganda. See Katyn massacre for another example. Arguing against it is useless. An article that would be shameful for a proud Korean Worker's Party official to read is not a worthy article, but a weapon of Koreaphobic sentiment.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have rewritten that paragraph to reflect the body of the article. The repeated use of this source was inappropriate, as stated above, as it is not about Kim Jong Un, but rather North Korea over "decades". It was used to support this sentence — "His regime operates an extensive network of prisons and labor camps that has imprisoned and killed millions of people" — but it doesn't say anything like that. If anyone wants to put stuff like this in the article, please make sure it is about Kim and that it is probably cited — and put it in the body, not in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Detente section

I reverted the name of this section from "International relations" to "Detente". I don't object to a change in the section name, but "International relations" is absolutely inappropriate. Biographical articles are supposed to be chronological, and this section is part of a rough chronology that begins with his birth. But "International relations" suggests that it is a thematic section. It isn't. And it shouldn't be. International relations are dealt with in several sections when relevant. This section begins in 2018. We don't know how long Kim will be leader of North Korea. It could be decades. We can't lump all international relations in one section. Yes, the section does not use the term "detente", but "Early life" doesn't use the term "early life" either. As I said, I don't object to a change in name, but not one that will unravel the whole article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed it to "International relations since 2018" which should solve the chronology objection. If the section (and the sources) don't prominently use the word "détente" or describe a "détente" then we can't either. This is pretty baseline - WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT. it's incorrect to imply that there's been a détente, as reliable sources reflect that really hasn't occurred - North Korea is still an international pariah, is still testing missiles, is still under international sanctions, etc. The Economist wrote one day ago that "South Korea is still eager for a detente with the North" – i.e., it hasn't happened yet). Neutrality^talk 14:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I accept the change of heading for now. I feel it still seems too thematic. But your interpretation of Wikipedia policies seems totally false to me. And, any way, many sources do use the term "detente". Detente merely means the easing of hostilities. It isn't a precise term. It's relative, not absolute. South Korea (or President Moon) is still eager to ease tensions. This section was intended to be about the easing of tensions. I would suggest that if tensions are heightened again, we start a new section. This way we get a chronological structure, rather than a confusing melange. And, by the way, North Korea has not tested an ICBM since 2017.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• As a stylistic matter, I don't know why we have to keep to a strict chronology - dividing up domestic policy and international affairs makes sense. In any case, yes, the North has not tested a long-range missile in the last three years, but it has continued to test medium- and short-range missiles. Neutrality^talk 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Probably because when multiple editors come working on an article WP:PROSELINE-style approaches make it easy to add but make it clunky for the reader. It is always appropriate when there seems to be a reasonable pause or break in the flow of events to back and iron away the proseline which may include de-chronological ordering the events for a more logical flow (domestic vs international relations, in this case). --Masem (t) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• We don't have to keep to a strict chronology. No one said we did. But I think it makes sense to have a dedicated section about the dialogue that developed between the North, the South, and the US, which led to several summits between the various leaders. I don't think the visit from the Cuban president should be added to that, for example. The problem with the multi-stranded thematic approach is that it gets more and more confusing over time, because the different strands are inter-related, and readers tend to assume chronological order. The articles on most political leaders are divided by term of office, but that is not particularly appropriate here. But Kim has been leader for 10 years.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding detente, this article says, The inter-Korean détente, from Seoul’s point of view, is here to stay. I think it is a rather better source that than a whimsical article about a false rumour written by someone who's probably never been to Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

2600:8801:F000:22F:7467:C88D:589D:9621 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Im videoing this with kimjunune betting on heads up. Its heads upside down

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TJScalzo (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guiness World Record Holder?

Kim Jon-un is actually the youngest head of state for a short while. Maybe that could be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's not really notable. First, it's not a Guinness World Record. Second, he's not even close to the top ten state leaders by age at time of taking over a head of state. Third, he's not even the youngest to attain head of state and currently serving. About the only thing you could say is he was the youngest, if briefly, at the time he took over as head of state. And, again, it's not a Guinness record. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I literally have the Guinness world records 2018 (don't ask me why) and it said he was the youngest head of state for a while (and I trust those books).Ooh Saad (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Sorry if that sounded rude lol

• • And it's not clear that he was ever head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Erm... yes it is Ooh Saad (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_North_Korea#:~:text=Thus%20his%20son%20and%20successor%20as%20leader%2C%20the%20late%20Kim,de%20facto%20head%20of%20state.

• • • What does " youngest head of state for a while " mean, a year, that week?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably not worth adding, with three editors against me.-ThanksOoh Saad (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ooh Saad: Yeah, I would say it's probably not noteworthy enough for inclusion. If he'd set an absolute record for the youngest (i.e. not just at the time), then maybe. It's not a bad suggestion though, so thanks for raising it, and I think you were correct that this is the sort of thing the Guinness Book of Records for a given year would include so at the time it was a "Guinness record", just not significant enough long-term. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! Ooh Saad (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ood Said...the de jure head of state of North Korea from 1998 to 2019 was the Chairman of the State Presidium of the DPRK, a function which was transferred to the Chairman of the Military Commission in 2019 (a position currently held by Kim Jong-Un.) So Kim Jong-Un has only technically been Head of State of North Korea since 2019. And that's not even factoring in the fact of his grandfather being named 'Eternal President of the DPRK' in the preamble to the North Korean constitution.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Health in 2020

Given that the reports of his death seem to have been greatly exaggerated, how much do we need to say about this fresh product from the North Korean rumour mill? We don't know that Kim had any health problems at all. The DailyNK report was based on an anonymous informant. The fact is he didn't actually disappear. He just wasn't pictured in North Korean media, though North Korean media reported him doing various things. In reality, not being photographed for three weeks is no big deal. Yes, we can document rumours, but there are too many rumours.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

They are hiding Coronavirus

(Possibly...) Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That is also speculation (e. g. "hiding Coronavirus"). What is worrying me more is that Wikipedia is being pushed to become less neutral and objective. For example, the current "health" segment in the main article is almost 50% to that speculation alone, which now recently turned out to be all false (which others have pointed out before). So now we have a problem, because a lot of "content" has been added that is not based on real facts but rumour-mongering. I believe that wikipedia needs to find better ways to be more objective; the current mass-media are often agenda-driven in one way or another. This is why it is so important that wikipedia tries to be as objective and qualitatively good/accurate as possible, otherwise it would sink down into the same rumor-mongering that privately held news media are. My issue is less with the "lack of photographs for three weeks", but the media-spin of adding fake-news aka "he is dead and everyone is covering it up". These fake-news need to be decoupled from wikipedia, otherwise it will lose its intrinsic quality. This is, by the way, not the only article that is problematic. Even citing external sources, while good, isn't enough. There needs to be a stronger objective focus on FACTUAL happenings. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. That's Wikipedia policy. So what's the factual happening in this case?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's worth calling out Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth here, and noting that Wikipedia is not a secondary source, but a tertiary source. As such, we are reflective of what is happening in the world in so far as current events are concerned, basing our prose on reliable, secondary sources. If such sources are discussing rumors of his death, it's not inappropriate to discuss rumors of his death if we source to such sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think verifiability is particularly relevant here. No one is doubting that the rumours existed. The question is how to deal with them. WP:BLPGOSSIP suggests we avoid them altogether. The other issue is, as I said, there are too many rumours. We could have a whole article on fake news about Kim that would be bigger than this one. He said he'd found unicorns, he executed his ex-girlfriend, he claims that he doesn't use the toilet, he's had plastic surgery, he's addicted to cheese etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't disagree at all. I was just highlighting why we can't act as a secondary source. As to rumors, I thought it was the cheese that killed his girlfriend during plastic surgery being done by a unicorn? I'm confused. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• A rumour has just been a story that hasn't been confirmed yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that ultimately it should be cut down to around the size of the bit that covers his 2014 disappearance. These new developments definitely deserve some mention, considering the media coverage, diplomatic statements, etc. that were associated with it. (Though I am not sure that we are entirely out of the woods, yet, so I would say that the moderate over-coverage and WP:RECENTISM#Recentism as a positive that stands now is reasonable, considering it is the #1 reason people are viewing this page.) — Goszei (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the Western media are playing the recent photos still in doubt because its from state-run media of NZ. So while there's far less of a belief in the press he is dead, there's still some doubts and the story won't likely close until we see something that confirms him on live TV or the like. When this story closes, we certainly can compress the matter, but we do have people coming here to know what's going on so a brief summary as we have now is fine. But assuming the world is satisfied he's alive, one-two sentences is all we'd end up needing. --Masem (t) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't trust Ardern! I agree it's too soon. Hopefully some sources will give us an overview at the end and tell us "what we've learned", along the lines of "Analysts believe that Kim either had heart surgery or a bad hangover".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"state-run media of NZ": might want to fix that typo.  Nixinova   T   C   04:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think literally anything from North Korea is possibly not true. There is no proof that what they are saying is true. I doubt any Wikipedia editors are currently living in North Korea. Even if there was a way, no one could be sure the government was telling them the truth. It really depends on what the large US and worldwide sites are saying is true. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you implying that we are relying on North Korean sources? We aren't.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not implying that. I’m just saying North Korean sources are most likely not the most accurate. How are you implying that North Korean sources have guaranteed accuracy? I believe only Kim Jong-Un actually knows everything that’s happening in North Korea. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

