Talk:North Korean cult of personality

You're forgetting prayers

Don't you realize the people in North Korea have several "prayers" to the leaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.226 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please list a verifiable, third-party source that supports the claim and I will be happy to include it in the article.Coinmanj (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

amusing numbers for spending on national monuments

A measure of common sense needs to be applied to the composition of this entry. Under "Costs" it says "By 2012, the annual cost of promoting the personality cult surrounding the Kims was estimated at over $40 million." followed by a line that says, the following year, it increased to some out-of-the-sky figure like 40% of the state budget. I deleted that line. According to the entry for Korean People's Army, the annual military budget is $10 billion. So national monument construction costs jumped from $40 million to *more than* $4 billion in the space of 12 months? I have to insist WP:BLOGS be observed in this instance. I realize the source in question has evolved to become a respected blog about the DPRK but some critical thinking needs to be conjured here. The blog entry that is used as a source references a typically confusingly translated KCNA report. If 40% of the full state budget - as opposed to 40% of the funds of a supplementary budget allocation- was, indeed, used to fund national monument construction, a secondary source that is not a blog should be easy to find. BlueSalix (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I did make a mistake and misread the source for which I apologize (entire budget vs. the economic budget). Under the Kim Il-sung section I clarified it and quoted part of the actual segment - 44.8% of the state's economic budget went to the cult as well as "face-lifting" the country and consolidating the Juche foundations of the economy. See the original report from the Korean Central News Agency here. If you doubt something simply ask for a better reference or for clarification. Since I fixed my original error in the KIS section I don't see any reason to repeat those figures under the "Costs" section. Also, NKNews is not a blog and is widely quoted and used. The NKNews source quote was in turn a direct quote from the KCNA report. Coinmanj (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

None of this makes sense or addresses my concern. Regardless of that, KCNA reports are WP:NOTRELIABLE for reasons too numerous to mention. Secondly, I don't know what "the economic budget" means. The phrase "economic budget" does not have a universal meaning that would allow the reader to instantly understand it (it is probably the result of one of the KCNA's typically shoddy English translations that makes more sense in the original Korean). Is "economic budget" DPRK state discretionary spending? Is "economic budget" the budget of the Ministry of Economic Development? Is "economic budget" the entire annual state outlay? Who knows! To say something like "the economic budget of the DPRK devotes 40% of spending to statues of the Kim family" is a meaninglessly vague phrase that would confuse readers and whose only possible purpose is to contribute to a point-and-laugh send-up of the eccentricities of the DPRK; totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Frankly, this entire entry should probably be deleted, but I'll just start with this point for now. BlueSalix (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't point to a specific RfC or other Wikipedia community consensus that KCNA should not be used, stop deleting it. You continually fail to understand what I (and the article) have clearly stated. The 44.8% budget is for MULTIPLE projects, one of which includes building monuments. I am quoting direct sources, something we're encouraged to do. If you can't understand what it means, ask for {clarification} but stop deleting it. You have been the only editor to take issue with this. If you think this should not be in the article go ask for a dispute resolution. Coinmanj (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Coinmanj. I appreciate your passionate interest in editing Wikipedia but would ask you kindly police your Talk page comments with the restrained manners required by WP:ETIQ.

As you may or may not know, Wikipedia does not contain a central repository of unacceptable sources. Your statement "if you can't point to a specific RfC or other Wikipedia community consensus that KCNA should not be used, stop deleting it" suggests that, until a RfC consensus has been achieved on the veracity of a specific source, WP policy is to allow it. This is not the case and North Korea's state news service is WP:QUESTIONABLE and information sourced from it should not be the basis for encyclopedia entries. Your statement "the 44.8% budget is for MULTIPLE projects, one of which includes building monuments" indicates the inclusion of this figure in an entry titled "North Korea's cult of personality" is off topic. Does this figure include 0.1% for building of monuments and 44.7% for building of hospitals? Your source does not break this figure down in a way that would provide the reader meaningful information. It would be like saying - in an entry on the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge - "U.S. spending on the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge is part of the $3 trillion federal budget." Technically, of course, that is correct. Would it be very useful or appropriate to include that? It would not.

Finally, as far as me being "the only editor to take issue with this," it appears there have only been a total of 3 (including you and me) non-IP editors on this entire entry, so I'm not certain that is a very rational point of contention. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

KCNA is used as a source for dozens of other articles. Any "news" out of North Korean central sources is going to be questionable as to their accuracy, but it does not preclude them as being valuable to an article. After all, any news from official channels (of any country) is going to be biased and have issues. The point was to add verification from official sources that (what those of us outside of DPRK call a cult of personality) the government does spend money on promoting the "cult". No, it does not say what percentage of the 44.8 is used on the edifices, but it is an acknowledgment from the North and given that it is only 1 of 3 "specifics" one could easily conclude it's more than 0.1%. North Korea does not officially admit that any cult exists, but having this segment helps to balance the perspective of the article. The fact that I quoted the article, the fact that I included the other projects listed, goes to show that I am not (nor the Wiki article) insinuating anything; rather I am listing a very simple fact. I can re-phrase the segment to make things a bit less confusing. There is still nothing you have listed that says using KCNA isn't allowed (or is frowned upon) and the figures were a part of an article on a news website (NKNews is not a blog) which fits the definition of a secondary source. I would ask that if you still have a problem with me including either the KCNA statement or anything else from KCNA or NKNews that you please take this through a dispute resolution process.

This is my proposed revised cost segment "According to budgetary outlays at the 2013 plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea and the Supreme People’s Assembly, 44.8% of North Korea's economic budget is to be used for "face-lifting" the country, for consolidating the foundations for a Juche-based economy, and "funding the building of edifices to be presented to the 100th birth anniversary of President Kim Il Sung...". And it will cite both of the earlier sources. Coinmanj (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note, there have been 19 non-IP, non-bot editors including the two of us. Coinmanj (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what, the 44.8% figure makes perfect sense and is backed up by other sources within the article. In 1990 the cost was 19%, 2004 it was 38.5% (cite #34), and by 2007 it hit 40% see here. Really, I should just remove the part that uses the $40 mill figure, but even that says "estimated at over $40 million." Coinmanj (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) As previously described, no, it does not make sense. Spending $40 million one year and $1 billion+ the next year on the same budget item is an incredible claim that, logically, should require incredible evidence. And yet, only one source exists, it's a blog citing the KCNA and is written so ambiguously that multiple meanings could be easily divined.

(2) Here is my proposed revision: "The costs for maintaining the personality cult have increased over time with different sources presenting vastly conflicting figures. According to the Christian Science-Monitor, the cost was 38.5-percent of state spending in 2004 (a figure that would equal about $1.2 billion). A South Korean government report estimated the cost, as of 2012, to be a much more modest $40 million."

(3) You're correct, there have been 19 non-IP editors; I misspoke and meant to say there have been 3 non-IP editors who have made more than 3 edits. In other words, this is not an actively monitored entry, so to suggest that anyone expressing an alternate viewpoint doesn't represent a consensus position because there has been no previously enunciated support for that viewpoint is tenuous, at best. BlueSalix (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving off the $40 million figure entirely because every source I can find say's it is more than $40 mill, the figure is based on just a few specific cost examples, see this. I still don't get what makes you think NKnews is a blog, for the 6 months I've been reading it it has been an actual news site. If you can't point to anything specific on Wiki saying that it (and KCNA) should not be used as sources then all we have is your opinion and understanding against mine. This means - logically - unless we can come to an agreement some form of outside conflict resolution must be sought.

Perhaps: "The costs for maintaining the personality cult have increased over time. In 1990 the cost was estimated at 19-percent of state spending, in 2004 it was 38.5-percent (a figure that would equal about $1.2 billion), and by 2007 the figure had grown to 40-percent. The 23-m-tall statue of Kim Jong-il erected in Mansudae on April 13 is estimated to have cost $10 million, yearly maintenance costs for Kim Jong-il's body is reported at $2.5 million, and North Korea has reportedly spent another $500,000 on new badges with the faces of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il." Listing the CSM, Chosun Ilbo and Asianews as sources. Coinmanj (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that won't work because you have no source that says the "costs for maintaining the personality cult" were ever 40-percent. You have a single, questionable source (What is "asianews.it"? I see it's a generalist news site with less than 100K unique visitors and 161 Twitter followers. Can you name a few of "asianews.it's" prominent journalists and editors? What are their bureau locations? What is their street address?) that says the costs for "economic development," which include the so-called "personality cult", were 40-percent. Also, I would like to request you please make the choice to begin participating in this discussion in a way that doesn't involve cutting into my text with your comments. If you would like to quote something I said, please do it. Right now the discussion has become almost impossible to read as my comments are being cut down the center, and username removed, with your injections. Other people might like to participate in this discussion and it's currently virtually impossible to follow the train of thought here. If you have something to say post it as a response, don't pepper a bunch of comments throughout the section and edit other users comments. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The "popularity" of a source has ZERO bearing on its credibility nor are sites with multiple locations (or any physical location) required. If you think sources form that site should not be included in Wiki, request it be added to the list of blacklisted sites for discussion on the matter (after a quick search I have found the site used as a source in additional articles which suggests, at least, that it is acceptable). The Asia News site is citing the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy which is also reputable. If you insist, I can open an specific RfC or 3O request for this particular issue to break the stalemate. It's up to you. Coinmanj (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"state-approved book"

I question this line: "According to a state-approved book, during a visit to the Indonesian Bogor Botanical Gardens Kim Il-sung stopped in front of a particular flower which was unnamed and the Indonesian president Sukarno "insisted earnestly" that the flower be named after North Korean leader, the Kimilsungia." The phrase "a state-approved book" does not seem supported by the citation, which is a primary source (the book itself). After reviewing the book in question I have not been able to identify any text or other identifying marks on or in it that say "state approved" or contain similar language. Nor have I been able to find any secondary sources that indicate this book is "state-approved." This appears to be an extreme case of WP:WEASEL. Either the phrase "according to a state-approved book" should be deleted, or the entire sentence should be deleted. BlueSalix (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This part was taken from the main article on the flower itself (including the book ref). I'll do some searching to try and find a better source. Just give me some time instead of deleting any and everything you happen to take issue with. Tags for {clarification} and {better sources} exist for a reason. Coinmanj (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) The citation was to the book itself. (2) I didn't delete anything, I posted it here for discussion and consensus-building. You, however, immediately deleted it.

This would be a more productive process if you could dial it back just a little. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't just delete it, I found more specific sources. I was simply asking you not to delete it because from my experience (see above discussion) you delete things and then ask for discussion. Coinmanj (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel you've had a bad experience. BlueSalix (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to delete first and then expect reversion and a discussion. In many cases, it saves time. See WP:BRD. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted a Nonsensical Section

I deleted this:

The costs for maintaining the personality cult have increased over time. In 1990 the estimated cost was 19% of the State's budget; in 2004 it rose to 38.5%.[34] By :2012, the annual cost of promoting the personality cult surrounding the Kims was estimated at over $40 million.

If the costs "increased over time" as this claims, that means $40 million equals more than 38.5% of DPRK's entire budget. Sorry, this doesn't meet the basic common sense test that a nation with a GDP of $12.5 billion has a public sector budget of $100 million. WP:BOLD allows deletion without discussion of a clear and obvious compositional error such as this. Posted here as a courtesy notice. BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have readded it. Yes, it seems awfully odd, but this is what the citations have shown; it's not our job to interpret the reliable sources, only to present them. For a nation that lacks common sense, is deeply in debt, and is starving because of its excessive wastes of money, I can't say that it's entirely out of the question. — Richard BB 07:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd because it's an amalgam of several sources that have been smashed together to create a conclusion that none of them reached on their own. In other words, it's original research. This shouldn't require discussion - your negative perception of the DPRK government is irrelevant to the fact that no one in their right mind, including the authors of the citations in question, would make the argument that North Korea has an annual budget of $100 million - less than the annual parks, libraries and police budget of the City of Spokane, which is what this entry is claiming at the moment. If the DPRK truly spends less than 1% of its GDP on public sector - as the entry as it's written claims - it's the world's greatest capitalist paradise.

This is a common sense question; I really shouldn't need to argue the need to delete an objectively crazy entry that has the logical progression of a community college polisci paper. I propose deleting. (Also, the use of radically militant invectives (e.g. "A NATION THAT LACKS COMMON SENSE!") is unnecessary in a routine edit discussion on a generic media studies topic. If the topic of the DPRK riles you up so much, there may be other topics your skills would be better put to use editing.) BlueSalix (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

None of this is OR! OR refers to editors researching and publisher their own results(like if I went to North Korea and then used my own estimates as basis for the figures), none of this comes from me - it all comes from reputable sources. I am reporting exactly what the sources say here's another. Coinmanj (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Using multiple sources and stringing those sources together to reach a conclusion not contained in those sources is WP:SYNTH. If you are posting exactly what the sources say you're probably violating WP:CP. But I'm not worried about that because you're not posting exactly what the sources say. You are taking several things and crushing them together to output a conclusion that none of them reach on their own. However, I appreciate the fact you don't believe you're doing this. (P.S. - Your "another" source is one of the same three sources you've been citing during this entire process to reach your originally researched (via synthesis) conclusion.) Also, for a second time I would like to gently request you be a bit more attentive to your editing of the Talk page. This is a difficult to follow discussion as the issue that's presenting a serious problem in this case is important, but nuanced, and repetitive formatting errors can create problems for others who might like to join in the discussion. I've removed the extraneous white space in your last post. BlueSalix (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

more deletions

This sentence - "Marriages are usually performed in front of a statue or image of the Kim's and the newlyweds will bow to them, in a sense receiving the blessings of their leaders." - references two sources, this and this. A CTRL+F keyword search of this source finds the words "wedding," "marriage," "marry," "wed," "bless" and "bow" don't exist anywhere in the source. Meanwhile, this source contains the single sentence reference "Newly married couples bow before the statue in their hometown, as they would before their parents." This conjures - out of thin air - the reason for weddings in front of statues to be "in a sense receiving the blessings of their leaders." How do we know that's the reason for weddings in front of statues? The fact that statues tend to be located in prime public space or any number of other reasons could be equally as valid. There is no room for WP:NOR in Wikipedia, but this isn't even research. It's simply guessing about marriage psychology. Offending section deleted. BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Both NY Times articles mentions newlyweds, forgive but that means "newly married". The first says they pay homage (which in North Korea means bowing) and the 2nd specifically says "bow". I can provide a source which backs up the "blessing" part, it comes from Barbara Demick's book. Coinmanj (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

First, the sentence "Newlyweds pay homage at the nearest Kim Il-sung statue." does not support the statement "Marriages are usually performed ..." Second, the point about the "blessing" is the incumbent part of this discussion anyway. It's not WP:Anything to have sources but keep them a secret from everyone until a point is raised as to a claim's validity at which time the editor tells everyone not to worry. Wikipedia entries should stand on their own without having to be guarded by an editor with a quiver of caveats at the ready as in this - and many - parts of this shaky entry. Coinmanj, I realize there are certain perceptual or accurate eccentricities inherent in DPRK public administration. Frankly, that is more reason than any to be attentive to a WP:NPV style of editing that uses surgical precision in presentation of facts and eschews the tendency to default to a cartoonish characterization of the DPRK state administration or civic culture. BlueSalix (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Would this wording be more appropriate? "Newlyweds often pay homage and bow to statues or images of the nation's leaders." using the sources already given. And again, once I find the relevant source for the "blessings" part I will be sure to include it. Coinmanj (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

further deletions

This sentence - "According to the Korean Broadcasting System, North Korean overseas embassies have been replacing photos of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il with photos of Kim Jong-un." - needs to be deleted (and I have) regardless as to its verifiability. Embassies typically display photos of heads of state. To sew this into an entry titled "North Korea's Cult of Personality" has the effect of advancing this traditional practice as cultish behavior and makes it WK:NPOV. To allow it to remain would demand entries be created titled "Canada's Cult of Personality" that noted Queen Elizabeth's photo is displayed in Canadian embassies, or "the U.S.' Cult of Personality" that noted Barack Obama's photo (and that of George Bush before him) is displayed in all U.S. embassies, federal buildings, the command decks of U.S. naval vessels and international arrivals gates at U.S. airports. BlueSalix (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is important because they are *removing* images of the elder Kims. If they were simply adding a 3rd image (of Jong-un) then no, it wouldn't be noteworthy. But, since they are replacing the images with his it is worth mentioning. Also, I am taking this through dispute resolution because I'm tired of these constant reverts.Coinmanj (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So? When Barack Obama became President, federal employees *removed* images of George Bush and replaced them with images of Barack Obama. This happens anytime there is a change of head-of-state anywhere in the world. Why, when you read that the DPRK did it like everyone else, does it jump up as noteworthiness that needs to be indexed in Wikipedia (in an entry virtually created for the sole purpose of enforcing an academically unsound Bond villain stereotype of the DPRK state authorities, no less)?