How would Kim know everything? Is he in heaven looking down? Anyway, I think this conversation is a bit confused. We have never declared him dead here, so we don't need a proof of life.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok then I made mistakes. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This article in the Washington Post: Kim Jong Un appears to be alive after all. So why did CNN and other news outlets report he was on his deathbed? contains a good discussion of how these rumors arose and were reinforced and shows the good sense of the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM policies and why we shouldn't include poorly referenced speculation. Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have shortened this to one sentence. It appears that we have learnt nothing about his health and that analysts are divided as to the reasons for his absences. It seems clear, however, that he didn't die in April.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Coma?

The nearest I can get to the source is this:[3]. It seems come from a social media post from a former official, who claims the photos of Kim were fake. This is a continuation of the earlier rumours. The South Korean intelligence agency does not appear to give this any credence.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

RSes have now picked it up: [4] [5] [6]  Nixinova   T   C   04:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

the New Your Post headline says it all: "Rumors fly again after claim that North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is comatose" until we have multiple RS confirming them they are just that, rumors. At most this rates one sentence on the page. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, this is just a continuation of earlier rumours, I don't think we need to add to what's on the page. I also don't think we should touch anything based on claims of fake photos unless there's very good verification. It's worth noting that this comes from a former aide of Kim Dae-jung, who ceased to be president in 2003. Also, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency doesn't mention the story at all, instead reporting that Kim presided over a party congress last week.[7]--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

See also:[8]--Jack Upland (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Would take these claims very lightly unless 'major' international news outlets, besides the ones from South Korea, pick this up. There have been numerous rumors and false reports regarding Kim's health over the years and this appears to be the same at the onset. Gotitbro (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPGOSSIP is relevant: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true.... This story is largely being reported as a rumour. It is contradicted by many photos in the news media.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This [9] is impressive for someone in a coma. Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have created a new section "Leader of North Korea: Events of 2020" (for want of a better title). I have moved the previous discussion of his absences from public view from "Personal life: Health". Firstly, I think this is not really about his personal life. It is speculation about him as leader. Secondly, we have no hard evidence that there are health problems at play. Also, as previously discussed, as a biographical article, we should be building it chronologically. These bursts of speculation about his health this year are an event that has happened in his life. It has gained international news coverage, so I think we should acknowledge the issue, without giving too much air time to rumours which are obviously false.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd also like to note that NY Post seems to be reversing the onus of proof here. Instead of providing evidence that Kim is in a coma, they are asking for independently verified evidence that he isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 Sept 2020

Please add title "His Excellency" thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiscid (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Kh4N 0202 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

Abdi1020 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

din mor

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[✉] 13:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Second child?

Isn't Kim Jong-un the third son of Kim Jong-il? He has two older brothers, one who was killed in Kuala Lumpur, and the other who was considered too effeminate to be leader by their father. He also has an older half-sister in Kim Sol-song. That'd make him the known fourth child of Kim Jong-il, not the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.102.111 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lies

Kim Jong-un is not dead. He did not die in 2014. He was here when Trump was elected president which means he was here during 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezi2super (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Category:Formerly missing people": He is no more "formerly missing" than he is "formerly dead". 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed this category. A "missing person" is someone who has been reported to authorities by their family and friends as having disappeared. The North Korean government never said he was missing. All that happened was that he was out of the public eye for a number of weeks, and there was speculation he was unwell. Simply because the international media is speculating about your whereabouts does not make you missing. No one is seriously suggesting his family, his colleagues etc didn't know where he was.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Japanese descent

There are a couple of categories that say he has Japanese descent. As far as I can see, his mother was half Japanese. I really don't see any point in noting this in categories, except to making an ethnic slur.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone a "Jap" is an ethnic slur. Stating someone's verifiable ethnic origins is not, and is routine in biographical articles. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he is a quarter Japanese. And I don't see this stated in the article. I see it used as a category. Whether it's routine or not, it's pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Just an observation here, but what on Earth is going on with the info box here (and in the previous two leaders of North Korea).

They seem to be pretty unilateral changes with zero talk page discussion / changes with these. Surely the info boxes should be akin to other World leaders and not listing all of the terms separately, for example?

JLo-Watson (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was going to mention that there is no need to have separate terms and their term dates on the infobox. You don't see Barack Obama's infobox with 1st Term: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2013 and then 2nd Term: January 20, 2013 – January 20, 2017. I feel that the multiple terms listed is pretty much redundant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Editors who edit North Korean pages are obsessed with titles and labels and things like that, to the exclusion of anything else. They do not discuss, they do not abide by consensus, and they have no moderation. And I don't think there is anything we can do about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, TDKR Chicago 101, and JLo-Watson: If you ask me it really depends on if those terms have separate articles as they do for the North Korean. There isn't currently an article about "First term of Barack Obama's presidency", but we have the article "13th State Affairs Commission". I also thought it would be smart since it would link to the North Korean policy elite in the giving periods.

In fact I feel like the articles and the related articles on Obama are structured very differently from the North Korean case.

I agree with you Jack that way to many users are interested in the specific titles of Kim Jong-un. North Korea is not a law-based or a political institutionalised society. It doesn't matter if Kim is Chairman, First Chairman, General Secretary, First Secretary, HEad Secretary or whatever... He doesn't get his powers from offices alone... --Ruling party (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Ruling party. We had a previous discussion about what Kim was Chairman of. At least two organisations as far as I know. He's also the member for Mt Paektu. Not only is this infobox a pig's breakfast created by eager beavers who don't know where the Talk page is, it is ALSO horrendously misleading. In fact, I would say it is an illusion, a mirage cathedral that smells like an iPhone. Who is the Pres of NK? Apparently Kim Il Sung (still). Not to be confused with the President of the Presidium, who is apparently a nice guy. Or was, until he retired. However, I think it is exaggerating to say NK is not "law-based" (whatever that means). It's just that the ruling gang is not organised according to law. It is a quasi-royal family. Phil the Greek's infobox and perhaps article doesn't mention that he is a Knight of Australia, a fact that caused passing furore in the Antipodes. He has also been inducted into the Order of the Elephant and is allegedly a deity (or at least a demigod in some Pacific Island I can't recall (possombly Austria). Such political systems are not so unusual and have been here since 4004 BC (or even longer). They are systems based on prestige, deference, loyalty, and poetic nonsense. And they have stood the test of time. They have outlasted the Easter Island statues, they will outlast me, and they will possibly even outlast you. Documenting the titles, honorifics, and boring nonsense (to quote Stalin) that has been heaped on these pseudo-Marxist potentates would cost more than sweet potatoes. And who cares? Who cares if Prince Philip was the shield-maiden of Skiffwiffery on the Isle of Corflute up to 1957? So long as they were consenting adulteraters and the dealers was reliz...??? Who gives a tinker's cuss? Well, several editors, obviously. To put it bluntly, Kimbo is the Boss. How much he can exercise power is opaque. But trying to list his various offices (or orifices or auspices) is pointless in the extreme and makes this article on the unfortunate side of article, which I (in my better moments) up with shall not put. I apologise if I was a trifle prolix, but I had to vent my irritable spleen about the current overture. Thanks and good luck for now... and in the future...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"smells like an iPhone" ... huh?

The main idea of adding terms was to link all the articles I've created, see Template:Supreme_People's_Assembly... The clear majority of those articles have been created by me. --Ruling party (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The infobox on Kim il-Sung's article is particularly confusing. I can guarantee that many users to that page would just simply be put off by the sheer complexity of the amount of terms/drop down boxes etc. I think we need to move away from listing all the separate terms. To find a compromise, for example, Ruling party, couldn't you just add a hatnote or something which users can click on to find the exact dates of each term? The current info-boxes are just seems incredibly confusing to the average user (and even North Korea followers I might add!) (TDKR Chicago 101 and Jack Upland). JLo-Watson (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Another point, ideally on politicians' articles we try limit the amount of offices held to make the size of the info-box smaller. Another issue with listing all the terms, then, is the fact it makes the info-box excessively long (again using Kim il-Sung as an example here. Perhaps more details can be put in succession boxes (or as suggested earlier, using a hatnote) rather than the info-boxes. JLo-Watson (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This level of granularity is too much for an infobox. Consecutive terms should not be listed separately. They should go in Template:Kim Il-sung etc. which already list elections. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@JLo-Watson and Finnusertop: I have nothing against that argument. I would support hatnote use :) I agree that its a bit too complicated! --Ruling party (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be an expert on such arcane and righteously cool technicalities, but I suspect (nay, fervently believe) that your "solution" (which I devoutly respect) may end up substituting one piece of bureaucratic nonsense, with another equally toxic pseudo-alternative. Can't we all back of the issue of whether Phil was Hellenic or Macedonic or Brittanic or whatever (see above)? Seriously? Does it matter if Kim is chairman, table man, doona man, or cable guy? He's the boss, he's the Big Cheese, he's Celtic United, he's the Wiz Squeeze, he's the Top, the Colliseum, the Fisherman's Bend Amateur Museum, the Ping Pong Champion, the Major of Pyongyang, the dude with wife who never did no wrong. Or whatever. Why this obsession? No one care (apart from some stamp collectors in Newfoundland) whether Prinz Filip was the ice hockey champion of the Friendly Islands or the beer bottle guzzlers of the South-west Pacific. Maybe such flim-flam belongs in the article. That article. But does this article really need to document Phil's various dubious honours (by Phil I really truly mean Kim etc). To quote Stalin, who cares??? And, really, it's misleading, as I've said. Get a grip and grip the right thing, boys.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

fix the romanization of Kim Jong-Un and other Korean names.

You literally have the Hangul right there. It should be romanized as Jeong-Eun or Jung-Eun. When the fuck do we ever romanize the sound of 'eo' as the letter 'o'? It's Jung not Jawng. And its Eun not Oon. This is why you cannot be cited in a single classroom in the entire fucking world. Right here. You have the correct romanization for like literally thousands of other fucking Koreans. He gets his own rules because hes a fat dictator?2603:6011:F03:FB00:944A:5AFB:5F7B:B2BD (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC) (vulgarity removed)

Revised Romanization is not the only system to romanize Korean. You can read about which systems we use and how here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Romanization. In this case, English-language sources overwhelmingly use the romanization "Kim Jong-un", which, as it happens, is not how Revised Romanization would have it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many reasons why schools block Wikipedia or disallow its use by students - none of which are due to the point you tried to make. 50.111.33.214 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Fooking Koreuns. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

In the image caption, please change

which Kim Jong-un is reported to have attended

to

which Kim Jong-un reportedly attended

It's just a little simpler. 64.203.186.119 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Have simplified further to ".. reportedly attended by Kim Jong-un". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Update image of Kim with new appearance CountO-14 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide an image with acceptable licensing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Weight loss

maybe information on his weight loss should be included in the article, it may seem like trivia but there is already a lengthy paragraph concerning a previous episode of weight gain. Especially when he no longer looks like his infobox image

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/16/1007094798/north-korea-kim-jong-un-weight-loss-thinner-causing-health-speculation Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see one sentence about his weight, not a lengthy paragraph, and it's not obvious that the photographs in that source show anything other than camera differences. The article should avoid speculation at a distance about someone's health. While we're on the topic, when the article says that there were "fears" about Kim being ill or dead, perhaps it should mention whose fears (or hopes) those were. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The source seems reliable enough. But the actual evidence is not really overwhelming: "Some observers say Kim — who is about 170 centimeters (5 feet, 8 inches) tall and has previously weighed 140 kilograms (308 pounds) — may have lost about 10-20 kilograms (22-44 pounds)." I'd hardly say he looks "much thinner", just slightly less fat. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Now apparently his weight loss has been referenced on North Korean state television https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-koreans-worry-over-emaciated-kim-jong-un-state-media-says-2021-06-27/. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As well as NK News https://www.nknews.org/2021/06/everyone-in-north-korea-talking-about-emaciated-kim-jong-un-state-media/. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a perennial question. Do we report every yo-yoing media speculation about what's happening to Kim? I would say we are not a gossip magazine. Whether Jong-un's bottom is bigger or smaller than Kim Kardashian's is not something that concerns us. I would say there is no need to include any information about his weight unless the change is dramatic or abnormal. We do not report every time Boris Johnson has a hair cut. This stuff is underwhelming. With regard to the "fears" of death etc, I have changed it to "rumours". I think the "fears" might relate to North Korea becoming unstable and hordes of refugees flooding into China. However, most experts on Korea say this scenario is unlikely as the previous leadership transitions went smoothly. Little Sister would probably get the gig - and that's it. In any case, this is crystal ball territory. We have little solid information about Kim's health. Maybe we could have a sister article called "Rumours about Kim Jong Un" where every bit of rumour or speculation about Kim can be laid out like a smorgasbord.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd welcome expansion of the "See also" section at Kim Kardashian.But you could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not just have a heading on this page saying, "Were you really looking for Kim Kardashian"?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What separates Boris Johnson receiving a haircut and Kim Jong-un gaining or in this case losing weight is that Kim's appearance is one of the few windows into North Korea. It may say everything about his health or it may say nothing. That is why North Korea observers observe. That is why there are paragraphs here in this article about a previous episode of weight gain, or a time when he disappeared from public view for a month. Furthermore what is unusual now is that an interview with a citizen was aired on state television as i said, commenting on Kim Jong-un looking "emaciated". That is why it makes this matter significant Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a window into North Korea; it's a black hole of navel-gazing. These intrepid analysts have their heads where the sun doesn't shine. Whereof we do not know, thereof we should be silent. Unless there is some strong evidence Kim is seriously ill or has mysteriously disappeared (and is not just WFH or at the beach), this speculation is just so much hot air.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• No no no. If "weight loss" is demonstrated to impact geo-politics, or to have a long-lasting impact on his life, it can be included then. Today, it is just pop trivia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we come with a consensus on the infobox image?