Your M.O. of selectively grabbing a sentence here and a sentence there from otherwise reputable sources for the purpose of stringing together a Wikipedia entry based on an editorial conclusion (e.g. "North Korea's Cult of Personality") puts this process on shaky ground and opens up the possibility of an (equally dubious) entry "U.S.' Cult of Personality." You either have to accept an entry titled "U.S.' Cult of Personality" composed of strung-together sentences picked out of random articles would be valid (I personally do not) or acknowledge this entry you've created is framed around a culturally insensitive worldview in which public honorifics given to a foreign state's self-identified dead founding father (Kim Il-Sung) are less legitimate than equally voluminous honorifics given to the U.S.' self-identified dead founding father (George Washington) ... including one in which Washington is shown transforming into a God, not unlike the Baekdu Mountain allegorical birth myth of Kim Jong-Il ... or honorifics granted by any nation to its national hero (see: USSR & Lenin, Kenya and Jomo Kenyatta, Turkey and Atatürk, Argentina and San Martín, etc.). The road you're traveling in your quest to lampoon the DPRK via Wikipedia offers an intellectually unsound treatment of the role of metaphor and allegory in the folkloric representation of national myth. This is part of the reason WP:SYNTH needs to be strictly enforced. BlueSalix (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

North Korea has a cult of personality, a simple Google search for the term yields 218,000 results. I have a library of books on the subject matter as well. I'm not creating this out of thin air. Even North Korean law and policy discusses the cult, as do every defector's story I have come across. Look up the full text of the "10 Principles", they expressly layout the cult. I'm sorry you disagree with the subject of the article, but it is not up to you to decide what is or is not valid. I am reporting direct from sources, that's the job of every editor.

The wider world has the ability to comment on what it sees, it sees a cult of personality and has reported extensively on it [1], [2], [3]. Hwang Jang-yop, the highest level defector to-date, also discussed the cult at length (see this book). Coinmanj (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Coinmanj, you said "even North Korean law and policy discusses the cult." Could you provide a citation number to the section of the DPRK general statutes that refers to a "cult?" (I'm happy to accept original Korean text on this point even.) Coinmanj, you said "a simple Google search for the term ..."; to the best of my knowledge "Just Google It!" is not WP:RS. Coinmanj, you said "I am reporting direct from sources"; as previously pointed out to you, you are collecting elements of various sources and using them to arrive at independently developed conclusions, which is not WP:SYNTH. Coinmanj, you shotgunned out three more sources - but none of them address the point of this discussion section, namely the traditional use of photo busts (WP sources need to be pertinent to the claim; simply googling a bunch of random articles about the DPRK then firing them up into the air like chaffe only serves to further confuse this narrow and specific discussion about a single sentence regarding the use of photo busts - perhaps that's your intent, I don't know). Finally, I would like to ask for a third time you pay more attention to the formatting of your editing, the creative approach you're taking toward it is - as previously noted - making this a difficult conversation to follow. This is not a race. A little extra time on your part will be warmly appreciated by any other editors who decide to join this discussion. I have taken the liberty, once again, of removing white space. BlueSalix (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm following procedure when it comes to these discussions by beginning each new comment with a series of ":" to differentiate between comments so I'm not sure what the trouble is. Could you be more specific? Here is a link to the "10 Principles" (albeit only the 10 main "articles", there are over 60 additional clauses which create the full document). The document does not use the word "cult", however by accepted definition (see cult of personality) this constitutes part of such a cult; namely items 2-5. Coinmanj (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Coinmanj - first, the source you said proves DPRK codified statutes refers to itself as a "cult" does not itself contain the word "cult." Second, it is not for me (or you) to apply creative interpretation to independently determine that a selection of introductory text meets, or does not meet, an "accepted definition" of something. (If you can find a reliable source that says DPRK statutes imply a cult that would be acceptable. Finding the original text of the statute and then applying your own interpretive skills to divine hidden meanings is not.) Third, the "ten principles" (in which Kim Il-Sung is extolled, by name, 10 times) are not even a legal statute as you initially claimed, but a Workers' Party of Korea policy manifesto - similar to the Democratic Party platform (in which Barack Obama is extolled, by name, 141 times) or the Republican Party platform of 2004 (in which George Bush is extolled, by name, 158 times). Fourth, you made the choice not to respond to my contention that "Just Google It!" is not WP:RS. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no longer going to respond to any personal or behavior related questions by you or any "comment method" type questions as I have not done any of the things you claim I've done. Perhaps your browser is causing the formatting problems. If you have specific content related disputes I will (and have tried very hard to) address them. Outside of that I am going to let the DR/N run its course and hope for a speedy resolution. With regard to the 10 Principles, they are far more than just party platform. Here is some more info on it [4] [5].Ideological papers are paramount, and the department in charge of ideology (Organization and Guidance Department) is, perhaps, the most powerful and important single department in the entire government (via Exit Emperor Kim Jong-il).If you do not agree that any cult exists then please provide sources which support that view and add them to the article. Thank you. Coinmanj (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Coinmanj, for the fourth time, I would like to request you take time to correctly format your Talk page contributions. This is not a race and there is no excuse for sloppiness. Please indent this correctly ('::::::' not ':') so we know what comment to which you're replying. The way you have it indented now, it is difficult to follow. Other people may like to participate in the dialog and your increasingly stubborn insistence on shotgun formatting has made this an exceptionally difficult Talk page to follow. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from "Exit Emperor Kim Jong-il", page 45, talking about the "10 Principles": "this doctrine supersedes any other form of rules or laws, such as North Korea's Socialist Constitution or the Juche Philosophy." They are placed paramount above all else and all people are bound by them see here. You can find the full text of them here (it is a pdf file). Again, we are charged with providing credible sources for any statement or fact that may be questioned, we are not here to debate them as User:Richard BB said. I have provided sources, if you do not think the content should be included then open a RfC as the burden is on you. Coinmanj (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputes/Edit war

For clarification, below I have included the following texts in the article which User:BlueSalix takes issue with. A simple check of the article's history will reveal constant reverts (which defines an edit war, a war I'd like to stop). Italic texts are the actual texts with supporting references. Any non-italic text following are just explanations.

Kim Jong-un

1) According to the Korean Broadcasting System, North Korean overseas embassies have been replacing photos of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il with photos of Kim Jong-un. ref (which is a significant event in the context of North Korea)

Kim Jong-il

1) After the line Numerous commemorative stamps and coins have also been made. BlueSalix removed this reference this helps to support the rest of the paragraph dealing with the statues and serves as a non-western source to help maintain a broader view of the subject.

Monuments and costs

2) Marriages are usually performed in front of a statue or image of the Kim's and the newlyweds will bow to them, in a sense receiving the blessings of their leaders. ref 1 ref 2 I can add an additional reference (from the book Nothing to Envy) which supports the "blessing of their leaders" part if I need to.

3) The costs for maintaining the personality cult have increased over time. In 1990 the cost was estimated at 19-percent of state spending, in 2004 it was 38.5-percent,ref and by 2007 the figure had grown to 40-percent. ref The 23-m-tall statue of Kim Jong-il erected in Mansudae in 2012 is estimated to have cost $10 million, yearly maintenance costs for Kim Jong-il's body is reported at $2.5 million, and North Korea has reportedly spent another $500,000 on new badges with the faces of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. ref

Coinmanj (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have copied the foregoing summary to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:North Korea.2527s cult of personality discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) (as DRNvolunteer) 14:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I dispute, and totally reject, the accuracy of the summary of my objections crafted by Coinmanj. It does not accurately represent my position and obliterates and ignores my repeated cautions to him about WP:SYNTH, a central issue I've raised with this problematic entry. I will not address this summary since it is an independent argument created by Coinmanj and not a summary of anything I have positioned. My positions can be read above, here, on the Talk page. I thank Coinmanj for offering to abridge my comments, but kindly request he not do so. BlueSalix (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This was ONLY the information which you have repeatedly removed so that those wishing to help don't have to go through the entire article's history (which was why USER:TransporterMan placed it on the DR/N), it is not a summary of your positions on them and I never claimed it was such. I did not create the concept of a North Korean cult of personality, I wrote an article based on what others have said about such cult and to that end I've used over 70 individual citations, around 6 books and dozens of websites. The only portion of a line of content that you have taken issue with which I have not provided a direct source for is the final part "blessing of their leaders", which I am in the process of finding (I'm having to re-read the book to find it which will take some time). Saying that the one source does not mention "bow", but rather "homage", and thus "bow" can not be construed simply shows an ignorance (used as its definition, not an insult) of Korean and greater Asian culture. I've been a member of Wikipedia for 6 years, this is not my first rodeo, and I feel I have a good grasp of the rules which is born out by my contribution history and lack of real disputes (until now). Coinmanj (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You said "homage" is a synonym for the word "bow" when used in the context of the DPRK, to wit: "Saying that the one source does not mention "bow", but rather "homage", and thus "bow" can not be construed simply shows an ignorance (used as its definition, not an insult) of Korean and greater Asian culture." Coinmanj, if you feel you are WP:EXPERT, it would be helpful if you divulge your credentials and academic pedigree on the subject of DPRK civic culture as recommended by WP. Thanks, Coinmanj! BlueSalix (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Source needs to be expunged

One source in this entry is ("North Korea Honors Dead Sailors for Saving Kim Portraits". One Free Korea. January 22, 2010. Retrieved February 11, 2013.) links to a freekorea.us. By a preponderance of points this can be correctly identified as a blog: (a) its "About" section lists only one author, (b) it is not indexed by Google News, (c) the site's own self-composed description on Technorati describes it as a "blog" (see: http://technorati.com/blogs/freekorea.us), (d) it uses reverse chronological posts with open comments. Blogs are not WP:RS. Since the DPRK is in the news of late, I'd like to get this source, and everything it references, expunged as quickly as possible; please reply in a timely manner if you disagree. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this source meet with your approval? Coinmanj (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a question of "my" approval - this is basic Wikipedia WP:RS. Of course, and obviously, the Los Angeles Times is WP:RS. Please do update this selection so it conforms to WP:RS and references the Los Angeles Times, instead of some guy's blog. I'm glad we could work together in fixing this error. Thanks, Coinmanj! BlueSalix (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Cost of Kumsusan Palace Off Topic for this Entry

I'm not sure we need a sentence stating the real estate valuation of Kumsusan Memorial Palace. What does real estate pricing have to do with a "cult of personality?" It doesn't demonstrate "extravagant" spending by DPRK state authorities as Kumsusan is relatively evenly priced in context of the price tag of other head-of-state residences (e.g. the UK, UAE, the proposed EU executive palace, etc.). Is this more appropriate in an entry on the DPRK construction industry? I welcome some feedback on this! BlueSalix (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The palace is more than appropriate. This is no longer a residence, but a mausoleum. The pricing of it is important because it demonstrates the level of importance placed on the cult and falls in line with the costs, it makes perfect sense to layout specific costs of large items associated with the cult. As the multiple sources show, the cult consumes a massive portion of the county's budget, it is logical to help the reader see where some of that money is being spent. Until the disputes with this article is solved, I would respectfully ask you to stop editing the article (and I will stop as well). Coinmanj (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) I did not edit anything with regard to Kumsusan Palace, I have posted it here for discussion and dialog. I notice you frequently lead your discussion on the Talk page with exhortations not to edit the points in question, as though to cultivate a sense that surreptitious editing has occurred. I would kindly request you stop doing that as it's confusing and disruptive. Your numerous complaints against me are the correct venues to address whatever concerns you have, not this Talk page sub-topic, which should be kept free of clutter for the benefit of other editors. Thank you. (2) The building costs listed in the entry relate to construction of the palace as a head-of-state residence, not refurbishment costs related to conversion to a museum. Why are construction costs of a Korean head-of-state residence whose total outlay are less than the construction costs of a EU head-of-state residence evidence of a "cult?" If not, why does it belong in an entry titled "North Korea's cult of personality?" This should be an entry of information related to the topic, not a catchall of fun facts related to the DPRK. BlueSalix (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you edited it, I just asked that you stop in general as you have made further deletions in the last 48 hours. And I only asked that you stop until we resolve the issues already on this talk page (since there are so many). I fail to see the confusion there. Coinmanj (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The only deletions in the last 48 hours was to delete a section supported by a citation to the customer service website of a travel agency, which you admitted was a "weak source" [sic]. Therefore, your request is that I do not delete sources that have been unanimously declared by all participating editors as non-WP:RS? I regret I cannot honor that request at this time. BlueSalix (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Un-referenced Sentence Needs Deleting

This sentence - "North Korea is widely regarded as the world's only active imperial cult." - is cited to this source. However, the cited source does not contain the words "imperial" or "cult." Let me know if anyone disagrees, otherwise I'm happy to delete it. BlueSalix (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that part, I'll do some research to determine if it's appropriately defined as such. Coinmanj (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a reference which says the cult can be defined as a form of imperial cult. Would this work for you (I mention you only because you're the one raising the questions) "The cult can be described as a form of imperial cult." ? Coinmanj (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this new source you've cited, "Inquire Magazine?" I see it is the name of someone's webpage that uses a stock, $39 Wordpress theme from Elegant Themes and is illustrated with images from iStockPhoto. I see it has a Facebook page last updated about two months ago. I see its traffic is too low to establish a traffic count on compete. I see it is not indexed by Google News. I have found no listing for it in Cision or LexisAcademic. It does not appear to offer subscriptions, accept advertising or have a physical address. Their currently listed "Managing Editor" graduated from college a year ago and appears to be currently paying the bills by temping for staffing agency PRN Solutions ... I guess when he's not editing "Inquire Magazine"? :) :) :) Coinmanj, could you provide some more information about this "Inquire Magazine" webpage you found that would establish it as a WP:RS source?

I guess this latest example of "Inquire Magazine" really gets to the core of the issue with this problematic entry you've created. You haven't approached it with a sense of WP:NPOV or academic equity. You're googling superlatives and then building an article around the search results. Many sources are problematic and, those that are legitimate have simply had a sentence or two lifted from them, mashed together with a couple sentences from other sources, and a conclusion assigned through WP:SYNTH. The issue of DPRK civic culture is an intricate and nuanced one and cannot be given adequate treatment by a "Google Various Nefarious Buzzwords, then Summarize the Results" approach. The entry, as it stands, reads like the character sketch of a James Bond villain. Contextual treatment of some of these items - though well documented in reputable sources - is omitted. When others have offered to help edit they've been subject to warnings of possible ""other dispute resolution actions" by you.) Perhaps a short break from this article is warranted; maybe take a breather from this entry for a couple weeks and return a bit later? BlueSalix (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I said I would research to see if I could find more evidence to support the "imperial cult" definition. That was all I could find, I don't care if that's included or not. You are the only editor I have had an issue with and I have never threatened anyone with anything. Based on the advice given by User:TransporterMan this entire situation may only be resolved issue by issue, point by point, some of which includes RfC, others 3O, and possibly administrative mediation. Please provide an example of SYNTH that has not been discussed on the talk page. As User:Richard_BB said, our job is not to interpret sources, but to accurately quote them which I have tried very hard to do. Are some of the sources "weak", yes, and it has never been my intention to leave them. If you'll notice I have spent a lot of time trying to find better sources and more quantifiable information to add to the article (over the 8 months I've been working on it). From my perspective you have taken a "my way or no way" approach, your seeming intransigence, and refusal to participate in dispute resolution only tells me you have no desire to actually help or come to an agreement. You have stated you doubt such a "cult" exists, you have listed lots of problems and given lots of opinions but have not provided any help in rectifying them, nor have you given any sources to back up your assertions. Spouting off policy is not how you resolve a problem. If you don't like a source, go find a better one and add it, or ask me to add it, I am 100% in favor of making this a better article and I recognize its faults. You keep demanding better sources and when I give them to you (such as with the cost) you reject them out of hand. Coinmanj (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "You keep demanding better sources and when I give them to you (such as with the cost) you reject them out of hand." Wrong. When you provide better sources I accept them - like I did with the LA Times here. When you provide poor quality sources I reject them - like I did with "Inquire Magazine" here. If you provide 70% quality sources you will find I accept 70% of them. If you provide 70% non-WP:RS sources you will find I question 70% of them. It's a simple formula - there's no conspiracy out to get you. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