People keep changing it for no reason even though it's a perfectly good quality picture of Kim Jong-un.DaBabyindahouse (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

DavidTheWalrus (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

same birthday as Parker Allen

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

With only 366 days to chose from and a world population of 7,800,000,000 (as of March 2020), it's not very surprising people share birthdays, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Have you ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wa State Flag 2021.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion to Taewonsu

On a new official portrait unveiled on 7th January 2021, Kim Jong-un appeared to wear the taewŏnsu shoulder boards on his military uniform, showing that he had promoted to the rank at some point prior. Image of Kim Jong-un in uniform of taewŏnsu So it would be in order to adjust his military rank accordingly.

This is only based on one piece photographical evidence that cannot be used as a strong reference. This has not been announced by state media nor has there been any analysis surrounding this by English or Korean media. In North Korea, this would have been widely covered if it were true, as it is a heavily reserved military rank, usually left for later in life for its leaders. This is an issue on several other pages mentioning this also. I'd suggest that more closer analysis of the image be done before confirming this. He is currently still Marshal of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (wŏnsu). Willnanister92 (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Second or third or ... son of Kim Jong-il?

As of 2022-01-04 this article says that Kim Jong-un is the second son of Kim Jong-il.

However, the section on "family" in the Wikipedia article on Kim Jong-il says, "He had three known sons: Kim Jong-nam, Kim Jong-chul and Kim Jong-un."

Accordingly, I'm changing this article to read, that Kim Jong-un is "a", not "the second" son of Kim Jong-il. I hope that others more knowledgeable than I will modify at least one if not both of these articles to reflect the status of knowledge about how many sons Kim Jong-il actually had, if it matters. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DPRK-Army-OF-12.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

I request that

"Kim Jong-un[a][b] (/ˌkɪm dʒɒŋˈʊn, -ˈʌn/;[3] Korean: 김정은; Korean: [kim.dzɔŋ.ɯn];[c] born 8 January 1982 or 1983"

be changed to:

"Kim Jong-un[a][b] (/ˌkɪm dʒɒŋˈʊn, -ˈʌn/;[3] Korean: 김정은; Korean: [kim.dzɔŋ.ɯn];[c] born 8 January 1984)"

(My inline citation is in this line.) Boxermystic (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think that source is strong enough to say this definitively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree with your statement: "I don't think that source is strong enough to say this definitively." The source is a published book; the author is a former Washington Post journalist who reported heavily on North Korea and personally interacted with Kim Jong-un's aunt who fled the North Korean regime, as the quote indicates. I understand that consensus is one of the key ways to make changes to a page, but as a new editor, I'm appalled that you concluded the that the source is weak from your own opinion, instead of making a conclusion from the nature of the source itself. Boxermystic (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That source is basically third-hand information, and given the bulk of other sources out there that can't get a good narrow date, it seems odd this would be the only one with a harder '84 date. It could be included in the body that "According to Fifield, in speaking to Kim Jong-un's aunt, his birthyear was 1984." but its not strong enough to be an infobox change. --Masem (t) 01:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox- re:children

Currently the infobox states that Kim Jong-un has 4(3 allegedly) children how ever this a)doesn't seem to be back up in the body of the article and b)doesn't appear to be backed up by any reliable sources, I didn't want to request a change in case i missed something, apologies for any formating errors I'm on mobile Fallen-shadows94 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have removed that from the infobox as we don't know exactly how many children he has.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jin Zhengen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jin Zhengen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Jin Zhengen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Which image should be used in the infobox?

• 
  A
• 
  B

• A because it gives a frontal view of his face.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• A because the flag in the background better depicts the subject's identity, as opposed to Version B that introduces another country's flag. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth year

Are we sure about the birth year, because the infobox now lists one year, while the lead lists two. --IWI (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it to 83 for now, as that seems more reliable than 82, looking at sources. --IWI (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The North Korean government says 1982, while U.S. and South Korean intelligence say 1983. I do not think either claim is more reliable than the other in this specific instance, given that it is a self-claim (North Korea) versus testimony from interrogations (U.S. / South Korea). That is probably why both years were given in the lead. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes and 1984 has also been suggested, what do we put in the lead/infobox? --IWI (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is reasoning given for why 1982 could be false. --IWI (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't reasons also been given for why 1983 may be false?

Can someone create a table in this Talk page to support a more reasoned analysis? Maybe with three columns: Birth year, Sources, and Comments, with one row for each of 1982, 1983, and 1984? This should make it easier for experts to compare their sources and easier for non-experts to evaluate the strength of the evidence for (and against?) each alternative. The results could then be summarized some place in the article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Who would exactly qualify as an "expert", and why would we need an "expert" opinion anyways? I think the first paragraph of the section "Early life" explains the conflicting claims adequately:

"North Korean authorities and state-run media have stated Kim's birthdate was 8 January 1982, but South Korean intelligence officials believe the actual date is a year later. It is thought that Kim's official birth year was changed for symbolic reasons; 1982 marks 70 years after the birth of his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, and 40 years after the official birth of his father Kim Jong-il. Before 2018 the US Treasury Department listed Kim Jong-un's official birthdate as 8 January 1984. Now, the birthdate is listed as 8 January 1983, aligning with South Korea's birthdate for Kim Jong-un. The claim that he was born in 1984 matches that given by his aunt and uncle, who moved to the United States in 1998 and were interrogated by the CIA."

The known details of each party's motivations do not go further than what is written above. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Image caption

The caption on the info box image of him refers to him as simply "Kim in 2019". That is his surname, based on how Korean names work. Should it not say "Jong-Un"? 146.209.159.16 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because formal writing refers to individuals by their surnames, not their given names. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Was kim jong un a marshal?

Was he? Ioannisp44 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Of what? Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Grand Marshal?

If Kim Jong-un was promoted to Grand Marshal, then it should be relatively easy to find a source in English or Korean that reflects this fact. Yet no source has ever been provided for this claim anywhere on Wikipedia, except this photo of him in full military regalia, and whoever added this as a source to Taewonsu made the assumption of the rank themselves by looking at the blurry image of his shoulder patches. This article makes no mention of the term "Grand Marshal" and a few days ago North Korean state media still referred to Kim Jong-un as the "Marshal of the Republic" during a public appearance by him. It is also worth noting that the title "Grand Marshal" was awarded posthumously to both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il.

Furthermore in regard to photos of Kim Jong-un's military uniform, a South Korean government official said it best:

"It is assumed that he is wearing a grand marshal insignia based on the fact that it looks identical to those of the past, but as the North has not yet reported of the title, we will need to further analyze whether it really is a grand marshal insignia or whether there has been any changes in the shape of the marshal insignia."