There has been a month long dispute between myself and User:Bluesalix over the inclusion of content. This has resulted in a protracted edit war (multiple additions and removals of the same content). A summary of the content can be found under the talk page section "Disputes/Edit War". I had opened a case on the DR/N (see case here) which resulted in a failure. A consensus needs to be reached over the content. Other dispute resolution actions may need to be taken to deal with the multiple issued which have arisen over the weeks. Coinmanj (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support removal of content. Exactly what we're supposed to be commenting on is ambiguous, as there's no real proposition that I can see. I had to spend much more time than I'd like trying to figure out exactly what's going on here. Few people are going to dedicate the time necessary to read a talk page, search through the dispute resolution noticeboard to find relevant discussions, check out linked sources, and review the article history. After having spent much time doing this, I think that I've finally figured out what the dispute is about, and it seems to me that BlueSalix is indeed improving the article through his zealous efforts to remove biased prose, synthesis, and unreliable sources. He seems to be a hardliner, which may cause some degree of conflict with looser interpretations, but his edits seem well within the relevant policies and guidelines. In the absence of specific complaints about his edits, I would suggest that all his edits stand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, NinjaRobotPirate! I think the other editor, Coinmanj and myself are arriving at a mutual willingness to improve the entry in a fast and meaningful way and look forward to our new, collaborative understanding! BlueSalix (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I very much welcome this request for comment. While I question the user:Coinmanj's characterization of the flow of events on this entry (I do not believe any dispute has ever occurred on this entry; I only see a healthy dialog and discussion) it's clear additional participants are needed and I hope this request for comment generates interest from other editors in this entry. As for user:Coinmanj's repeated and frequent accusations in various forums of an "edit war," I'm certain a thorough reading of the discussion on the Talk Page by any editor will resolve all concerns others may have with regard to the idea of an "edit war" that's being shopped around WP by the creator of this entry. I'm proud to stand behind my discussion and edit history on this entry and invite scrutiny. (For example, my most recent edits to the entry involved deletion of a portion of the entry that ascribed claims involving complex public policy issues to the customer service website of a small travel agency! There is no rational argument this is WP:RS and this is a reasonable WP:BOLD edit - on any less obvious issues related to user:Coinmanj's article "North Korea's cult of personality" I have initiated a consensus-building process of dialog, despite being repeatedly threatened about being subjected to "other dispute resolution actions" [sic] by the article's creator if I don't stop collaborating on this entry. Here's a good example of my very patient restraint in editing this entry.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain what the dispute is. I noticed that the first issue mentioned under "Disputes/Edit war" is that North Korean embassies are replacing pictures of previous leaders with pictures of their current leader, which is exactly what U.S. embassies do when a new president is elected. Removing pictures of the former leaders could be seen as dismantling their personality cults. I think that this type of analysis requires opinion pieces rather than a comment made in a news report. TFD (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The dispute involves several pieces of content as mentioned in the "Edit war" section and has since evolved to include more things, like the extention of the cult to other members of the family. User:BlueSalix has continually removed content (the entire section dealing with other members of the cult and figures relating to the cost of the cult) without any consensus on the matter and despite multiple references supporting the content. The latest example of this can be seen here and described in this talk page section. The content had 7 references and around 10 individual citations. BlueSalix justified the deletion by stating in the talk page section "As I was unable to locate any WP:RS sources that would mediate the issues identified, the process of correction took the form of deletion of unreferenced/unsubstantiated material and unverifiable primary sources." I fail to see how 7 references (including books by biographers and news sites) equates to "unreferenced and unverifiable". Coinmanj (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If the same source said that U.S. embassies were replacing portraits of George W. Bush with those of Barack Obama as part of the Obama personality cult, would we include them? Why or why not? TFD (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No we would not. The reason it is notable in North Korea is that, by law, images of Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-il must be placed at all public buildings, government offices, private homes, schools, movie theaters etc. They are not replaced with each new ruler (as in the rest of the world), the new ruler's image is simply placed beside the others. Their inclusion in (or on) buildings & homes is a well known part of the cult. And so any removal of them is significant, and at least based on what I know, it's the first time they've ever removed them. Now, what that means, I don't know and obviously I can't add the meaning of their removal without sources. But, their inclusion is part of the cult, and their removal is highly unusual (as the sources say). Coinmanj (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the original article from Yonhap News (see here) and they said the images were removed only from the public "notice board" outside the embassy in Beijing. It gave no further mention or discussion of that issue. So, I have no problem removing that specific line. Do you have any other comments on the rest of the content currently disputed TFD? Coinmanj (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

{outdent}}I think instead of using news stories where journalists draw connections between actions of the North Korean government and personality cults, that one should primarily use academic sources. That way we can determine the extent to which these actions are normally seen, which is a requirement per WP:WEIGHT. We need to explain to the readers why this is evidence of a personality cult, while in many countries (at least until recent decades), children began the day singing for the long life of the Queen, her picture was on all coins and bills, hung in every government building, her flag flew alongside the nations' flags, streets and cities were named after her and family members, etc. TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

QUESTION: Has anyone considered that the issue may be the title of the article? While it is an expression that is used in the media and definitely captures a phenomenon, it is very subjective and open to a range of interpretations. What about a title like "Kim Family Influence in North Korea". That might help allow for more organized inclusion in the article. I am not sure if that helps or is useful. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I chose the title because it fits every definition I can find: intense devotion; a leader using state resources to enhance his image; a government enforcing (by law, and punishment) a particular set of views - official propaganda, official biographies which run contrary to real history, etc. It was specifically modeled after Stalin's "cult" and every book, interview, news source that I have ever come across describes the "unique institution" as a cult of personality. Granted, North Korea's cult does differ from many others and is far more pervasive, but it still fits the definition - and since all the sources do use the term both informally and formally (as well as throughout North Korea related articles) it seems to make sense to use it too. The basic sentiment of a number of biographers is that North Korea is the Kim family, and without Kim Il-sung there would be no DPRK as it exists today; the two are inextricably linked and you can't have one without the other. But, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a change if you (or anyone) could provide an apt alternative title. Coinmanj (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Juche dating system

The entry on the Juche calender system was removed based on the quality of the reference provided (which I concede was a weak reference). Here are 3 refs which should be acceptable Al Jazeera, book 1 or perhaps this book. Coinmanj (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first and third sources appear just fine, Coinmanj. I have no objection to you re-inserting the offending text with a reputable source such as these. Your second source is a children's book published by a children's book specialty publisher. Even without knowing the specialty of the publishers imprint, this fact should have evident based on the cartoon illustrations, big face type and 5th grade words. I'm curious, did you actually read this book and think it was a grown-up book or did you just google "Juche dating system" to find sources with which to back-construct a WP entry? If the latter, this kind of gets back to my questions about your editing methodology during the "Inquire Magazine" incident here. Adding content to Wikipedia is about accurately summarizing facts within the context they're presented - not just googling for sentences you like, then dropping them in. Of all the sources cited in this entry, how many have you read and how many have just found in a google search for "cult + weird facts + north korea?" I remain extremely concerned by your editing approach. BlueSalix (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will use the first and third sources then. What I have or have not read is meaningless. Editors are not required to be experts in any subject nor are they required to read an entire book before using it as a reference. That being said, I have studied and read extensively on North Korea, its history, and politics; with a personal library of over 7,000 pages (from DPRK sources and international). The problem stems from the fact that you have a very willing editor (me) who is more than happy to replace references or add additional references and yet you either fight me on them (again I'll bring up the "costs" section) or will claim that because some site uses a template web-hosting company for their websites and because the editor is young that the source must not be credible (as with "Inquire", which is not the same as National Enquirer). The web hosting company and age of an adult person bears very little on their credibility. So stick to the facts that matter, such as it isn't indexed by Google News, and lay off your own personal opinions. Try adding something to this situation, don't just point out errors. The very definition of a collaborative process is the combined work of many people, not one guy saying "you're doing it wrong now go fix it". Coinmanj (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will ask again: did you realize the source you were advancing was a children's book? You do not need to be an expert (though you've previously claimed to be one); you just need to be able to frame content in a factual context. That is impossible to do when you google search for "cult + weird facts + north korea and then grab a sentence or two from the search results screen, which is obviously what you're doing (saying "obviously what you're doing" is AGF on my part as the only alternative is you believe a coloring book is WP:RS [this is not an insult, there is actually a coloring page in the back of the children's book you advanced as a source]).

Next, I'm extremely concerned you are sticking to the position that "Inquire Magazine" webpage is WP:RS. When coupled with your sourcing history, this seems to indicate either a severe lack of judgment in your ability to discern WP:RS, or a non-NPOV determination to use whatever means necessary - no matter how questionable the sources - to legitimize conspiracy theories. For those who have not read the applicable section on the "Inquire Magazine" webpage incident, it is here.