Until a reliable source states that Kim Jong-un was promoted to Grand Marshal, this change should not be made because it is complete original research and an assumption by the editor. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The original change was made by Handoto on 12 August 2021 without a citation. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexiska98, Myrabert01, and Northkoreanfan11122: Please reply to this discussion before making the change again. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This is from the analysis of Korea Now, the english youtube channel of Yonhap New Agency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4UKYAfmhgc Myrabert01 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We should wait for an official confirmation per site policy, as it is evident the DPRK government has not announced such a promotion. Wikipedia does not confirm rumours or speculation. The quote above from a Yonhap article perfectly encapsulates the policy-based position on this matter. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The last time something similar happened was when several sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia covered rumours that Kim Jong-un had died, and many editors asked for the change to be made. Obviously that change would have been much bigger than this one, but it puts into perspective why this policy is in place. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

The military rank honorific on line 7 should be changed. Currently it looks like this: Chinaman2345 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chinaman2345: Be more specific with your request. Changed to what? CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Name

Kim Jong-un's name in Hanja is 金正恩 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.23.111 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

IPA of Kim Jong Un

Shouldn't Kim Jong-Un's name in IPA in Korean be transcribed as kim.dʑʌŋ.ɯ̟n instead of kim.dzɔŋ.ɯn. Please correct me if I'm wrong LeafeonFan9 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

정 (jong/jeong) is pronounced like /dʒɒŋ/ in English. 은 (un/eun) is pronounced like /ʊn/ in English, but /uːn/ is a common (mis)pronunciation in English. /ˌkɪm dʒɒŋˈʊn/ is the correct English pronunciation of the name and the pronunciation used by official English language channels in the DPRK (particularly their foreign Juche study material). Yue🌙 22:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Same dude as Leafeonfan9, I can't access my computer which has my really long password saved, but my point was that it said Koreans also pronounce it like kim.dzɔŋ.ɯn which is false in both Pyongyang and Seoul Korean as far as I know 97.120.214.216 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not too familiar with Korean IPA, but after repeating the name and the sounds in the examples given at Help:IPA/Korean, I am quite certain you are correct. I speak the Seoul dialect, so I know that is at least true in South Korean standard language. If someone else thinks we are mistaken, they will say so then, but for now I will make that change. Yue🌙 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Politician or political official?

I changed the first sentence of the article to say Kim is a "political official" rather than a "politician", but it was reverted by Yue. I did this at least in part because Britannica describes him as such (I have not been able to find a source describing Kim as a "politician"), but I also just thought politician sounded weird for him. Politicians are often associated with elected office, and Kim is not truly elected. See the first sentence of the wikipedia article politician: A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government. There as some dictionaries that's definitions of politician may encompass someone who is not elected. However, with a source using "political official" and some ambiguity with dictionaries, I think it's best to use "political official" than "politician". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: (In my view) this is a proposed change to an unstated convention, not merely the lead of this article. I am used to the definition which includes both people who are active in party politics and people holding or seeking an elected office. This is the first time I have heard of a definition of "politician" which only refers to the latter description. Xi Jinping may be described as not "truly elected" either, as would a lot of other leaders in one-party or dominant-party states. Figures like Bashar al-Assad and Ilham Aliyev are closer to your description of Kim Jong-un because they succeeded their fathers in elections widely described (in Western media primarily) as not free or legitimate. However, they are all described as politicians within their articles because (presumably) they fit the definition I am used to: someone involved in politics professionally. Yue🌙 22:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

He is the general secretary of the country's ruling political party. So, definitely active in party politics. Though, this is beside the point, which is that your definition of politics is strangely restrictive. Politics is not just electoral. Politics is about power relations in all forms, and politicians are the people exercising political power, regardless of the structure in place. "Political official" implies an administrator exercising power on someone else's behalf rather than in their own right. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Political leader?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

change [s]igns of a rise in luxury goods to signs of a rise in luxury goods Pranav Sreeganesh (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. See edit summary for explanation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why not just have it as a capital S? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Cause it's in the middle of a sentence. You don't put a capital letter in the middle of a sentence unless it's meant to be capitalized like a proper noun. It's basic grammar. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Article main photo

@Yue: Hi, what do yo think about this photo? I known that the resolution isn't as good as the one of the current one but in this one he's looking at the camera - his face is shown better. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think your suggested photo is better. I think I tried changing the photo in the infobox to that a while ago and some other editors reverted it because the current one is more recent. I don't think that's a policy though, but I may be wrong. Yue🌙 21:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yue: Thanks for your oppinion. Yep, there really isn't such a policy - if such existed, then in the articles about Hitler, Sukarno, etc. their oldest possible Wikimedia photos would have been used. I'll put this one. If it gets reverted (which possibly will happen soon), then a voting has to be held. There's no other way to solve this:) Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally prefer the previous picture mainly because it is more high quality and because the new picture looks a bit pixelated (and for some reason I think Kim looks a bit depressed in the new picture...? XD), but to be honest both pictures are currently unsatisfactory since Kim Jong-un's appearance has changed a lot since 2019 (sadly due to North Korea's copyright laws, we must wait for the next time Kim travels abroad to a country that is not China, which might... take a long time). My opinion is not settled, however, and I would be happy to discuss this issue further. The Account 2 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The new photo looks more like a portrait and in my opinion that's more appropriate for the infobox. I agree that the new photo is inferior in quality, although in the previous one, Kim Jong-un is in an awkward position where he is looking to his right while shaking Vladimir Putin's hand on his left. That awkwardness is still present despite the crop. Yue🌙 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah good point. The Account 2 (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the suggested photo. Something feels wrong about having the American flag behind Kim Jong-un in the infobox. Skipple ☎ 02:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the existing photo. The suggested photo is marred by a band of light level with his eyes that gives the picture a strange look. Note: NK copyright law is not very different to that in most countries. Let's not confuse the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't really criticizing North Korea's copyright laws, just thought it made it a bit harder due to it. The Account 2 (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thought I would add a gallery of all the options discussed so far:

Options for the infobox photo of Kim Jong-un (as of 18 September 2022)

• 
  A: Photo before the discussion
• 
  B: First proposal
• 
  C: Second proposal (current)

Yue🌙 06:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I support A.Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I too support A. With B, the hot light behind him seriously detracts from the image. With C, the presence of a portion of the American flag behind him compromises the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I support A, and definitely oppose C. It is inappropriate to use a photo of a national leader with another country's flag as a backdrop. Cullen328 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think C is the better photo, though I understand concerns about the American flag. Perhaps the stars could be digitally removed, similar to how the US flag was completely removed from File:Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi - UNGA (48784380531) (cropped).jpg? Yeeno (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yue:, @Skipple:, @Jack Upland:, @Hammersoft:, @Cullen328:, @Yeeno: I was the one who replaced the odd-looking A (odd angle, too zoomed at lower part, strange body proportions) to B and then to C. I preffer C. I agree that the background in B is too bright and is thus more or less distracting. I chose it because Kim looks straight at the camera and because I didn't found C yet. I agree that it's kind of strange for him to stay in front of the US flag, but I disagree that it's a huge problem per se if the infobox image of a state leader shows him in front of a flag of another country. An example of that is File:Сердар Бердымухамедов (10-06-2022).jpg

which is curently used in Turkmenistan's Serdar Berdimuhamedow infobox. And finally, I agree with @Yeeno: that the US flag can be removed/retouched. If the current image gets changed for whatever reason, then I would support B (i.e. the previous one). For me A is out of discussion because of the odd angle and the strange body proportions. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: I would like to know why the image was changed to C, even though this discussion was still ongoing and even though there is clearly no consensus to change it to C? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was still on C when some user changed it to A without explanation, so I just reverted it back to the status-quo, i.e. C. Check out the article edit history lol. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? 1 January 2022, 3 February 2022, 2 March 2022, 2 April 2022, 2 May 2022, 4 June 2022, 2 July 2022, 7 August 2022, 1 September 2022. It's been A all year long. The standing status quo ante discussion was clearly A. I'm reverting back. Pending a consensus that changes it, please leave it be per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Over for lowcomprehensioncels lmfao. Who tf talks abouт the whole period? I asked Yue if the totally horrible and inappropriate A can be replaced with something that visually depicts Kim in a better way and sugested B, with which he agreed. Then, as stated above, I found C and replaced B because of its obvious unnatural background. The image should not be restored to A in any case, and C should not be replaced until a better image (i.e. not A) be found. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

May I ask what your issue with A is? Looking at it the only thing that bothers me is that it doesn't look like he was looking at the camera. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the very issue, my friend. Wikipedia sugests that the image that depicts someone the best should be used. This is especially true in the case of famous people, state leaders etc. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. And I agree that B isn't all that good (especially cause it literally looks like a nuke went off in the background). Although I do think that either we should find a better alternative to C or find a way to edit out the American flag in the background as it looks very out of place considering Kon Jong-un is the leader of North Korea. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Hi, I would like an addition under his "Public image" section. Kim Jong-un has the nickname "Rocket Man", and I think it should be added as it was quite popular a while back. Here are the reliable sources https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/world/asia/trump-kim-jong-un.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article174107001.html https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-rocket-man-mean-trumps-nickname-for-kim-jong-un-is-making-waves-2406305 https://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-relaxed-about-little-rocket-man-nickname-south-korea-2018-3 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trumps-new-nickname-rocket-man-for-kim-jong-un-is-brilliant-commentary.html https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-korea-to-warns-trump-over-rocket-man-nickname

Thanks. Like that Elton John song, if you ask me 151.210.139.250 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It might be that those sources are useful for the Donald Trump article, but none of those sources speak of his public image as opposed to a term Donald Trump used. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth vandalisation

This Wikipedia article has been vandalised to claim that Kim Jong-un was born on 8 January 1982, when it is actually 8 January 1984. I will fix this. 2001:8003:6C38:5D00:B8CD:B8C9:4363:B619 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Source (please read wp:rs)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un's daughter

It was just revealed by NK that Kim has had a daughter, so this should probably be included in the infobox right? (source https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/11/19/north-korean-leader-reveals-daughter-at-ballistic-missile-launch) Ametica (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We already know he has children. See under "Family". We don't know the name of the daughter who appeared at the missile launch, so I don't think there's much we can say.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, Ju-ae would deserve her own article, seeing how she is treated as the de facto Crown-Princess. Keksfresser12 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. There's probably enough reports about her to write a short article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

See this article [10]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Public image

Any update on "In a poll of South Koreans conducted following the May 2018 inter-Korean summit, 78% of respondents said they trusted Kim, compared with 10% approval a couple months prior." in the Public image section? I doubt if the views would still be as flaterring. Gotitbro (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Chronological?

Every edit seems to take this article further away from a chronological structure. I don't think this will end well. Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Birth year in the lead and the infobox

Which year(s) of birth should be used in the article lead and the infobox?

• A. 1982
• B. 1983
• C. 1984
• D. 1982 or 1983
• E. 1982 or 1984
• F. 1983 or 1984
• G. 1982, 1983 or 1984

79.185.139.79 (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What do wp:rs say? 10:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

C. The Chinese and Korean Wikipedia says 1984. Many reliable sources say 1984, such as this South Korean newspaper https://www.donga.com/news/article/all/20120202/43751315/2. HaydenWong (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia also says 1984 as an unofficial announcement by North Korea.--とんずらする豚 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And South Korea thinks it's 1983. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What we have under Early life is the best information we have. The actual date is contested and there's nothing we can do about that.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Kim Jong-un → Kim Jong Un
• Kim Jong-il → Kim Jong Il
• Kim Il-sung → Kim Il Sung

– Previous discussion regarding North Korean names has rendered no consensus. (For previous discussions see here: [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]) While South Korea has changed their preferred romanization of Korean names from "Kim Dae Jung" to "Kim Dae-jung", this is not the case for North Korea, which uses the romanization of "Kim Il Sung" for all names (The Economist Style Guide 2005 p. 102). The AP Stylebook follows this guideline, stating "North Korean names are written as three separate words, each capitalized: Kim Jong Un."

Kim Il Sung is the definitive common name per Google ngram [16] with sources going about two to one in favor of "Kim Il Sung". For the other two names, Google ngram shows similar rates of usage of both romanizations [17] [18]. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) states that "If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized."

It has been previously argued that the spelling "Kim Jong Un" would not be neutral. I find this unconvincing as this is the romanization used by North Korea for all Korean names and was also a historical romanization used by South Korea. If anything, using "Kim Jong-un", despite a clear personal preference for a name that is also common usage is breaking with NPOV.

Sources publishing in American English nearly universally use the unhyphenated romanziation. Sources from the United Kingdom or associated with the UK use both romanizations. South Korean sources generally use the hyphenated romanization, which follows the preferred romanization of South Korean names. As a whole, "Kim Jong Un" and "Kim Jong Il" have wider adoption than "Kim Jong-un" and "Kim Jong-il", while usage of "Kim Il Sung" is clearly favored in the sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Usage

United States

• Mixed usage The New York Times adds a hyphen for "Kim Jong-un" and "Kim Jong-il", but not for "Kim Il Sung"
• Mixed usage The New Yorker uses "Kim Jong Un" and "Kim Il Sung", but strangely uses both "Kim Jong-il" and "Kim Jong Il"
• No hyphen USA Today uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Wall Street Journal uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Los Angeles Times uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Washington Post uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen' Time Magazine uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Associated Press uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Bloomberg News uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Voice of America uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Chicago Tribune uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen NPR uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Boston Globe uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen NK News uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Diplomat uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Human Rights Watch uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

United Kingdom

• Hyphen BBC News uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen The Guardian uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen The Times uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen The Daily Telegraph uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen Amnesty International uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Unclear The Evening Standard does not consistently use one romanization
• Unclear The Independent does not consistently use one romanization
• No hyphen The Economist uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Financial Times uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Reuters uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Sky News uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

Ireland

• Hyphen The Irish Times historically unhyphenated the names, but currently uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"

France

• No hyphen France 24 generally uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

Germany

• No hyphen DW uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

India

• No hyphen The Indian Express generally uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• Unclear The Statesman does not consistently use one romanization

Japan

• No hyphen The Japan Times uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen The Asahi Shimbun uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

Qatar

• No hyphen Al Jazeera uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

Singapore

• No hyphen The Straits Times uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

Hong Kong

• Hyphen The South China Morning Post uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"

Australia

• Hyphen The Sydney Morning Herald uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• No hyphen ABC uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

South Korea

• Hyphen The Korea Times uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen The Korea Herald uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen The Hankyoreh uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Hyphen Yonhap News Agency uses "Kim Jong-un", "Kim Jong-il", and "Kim Il-sung"
• Mixed The JoongAng Daily adds a hyphen for "Kim Jong-un" and "Kim Jong-il", but not for "Kim Il Sung"
• No hyphen Daily NK uses "Kim Jong Un", "Kim Jong Il", and "Kim Il Sung"

North Korea

• North Korean sources exclusively use the unhyphenated romanization.