Next, you went on to say "Try adding something to this situation, don't just point out errors." As noted, I have attempted to make additions and you have demanded I stop and then started shopping around complaints and threatening "other dispute resolution actions" [sic]. I would like to again request you dial it back a little. This is an encyclopedia entry; there is no one out to "get you" and there is no need for the abrasive and paranoid tone you've taken. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the actual content dispute. It is clear that we have fairly substantial differing views and I would like to avoid this continual back & forth over things which do not directly impact the article. I provided new sources and used the best 2. Let's move on to the next unresolved issue as we have clearly resolved this one. Coinmanj (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree we have "fairly substantial differing views." I am simply trying to enforce basic levels of WP:RS which dictate that things like coloring books, travel agency websites and blogs cannot be used to source encyclopedia entries. I will ask a third time: did you realize the source you were advancing in the "actual content dispute" [sic] was a children's book? I feel it's important you acknowledge my question with some sort of answer - and would kindly ask you do me the courtesy of response - so I can understand the vector from which you're approaching this entry. You have taken a very unusual and unconventional position with respect to this entry and its sources and - as the only other active editor on the page - I would like to have the opportunity to understand it so we can enhance our cooperation in improving this entry. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

International Section is Nonsensical

It's unclear what the "International" section is hoping to accomplish. It notes "Between 60,000 and 220,000 gifts to Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il from foreign leaders, businesspersons and others are housed in the International Friendship Exhibition." When this content is placed within an editorially negative entry titled "Cult of Personality" it has the effect of indicating gift giving is a cultish behavior. As the U.S. Archives notes, the U.S. President receives 15,000 gifts per year and these gifts are also occasionally put on public display. The level of gifts held by the DPRK Archives, or their public display, is not in dispute by me - the fact that it's evidence of cult-like behavior is, however, disputed. I recommend this section be purged posthaste and request consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The US does not invite the citizenry of the country to visit a single, massive, underground (partially) museum of all the gifts it has received and tout the reception of such gifts as "evidence" of the country's (or leader's) greatness. North Korean news sources constantly publish articles detailing the various gifts, awards, degrees, etc etc that the leadership receives and it is associated with the cult. Page 95 of "Art Under Control in North Korea" lays it out "Called the International Friendship Exhibition Hall, this museum is full of presents donated to Kim by the leaders or the Communist parties of many different countries, giving the impression of a great worldwide support for the Kim regime." You have asked for consensus, then request an official RfC if you think it should be removed. Until then, you can not claim any consensus against its inclusion based solely on your opinion. Coinmanj (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

the US does not invite the citizenry of the country to visit - while I agree with your position that the U.S. is offering less transparency and public access to its citizenry than the DPRK in this regard, I'm still not sure what this fairly routine diplomatic practice of gift giving has to do a "cult?" You have failed to explain why this is cult-like behavior - only quoted some points that asserts the IFEH exists, a fact I don't dispute. It appears you are taking a reported fact and assigning a subjective quality to that fact through personal POV. Consensus is built through Talk page dialog, not RfC. I am asking all editors now active, or who may subsequently engage in this Talk page, to come to a consensus regarding the continued identification of a diplomatic SOP as "cult-like behavior" when it applies to one nation. BlueSalix (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with BlueSalix here, while it is a part of the country's cult of personality, it is minor in contrast to, let say, the fact that North Koreans are learned from the first day they are born to love the Kim family... The gifts play a minor role in the cult of personality, but it should not be removed, its given to much prominence as much else in this article... The whole article is badly written, its just contains randoms facts to prove to the reader that North Korea has a cult of personality, but it doesn't try to explain the phenomena ...The whole article needs a rewrite... --TIAYN (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being re-written. I have Asperger's and so I tend to be really good at listing facts, just not tying those facts together in a non-textbook kind of way. Coinmanj (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Holidays Section is Nonsensical

Under "Holidays" it reports: "The birthdays of Kim Il-sung (April 15), Kim Jong-il (Feb 16) and Kim Jong-suk (Dec 24) are celebrated as national holidays with citizens receiving time off work or school ..." I do not dispute this is a fact. I dispute whether this fact is evidence of cult-like behavior, which is the topic of this entry. The sources do not declare this is evidence of cultishness and it is a dangerous act to simply assign this quality to it by including public holidays in this entry. In the U.S., where I live, the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are celebrated as national holidays with citizens receiving time off work or school. This is an entry whose purpose, apparently, is to catalog cult-like behavior, which this clearly doesn't since the practice of placing holidays on the birthdays of politicians is a global routine. I would ask for consensus from all active editors to eliminate this section as it more appropriately belongs in an entry about North Korean holidays. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This should stay, why?? Well, while you have a point regarding official birthdays being celebrated everywhere, the way they are celebrated are unique... This, however, the article fails to explain, as said, this article contains facts which proves that North KOrea has a cult of personality, but it's not well written, and it gives bad examples. --TIAYN (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will endeavor to provide a more robust description and explanation. Coinmanj (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I clarified a section of text + Discussion Point

I recrafted this phrase-

"Although many had been seen weeping during the 100-day mourning period, which is typical of Korean Confucian society, others have accused North Korea of hiring actors and paid mourners.[41] Those alleged or caught breaking the mourning rules were subject to punishment or, in the case of some high-ranking officials, executed."

- to make it more accurately represent the source it was citing, as well as to clarify that the secondary claim was from a tabloid -

"Many had been seen weeping during the 100-day mourning period, which is typical of Korean Confucian society, and an analyst at South Korea's Korea Institute for National Unification determined that much of the public grief evidenced during the mourning period was a genuine expression of sorrow. [41]However, the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, claimed that those who did not mourn were subject to punishment or, in the case of some high-ranking officials, executed."

Since the newly worded text no longer provides evidence of cult-like behavior, I would be open to simply deleting this entire portion - or moving it to Kim Jong-il - if the community feels that is more topical and appropriate. Also, I recommend we delete the following sentence:

In February 2012, the North Korean government created the Order of Kim Jong-il and awarded it to 132 individuals for services in building a "thriving socialist nation" and for increasing defense capabilities.

I don't dispute the Order of Kim Jong-il was created. I dispute that the reference takes the position this evidence of cult-like behavior, which is the topic of this entry. We cannot assume the creation of state honors named after people is evidence of cultishness without engaging in WP:BIAS. See examples of other named state honors in other nations, some of whom are named after still living politicians: Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II, Order of Charles III, Order of Lenin, etc. BlueSalix (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you must not have read the "Daily Mail" article or you would have noticed it is not the British tabloid, but a news site from Australia. As for the Order, upon thinking about it I'm inclined to agree with you. There is no clear connection between it and the cult. I will remove it. Coinmanj (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) The unsigned article on NewsCorp's news.com.au webpage, citing unnamed "reports" which uses stock photos is syndicated content from the Daily Mail as indicated in the credit line. (2) I'll wait for a third confirmation of support before deleting the Order of Kim Jong-il. BlueSalix (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing Can Be Salvaged from the Sub-Section "Others" - Recommend Deletion

I recommend the following lines be deleted and moved to the applicable biographical entries for the personages in question and for the reasons stated:

• This line Kim Hyong-jik, the father of Kim Il-sung, is often described as a leading figure of the Korean independence movement is sourced to a website called "Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK." There are numerous issues with it: (#1) anyone can start a website about anything; we have no idea if this anonymous website represents official WPK or DPRK views, is a parody website, or is an unaffiliated website started by enthusiastic pro-DPRK Britons, (#2) use of the word "often" to describe a single instance of something discovered on one website of unknown influence is extremely suspect, (#3) the website in question is a primary source.
• This line Kang Pan-sok, the mother of Kim Il-sung, has been given the title "Mother of Korea" and has had songs and articles written in praise of her. does not tell us WHY this is evidence of cult-like behavior. There is a long history of assigning paternal/maternal titles to various historic personages - see Father_of_the_Nation. To simply say that this is normal in every state except DPRK where it is so obviously evidence of cultish behavior that no source is required is extreme WP:BIAS.
• This line Kim Jong-suk (Kim Jong-il's mother) is described as “a revolutionary immortal" and "an anti-Japanese war hero [who] upheld the original idea and policy of Kim Il Sung and performed distinguished feats in the development of the movement for the women's emancipation in Korea."[54] She is typified as a model revolutionary, wife, and maternal figure, and North Korean society looks to stories of her as examples of how to live life.[55] There is a wax replica of her in the International Friendship Exhibition. also does not establish WHY this is cult-like behavior, thereby meriting mention in this entry. There is a wax replica of the hereditary ruling family of the UK in Madame Tussauds Museum - is this evidence of a cult? (In fact, in this replica the ruler Elizabeth is shown wearing the insignia of the rank of "Lord High Admiral," a rank she holds "despite having no formal naval training" (as this entry repeatedly remarks with regard to the Kims). WP:BIAS.

BlueSalix (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you have evidence of other actual cults of personalities with a substantial body of evidence & substantial notability - by all means research them fully and perhaps start an article on them.