Notes

Survey and discussion

• Support - Based on the evidence provided, it does seem that the hyphen is more often omitted than included, establishing WP:COMMONNAME.--Estar8806 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The data above shows that usage is very mixed, and to a certain extent delineated by region. As such, there seems little reason to change from one acceptable version to another. Also, if we take from the above that UK English favours hyphens and US English does not, then MOS:RETAIN kicks in. Consistency with South Korean titles also seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Given name and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Default policy on given names with three or more syllables: Should there be hyphens or not? Surveyor Mount 07:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  The first link you cite states If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized. What I have shown here is that there is a personal preference and that there is an established English spelling. Regardless, WP:COMMONNAME trumps any naming convention. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also that relates to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles in both North and South Korea, Koreans variously spell two-syllable given names as a joined word or separated by a hyphen or a space, with the second syllable in uppercase, and the third syllable in lowercase. But others does not (e.g. Jungkook). Surveyor Mount 22:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know where you're getting the idea that that is the case "in both North and South Korea". That's not the way its spelled in any North Korean English-language source (See the Rodong Sinmun, the KCNA, Voice of Korea, Uriminzokkiri, DPRK Today, Naenara, The Pyongyang Times, KASS (Korean: 조선사회과학자협회), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chongnyon Jonwi, the website for Kim Il Sung University, Minju Choson, North Korea's Ministry of Physical Culture and Sports, and all of the English-language periodicals as well). :3 F4U (they/it) 00:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  See discussion in Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (Korean)#North Korean names 2, also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Romanization of North Korean names. Surveyor Mount 00:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Romanized names without hyphen are better as North Korea section says "North Korean sources exclusively use the unhyphenated romanization".--とんずらする豚 (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and evidence provided, and per those above. BD2412 T 13:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Evidence cited shows the North Korean romanization is more common. Even if it were a close question, Kim Il Sung etc. are themselves commonly used names clearly satisfying the WP:criteria and will confuse no anglophone reader. Finally, WP:Global supplies further support. Where we can do so consistent with other principles, we should adopt a country's "proper" usage. This such a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 14:33, April 7, 2023 (UTC)
• I think the nominator makes a good argument, but I must ask, what will be done with other North Korean names? If this is really the way North Korea romanizes them, they should be moved too. I wouldn't support if it was just these three pages, that would be too big a consistency violation for me to ignore. --Quiz shows 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  While I do think the default style for article titles of North Korean people as a whole needs to be re-examined, I don't think moving just these three for now would create any sort of inconsistency. After all, we have Syngman Rhee, Gojong of Korea, Yun Posun, and a whole host of other Korean names that aren't necessarily 'consistent'. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, mainly procedurally. I think the nomination makes a good point, as I said above. But Im still not comfortable with only changing a few names. If unhyphenated romainzation is the preferred North Korean form, this should just be standard for all articles. While the nominator has pointed out that there are other "inconsistent" names, I would not say it is the same situation. With Syngman Rhee and Yun Posun, there were RMs that agreed that a unique format was the common usage, as opposed to here where it is a larger overhaul as part of what is accepted by North Korea. --Quiz shows 16:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support — I support a convention change for all North Korean names. The official North Korean format seems to be commonly used for other notable North Korean figures as well, such as Choe Ryong-hae and Ri Sol-ju. Yue🌙 23:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for all. Unhyphenated names are what Koreans themselves use when giving their names in English. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mztourist: not all of it, please establish one of consensus via RfC for unhyphenated names on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). Surveyor Mount 03:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

72.225.173.90 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do not learn about this man

What edit do you want done? Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Birth year, yet again

(@1AmNobody24:@Abbyjjjj96:@Amakuru:@Amigao:@Bbb23:@BD2412:@Blaze Wolf:@Callmemirela:@CTemelkoski:@DIYeditor:@DrKilleMoff:@Estar8806:@Freedom4U:@Gotitbro:@Hameltion:@HaydenWong:@IncredibleDryMouth:@Jack Upland:@JArthur1984:@Keksfresser12:@Knotimpressed:@Marchjuly:@Maddy from Celeste:@Marcocapelle:@Marima:@MelbourneStar:@Mureungdowon:@Mztourist:@Neils51:@Nick.mon:@Nightscream:@Quiz shows:@Rando321:@Ravenpuff:@Seraphimblade:@Slatersteven:@Stanley Gordon:@Stara Marusya:@Surveyor Mount:@とんずらする豚:@Tails Wx:@The Account 2:@Thrakkx:@Tinmop84:@TrueRGB:@Tulzscha:@Vipz:@Yue:@Walt Yoder:@Wozal:)

---

Once again the birth year in the lede is being changed [19]. It keeps on being changed, in a never ending loop. We discussed this most recently above at "Birth year in the lead and the infobox". We can all agree there's no certainty about the birth year. But, regardless of that uncertainty we can be certain about how we describe this uncertainty in the lede and infobox. In an effort to get people to come to some consensus, I'm going to ping every non-IP editor who has edited this talk page this year, along with everyone who has edited the article this year. Sorry for all the pings. But, the prior discussion did not have enough people participating. If we can't get enough participation with this attempt, I'll start an RfC later.

Please pick an option:

• A. 1982
• B. 1983
• C. 1984
• D. 1982 or 1983
• E. 1982 or 1984
• F. 1983 or 1984
• G. 1982, 1983 or 1984

If some other option, please be clear as to why. Yes, we know the sources vary. Yes, we know that North Korea claims 1982. This isn't about the sources, but about how to best describe the situation in the lede. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option G. I'm new to this debate, but if sources are genuinely split and there's no way to determine what the balance of evidence is, then just give all the options and leave it at that.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option G per Amakuru, under the same condition. I have insufficient knowledge of the issue to assess whether sources are genuinely split. --Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option G same as Amakuru, especially with the current note I think this is the best option. I also have insufficient knowledge to assess how split the sources are. Knotimpressed (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option G. As long as there is an uncertainty and there is not enough evidence to know which one that is correct I think we shall list all alternatives. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Given other individuals in the age controversies category, it might be worthwhile to do one of the following: add [disputed] after the birthday as seen on Kathy Acker, add a birthdate myth section as seen on Gracie Allen, add a Circa prior to the birth years and remove from 1982 births and into the more general 1980s births, or do as seen on Adesuwa Aighewi and not mention birth year in the lead and add into the invisible Category:Year of birth missing (living people).
ETA: According to WP:DOB, "[i]f multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. (We might then need to determine who or what is a reliable source in order to best determine which year(s) to use.) Wozal (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option G, perhaps further complicated by the traditional system in Korea with reference to age where one year is added to (international) age. I see that in this article the mention that North Korea ceased using the traditional system in the 1980s however this comment is unsourced. I think the birth year is well and succinctly discussed in the article and to assist consensus 'G' has my vote. Neils51 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The traditional age is the years of age. It does not affect the birth date.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option D — North Korea claims 1982, South Korea claims 1983, US used to claim 1984 but now claims 1983 with new intelligence, the intelligence being from the South Korean government and not the vibe of relatives. From the source cited regarding the relatives' claim of 1984:

"They can reveal, for example, that Kim Jong Un was born in 1984 — not 1982 or 1983, as has been widely thought. The reason they're certain? It was the same year that their first son was born. 'He and my son were playmates from birth. I changed both of their diapers,' Ko said with a laugh."

The 1984 claim clearly does not have as much credibility as the other two claims, which is why the US government dropped it when their South Korean counterparts provided them with new intelligence. Yue🌙 23:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option G as per above.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option G Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option H, I guess. If there's that much uncertainty around his birth year, it shouldn't just be a numeric value. Leave it out of the infobox, in the lead state that it is uncertain but probably between 1982 and 1984, and then in the body of the article explain more fully why there's so much uncertainty around it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option H. Multiple sources, multiple consensuses. I can't find a policy or guideline page that says NK sources are unreliable. Additionally, I've added hidden notes for the birth years until consensus is reached. – Callmemirela 🍁 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:DAILYNK, "The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution." I think there's also always some caution on using state-controlled news organizations. Wozal (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for this. I was on that page before making my decision, and I couldn't find that specific source ironically. – Callmemirela 🍁 16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• My feeling is that this shouldn't be treated any differently from other articles with similar issues in that the article should reflect what reliable sources are saying. If there's disagreement among reliable sources then that should be covered in the article or at least in an {{efn}}. Personally, I think "Option G" is too cumbersome for the lead, but the disagreement should be covered later on. A compromise perhaps would be to use MOS:CIRCA and split the difference between 1982 and 1984. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option D per Yue. It does not appear that any credible source is currently claiming a 1984 birth date. As Neils51 notes, anecdotal accounts could easily be confused in the telling. I note Ho Chi Minh as an example of how to handle conflicting accounts of year-of-birth. Also, do not include a month and date of birth in the article lead if the year is uncertain. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option D. I'm not an expert but I agree with Yue. We don't need to list several dates in the lead. We can just go with the two that are most plausibly thought to be reliable. --Quiz shows 03:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Please undo revision 1172317769. It's vandalism. 83.22.7.42 (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Taewonsu / Grand Marshal / Generalissimo

This well-meaning but incorrect edit is made at least once or twice a year, so a reminder to other editors that:

1. What has been confirmed by the North Korean government and later reported as fact by reliable sources is that Kim Jong Un is a Marshal (Wonsu) with the official title Marshal of the Republic.
2. What has not been confirmed and is reported as speculation by reliable sources is that Kim Jong Un holds the posthumous title of Grand Marshal (Taewonsu). This is often based on photos of Kim Jong Un taken in 2020 and 2021 and accompanied by disclaimers that this rank has not been confirmed by the North Korean government nor by their counterparts in the South.

You would think that Kim Jong Un's promotion to Grand Marshal would have been officially announced by now, given the prestige of the title and its momentous importance to the country's propaganda. Yet over three years later this has not been done, probably because the promotion hasn't happened yet. Yue🌙 22:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

May you add the following to this article's Russia subsection under 'Leader of North Korea'?

In September 2023, Kim Jong Un visited Russia in his first foreign trip since 2019 (also to Russia). The meeting lasted over four hours at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in the Amur Oblast, and was described as underpinning how the two countries' interests are aligning. Putin is widely suspected to be seeking North Korea's large stockpiles of aging ammunition and rockets from the Soviet era. During the meeting, Kim once again gave his support for Russia’s “sacred fight” against the west, expressing his “...support for all the measures taken by the Russian government, and [he] takes this opportunity again to affirm that [he] will always be with Russia." When asked if Russia would help North Korea build satellites, presumably in return for ammunition, Putin said “that’s why [they] came here."

Thank you. My Soul is on Strike (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you :) My Soul is on Strike (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Some sources said Kim could be born in 1984 49.130.130.36 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: those sources are in position to know when he was born (a subject already covered in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

undo vandalism special:diff/1177138593 79.185.137.70 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

I request for the Category:North Korean communists to be added to the External Links. 95.151.245.1 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yue🌙 18:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

New portrait

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello everybody, I think we should start a discussion about Kim's portrait. There're three main proposals (but you can add more options if you like):

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C

I personally support A, which was used for years , it has a better quality and there isn't a US flag behind him (which is quite ironical). -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times (see archives here). I think we've always settled on A. The serious problem with B is that the U.S. flag is in the background, even dominating it. A is clearly a better choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree but User:GreatLeader1945 keep reverting my edits and want to use B. So I started this discussion, I hope he will join it (sooner or later…) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur. @GreatLeader1945: please stop edit warring to your preferred image. The status quo before this was for Image A. We will retain Image A unless there is consensus to do otherwise. Your currently preferred image File:Kim Jong-un 2019.png is (1) blurry and out of focus and (2) no more recent than Image A. There is no reason to use it in preference over Image A. Please STOP. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nick.mon @Hammersoft No. This utterly strange photo won't be to stay. I've found a different photo that I've put as an infobox one. No US flag, looks straight at the camera, don't remove it because "it's not of as high quality as that one" or "the background" MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear GreatLeader1945, just to be clear, you cannot say that something "won't be to stay" because you are not the only one who decides here. The new pic doesn't have the US flag in the background and looks a bit better than B, but in my opinion it's quite blurry, to be honest. Anyway, I'm going to add it here and see what happens, hoping that more users will join the discussion. As always, before reaching a new consensus I'll restore the previous version, please, for the umpteenth time, don't revert this edit: there isn't a consensus to change the pic (at least for now). It's not so difficult to understand. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Fine MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As I already said many times that the current Option A that is so preffered by lots of people here is very odd-looking IMO, and because some object to Option B because of "the US flag in the background" (which, mind you, is only partially visible and there's also a DPRK one present too next to it), I suggest Option C - no US flag (that scary flag!) visible; yes, the image quality is lower but he's looking at the camera and I don't think that the background is too odd or distracting. The image could get cropped a little bit if needed. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nick.mon @Hammersoft @Yue MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see what the new option Image C brings to the table that isn't already present in Image A. Image A is of higher quality than Image C, and the flag behind him is the flag of North Korea. I still say Image A is clearly better than anything presented so far. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Well, I wrote in my suggestion of it - he looks at the camera - that's the whole problem wits A - he's not looking at the camera but to somewhere else to the left. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A. This is a classic case of too much energy being spent on what amounts to matters of personal preference or perception. All of the pictures are acceptable to me but A seems the clearest and we should use it. B has quite a lot of shine on the subject’s face. C doesn’t seem to have a natural color balance. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 You have a point, but that's a famous person and Lenin's infobox photo was changed for a similar reason a month ago. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You also have a point with the fact that Kim is looking to the side in image A. That's not ideal and it does make me think the image choice could be improved, but from my perspective that would mean someone brings forward a new alternative choice, as I would nonetheless suggest A over both of the current alternatives. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Descendants

This article may need revision as a result of the publication of this news article. 86.22.108.188 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable report from any ROK government agency, but an isolated claim by unnamed sources. A discussion regarding Kim Ju-ae's name does not need to take place until more intelligence sources or the DPRK government itself contradicts the established fact that Kim Ju-ae's name is Kim Ju-ae. The claim in the source is based entirely on the hypothesis that Dennis Rodman misinterpreted 저애 ("that girl") as the name 주애 when he first reported her name. I am sure such a mistake would have been picked up on by the ROK government. Yue🌙 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Dennis Rodman, a non-native speaker, appears to be the original source of the name 주애.

This article reiterates that name, but is also based on hearsay. It further states that the DPRK haven't officially revealed her name yet.

It is difficult to know what is the truth and what isn't, especially with so many false reports, particularly concerning the execution of people which have later appeared alive. Either way, her name is not an "established fact". 86.22.108.188 (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

Super drowzee2 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

He has died on december 10 2023 from clasified health issues

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lewcm Talk to me! 09:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No evidence he is dead.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

For a dead gut, he seems pretty active Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Kim Ju Ae

I am adding this talk to discuss her being confirmed. It has been confirmed by multiple articles that North Korea had confirmed she is the daughter of Kim Jon Un. Therefor she should not be unconfirmed in the box but confirmed @Blaze 007 GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yue GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaze wolf GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources such as? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The current phrasing is fine; it references the number of children, not the children themselves. The number of children that Kim Jong Un has is still unconfirmed. It does not matter that Kim Ju Ae is now known because whether or not she has siblings is still uncertain. What would Kim Ju Ae being "confirmed" mean? That her name is known publicly? Yue🌙 21:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t fine tho it acts like none of his kids aren’t confirmed which just isn’t true. There are potentially two other kids tho that’s unconfirmed. As seen here https://news.sky.com/story/kim-ju-ae-who-is-the-north-korean-girl-who-may-succeed-kim-jong-un-as-leader-13042508 the North Korean media has confirmed she is his daughter. That’s what confirmed means. That the North Koreans acknowledge that she is his daughter. So to say there are three unconfirmed kids just isn’t true as she is confirmed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)