• If you have any substantial & credible evidence that no personality cult exists in North Korea or that offers a contrary view, then please add it to the article.
• A cult of personality, by definition, is when an individual(s) uses propaganda, revisionist history, mass media and other means to promote the idea that they are god-like, attribute accomplishments to themselves not substantiated by evidence (or exaggerated), and requires others to take part in the cult (forced education, praise etc). This is clearly done in North Korea.
• The Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK is an actual organization which is affiliated with the Korean Friendship Association (a de-facto arm of the DPRK's propaganda dept) and both groups disseminate real documents and books published in the DPRK. The book quoted in ref #1 is a real, DPRK published book, not a creation of the Association. I'd be more than happy to include a new reference you could accept.
• The rank of Lord High Admiral is not a professional military rank, nor does the Queen take control of the British military and use it based on her ceremonial rank. The ruling Kims do solely by virtue of their birth (eg he is the ruler and thus he is an expert in all things military, domestic, educational etc etc).
• As discussed earlier, the article does need work in explaining things. However, a lack of full context isn't itself a reason to remove *documented and referenced* material. The content is referenced and describes something real, a request for clarification or discussion via the appropriate tags (or seeking discussion here as you have done) is what's required. Unfortunately, simply not understanding something documented is not a reason to remove content.
• This article was approved and assessed by a member of the "administration" (a reviewer) and so I am inclined to think that the foundations of this article are fully in line with Wikipedia policy & goals. Like I've said many times, I will keep trying to improve the article. It would be appreciated on a personal level if you would take on the task of fixing the problems you've listed instead of solely expecting me to as Wiki relies on the work of others, there are no "directors" only editors. Coinmanj (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to consensus for editing of the entry - Coinmanj: It would be appreciated on a personal level if you would take on the task of fixing the problems you've listed - the offending sections I listed have been corrected by me at the request of the only other active editor on this entry. As I was unable to locate any WP:RS sources that would mediate the issues identified, the process of correction took the form of deletion of unreferenced/unsubstantiated material and unverifiable primary sources. BlueSalix (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No editor other than you agreed that the information should be removed. It was sourced and referenced material, published books from biographers ARE WP:RS, as are the news sites. I will request that you re-add the content. If you still insist in its removal, I will seek a formal dispute resolution for this particular section. You cannot claim consensus based on your personal feelings on the matter. There have already been two editors who agree that the content in question (throughout this whole dispute) should be included, the only problem has been how the information is presented (eg a better explanation for those who are not familiar with the subject). Coinmanj (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I requested a discussion regarding several points I listed, in response to which you said "it would be appreciated on a personal level if you would take on the task of fixing the problems you've listed." That indicates, to me and - I think - to a reasonable person, your agreement that I begin "fixing the problems [I] listed.". With the grant of your consensus, I fixed them. If you changed your mind I am happy to open a discussion for insertion of the removed material and will re-insert it upon consensus of active editors. BlueSalix (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove content that is referenced and is a part of the article's topic (and is referenced as such) unless the sources violate WP:RS, which the sources do not. If you see a problem, address the problem (eg, add a better source). You having a personal problem with the information does not give you the power to remove it, especially when there has been zero agreement by any editor (other than yourself) that the information should be removed. Removal of disputed content should only occur after a consensus has been reached, and based on the comments of other editors the information should not be deleted. Furthermore, the reason you stated that it be deleted was because "as I was unable to locate any WP:RS sources that would mediate the issues identified, the process of correction took the form of deletion of unreferenced/unsubstantiated material and unverifiable primary sources" which was demonstrably false. Coinmanj (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand you would like to retract your consensus-giving statement ("it would be appreciated on a personal level if you would take on the task of fixing the problems you've listed"). Since this is not a contest, and in a spirit of cooperation, I will not object if you choose to undo my deletion and resume discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I never gave consensus. Coinmanj (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Claims that Originate with the Chosun Ilbo

Several extraordinary claims in this entry (e.g. general staff officers 'executed by mortar') are reported by multiple sources, however, can be definitively traced to a single origin point, that being the rabidly conservative, pro-GNP (or whatever they're calling themselves this month) South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo. While the Chosun Ilbo appears to meet the WP:RS test, I would like to encourage a consensus-building discussion on the point of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Western media have an undeniable fascination with the DPRK and eagerly report on the - often true and verifiable - instances of its eccentricity. However, the eagerness with which this occurs has taken on a pathological quality and many western media stories are credited as "according to South Korean media" ... which invariably ends up being the Chosun Ilbo (as in the case of the 'execution by mortar' possible urban legend). After reviewing WP:EXCEPTIONAL, should bizarre claims be accepted in this entry if the only original source is the Chosun-Ilbo? This is a general question for discussion posed without a dedicated opinion on my part. BlueSalix (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You have made the claim that the article does not represent a world-wide view of the subject. I included references from North Korea, you claim they're not WP:RS, I included references from South Korea, you claim they're from an extremist website (despite it being from one of the major news sources in the country). I add a source from Italy, you claim it's invalid because it's not "popular" enough. I add a source from Australia and you claim it's some British tabloid. Off the top of my head there are sources form the US, UK, Italy, South Korea, North Korea, Australia and China - I'm sorry, but that constitutes views from across the globe. If you have a problem with Chosun Ilbo, then go delete every reference to it across every Wiki article, better yet while you're at, it go remove every source from Fox News....and MSNBC, Forbes, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc because they are all claimed by one group or another to be an "extremist" source. (FYI, don't actually do that because it will be against policy and you will get banned) Our job is not to be investigative journalists and independently verify the accuracy of a claim made by a credible, and reputable source. Nor is our job to declare a source non-credible based on our personal feelings alone. Our job is to accurately reflect what each reference says. Quoting policy isn't how you solve a problem, especially when I feel you have not adequately understood the policies involved. Your behavior confuses me, you claim you want to make the site better and yet don't attempt to accomplish it by contributing, and blatantly remove material from known qualified sources without having any consensus; it's beginning to turn disruptive. Coinmanj (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a section to discuss whether multiple sources are required to support incredible claims, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Comments to that end are welcome and encouraged. BlueSalix (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You have mixed two distinct issues, one deals with WP:Exceptional and the other falls under WP:Sources. In the first issue, you say the claim is exceptional and thus should require multiple sources, which is valid. In the second issue, you call into question the credibility of Chosun Ilbo. If you insist that Chosun Ilbo should not be used as a source, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As for the main issue of the single WP:Exceptional claim, there may be a bit of a grey area within policy and interpretation. So yes, discussion by other editors would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, I am working to find a second source which does not rely on the information provided by Chosun Ilbo. Coinmanj (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added an additional reference to the content. The Wikipedia article does not say Kim Chol was killed via a mortar, only that he was killed as punishment for violating the rules related to mourning practices. This is an established fact, the method of his death does not matter, nor is it important (or even mentioned) in this article. Coinmanj (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I clarified it slightly to make sure it was clear that claim only was sourced - by the various media outlets - to a single anti-DPRK South Korean politician referencing "unnamed" sources, and there was no secondary verification. Other than that, I think it looks good! BlueSalix (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You've focused on the single case of Kim Chol and his execution. There have been multiple other originating sources discussing the punishment of many others (jail time, re-education camps etc). The claims do not come from a single lone individual. Coinmanj (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No. This statement: "Similarly to the mourning period after Kim Il-sung's death, those who did not follow the laws relating to mourning practices were subject to punishment or, in the case of some high-ranking officials like Kim Chol,were executed." sources to three references you've inserted:

• http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/search1/2603000000.html?cid=AEN20121023010500315
• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/25/north-korean-official-executed-with-a-mortar_n_2015515.html
• http://www.news.com.au/world-news/north-korean-official-executed-by-mortar/story-fndir2ev-1226502844997

The first two state the origin of the claim is with Yoon Sang-hyun, a politicians from a party that - as my source you deleted affirmed - is known for engaging in "red scare" politics. The third source is to news.co.au, which references "South Korean media" - namely, the Chosun-Ilbo report which also cited Yoon Sang-hyun and has been suggested to have simply originated with "gossip." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/31/was_a_north_korean_general_really_executed_by_mortar_fire) I have corrected your deletions. Do not attempt to edit this again or I will refer the matter to dispute resolution. WP is not a place for gossipmongering. BlueSalix (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly

Most of the facts do not need to be removed... The fact is, while its true that giving a person the title of a "Father of the Nation" or "Mother of the Nation" is fine per-say, everything is about how North Korea celebrates these events, or treats these individuals... Yepp, they have similarities with other countries, but doesn't make them less cultish.... Have you ever thought to think for one section that other country also develop cults for certain individuals?? It needs a rewrite, but the removal of, well, it seems, most is going a bit far. --TIAYN (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The main article cult of personality mentions recognized or strongly suspected cults of personalities, including North Korea. What makes North Korea special is the intensity and ubiquitous nature of the cult. Biographer Dae-Sook Suh (as well as many others: Peter Lee, Jasper Becker, Paul French et al.) noted that the North Korean cult of personality far exceeds that of Stalin or Mao. Plus, it is written within the law, it pervades every sector of the country (economics, domestic, military, education etc), and has been widely discussed & described at length by many, many people. It is a very real part of North Korean culture and when I began the article I was actually quite surprised one hadn't already been created. Coinmanj (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All of that is properly in the article. The actions of the new leader I believe need equally strong sourcing that connects actions to the personality cult. As I said above, some of these actions, such as changing the portraits in embassies, could be interpreted differently, and we should provide expert opinion on what it means. Cf a story from last year, "Canadian embassies have till Sept. 15 to hang the Queen's portrait", which generated controversy at the time. TFD (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input TFD. I will go through and add more references from books and make the distinctions as to why the various statements fall within the cult. I tried to avoid having most references from books simply because not everything in them can be found online, and as both a reader of Wikipedia and an editor I enjoy having multiple source mediums and the ability to click on a link and see the source without having to track something down in a book. But, I see where you're coming from with the need for more academic sources. Coinmanj (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Kim Jong-un has only been in office a year, there may be few books, although Google scholar shows some papers have been written.[6] I see no problem in using news sources when academic sources are unavailable, but then you should probably use in-line citation, e.g., so-and-so sees the changing of pictures as evidence that Kim Jong-un is creating his own personality cult. TFD (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bunch of Stuff Needs Deleting

There are a lot of portions of this article that, while properly sourced, are off-topic for an article titled "cult of personality", to wit:

• "A new ₩70 ($0.50 US) stamp has been issued depicting him with his father."

Issuing stamps with a head-of-state image is not indicative of a personality cult so is off-topic for this article (see: Royal Mail stamps featuring image of the head of the ruling family, Elizabeth Windsor).

• "In 2013, the Workers' Party of Korea amended the "Ten Principles for the Establishment of the One-Ideology System", which, in practice, serves as the primary legal authority and framework of the country,[63][64] to demand "absolute obedience" to Kim Jong-un."

A stylized, romantic "oath of allegiance" to a head-of-state is not indicative of a personality cult so is off-topic for this article (see: UK oath of obedience taken by immigrants and elected officials to the head of the ruling family, Elizabeth Windsor, in which persons are required to declare "faith and true allegiance" to the ruling family and all its members under penalty of loss of legal rights).

• "The birthdays of Kim Il-sung (April 15), Kim Jong-il (Feb 16) and Kim Jong-suk (Dec 24) are celebrated as national holidays"

A birthday observance dedicated to a national founder is not indicative of a personality cult so is off-topic for this article (see: George Washington's Birthday in the U.S. in which workers are given holidays by the state authorities and various parades and celebrations to George Washington are organized by the state authorities, which soldiers and others are required to attend).

• Between 1973 and 2012, Jong-il accumulated no fewer than 54 titles, most of which had little to do with real political or military accomplishments since he never had any military training.

Accumulating honorary titles by a head-of-state is a protocol formality and is not indicative of a personality cult so is off-topic for this article (see: Prince Charles who has received 9 Ph.D.'s, despite having only an undergraduate education, and is currently simultaneously the commander of 24 of Britain's 32 army regiments despite having only briefly served in the military, and that in the navy.). BlueSalix (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been one-and-a-half weeks and no one has objected to these changes so I have made them. BlueSalix (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A lack of discussion is not considered consensus, I didn't even know you had started a discussion until this point. I am not going to have an one-on-one "debate" with you since you have your own ideas and I have mine, and rarely do they ever agree. I will instead simply ask for a RfC on each of the individual issues you've raised (which means 4 separate RfC's) and allow the community at large to decided what is or is not consensus and act accordingly. Coinmanj (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I feel these are reasonable changes and - based on previous input by other editors such as User:Trust Is All You Need and User:The Four Deuces in respect to the current state of this article - I felt empowered to adopt them after receiving no feedback for one-and-a-half weeks. You were online multiple times while this discussion question was open and had ample opportunity to register a negative opinion, but chose not to do so, even though your activity during that time was focused on Korea entries, you are the original author of this entry, and you have previously indicated you pay careful attention to it. One cannot prevent attempts to improve an article by WP:Stonewalling a discussion question. That said, I have no problem with a RfC and welcome further input on this article by everyone. BlueSalix (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for RfCs. There is an issue of synthesis. While your facts may be evidence of a peronality cult, you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of cooperation, I have undone all of my edits to allow another opportunity for discussion. Coinmanj has done great research and there's nothing in this article that's not properly and exhaustively sourced, I just feel there's a major editorial leap occurring to transit from the raw facts to the thesis (as well as some sketchy sources, like the Chosun Ilbo, though I realize I don't have a RfC to back me up on that and it's just my POV). I will also bow-out from being the one to execute any further edits on these points and will leave that to someone else, assuming the discussion goes that direction. BlueSalix (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, I have undone the previous edits after one editor indicated the week-and-a-half of discussion offered was not sufficient for him to register an opinion. However, I will go ahead and delete the questionable material again on or after January 25 in the absence of any objection. WP:Stonewalling is not a strategy to preserve an article from being edited. BlueSalix (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I make lots of edits, but that doesn't mean I'm constantly checking every single article or their talk pages (especially talk pages that may go months without any activity). You don't have a clue what I've seen or when I saw it, so leave your preconceived notions about my alleged behavior to yourself because I didn't choose to ignore anything, I just never saw it until I replied. An editor is allowed to make changes, just don't claim it was due to some non-existent consensus. I appreciate your decision to revert your edits. As discussed here and in the previous contested debate several months ago, the content itself is not flawed and is appropriately referenced, the problem is that not everything is clearly linked (in the article) to the cult itself, i.e. some things need explanation as to why/how it's part of the cult and I did make some adjustments accordingly during the last discussion (back in August). Obviously you would like to see the 4 or 5 points you've listed specifically linked to the cult, as opposed to "a parade of horribles" and I am going to do my best to resolve that issue (I'm always reading new books, NGO reports, government papers etc.) that may offer the needed material. And of course if I can't find any direct link or a reference I will remove the material (as I have done before). Coinmanj (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but this does very little to assuage my concern. Your approach is not a good way to edit a Wikipedia entry: positing a thesis and then going searching for sources that will back that thesis up. As has been previously noted, using this approach we can easily craft a "Britain's Cult of Personality" entry (which would promptly be AfD'ed). The only thing keeping this alive, at this point, appears to be either a cultural anglocentrism that presupposes a so-called "cult of personality" exists, or an overt attempt to delegitimize the people's government of the DPRK by creating an entire article that is nothing but a big WP:CRITS section. As per what User:The Four Deuces said above, there is serious issue of synthesis at work. BlueSalix (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This article includes over 100 references and probably close to 150 individual citations. The sources used come from North Korea, the US, Russia, China, South Korea, Canada, the UK, Australia, and I think at least one comes from Germany and Japan. There is no dispute that a very real cult of personality exists, except perhaps by you and the DPRK government. And as I have asked you to do MANY times before, if you have a RS that refutes such a cult then it needs to be added to the article under a "criticism" type section. For my part, I haven't seen any such refutation by anyone but the DPRK (and that is noted in the article). Everything in the article comes from a source, if certain things lack a listed reference but needs them, I can find the original place where I learned the info. None of this has been imagined or made-up by myself. The only apparent synthesis comes from the fact that I do know this topic (and North Korea itself) very well and I forget that not everyone does, and so what looks obvious to me (based on extensive research, my own personal library on the DPRK includes over 80 items and thousands of pages) may not be so clear and understandable by others. I've known this for a while and others have pointed it out as well. Thus, my task is to provide adequate context and understanding as to why certain things are a part of the cult instead of just a common occurrence that other countries do as well. You can take issue with the topic of a cult all you want, but simply not believing in it without providing proof, doesn't matter. Coinmanj (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommended Deletions

I recommend deleting the section beginning with "In keeping with the modern mythologies that pervade North Korea's version of history ..." and ending with "flower of Kim Jong-il" as this all appears to be comments on tributes given by foreign citizens acting in their own countries and is, therefore, not emblematic of a "personality cult." BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is factually false, only part of the 4 paragraphs and final sentence deal with foreigners. The reason why they're part of the cult is because the DPRK government uses the tributes of foreigners in their propaganda to solidify and justify the cult, in essence to "prove" their leaders are great (which is backed up by other sources in the article). You have failed to understand the cult of personality in North Korea and that most things associated with the leadership are connected with the cult, either for domestic or international consumption. The cult is the country and as Dae-Sook Suh has said, without Kim Il-Sung, his family and total loyalty to them, there would be no North Korea. But as I said above, I will instead simply submit an RfC on this section. Coinmanj (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's your editorial position. I would rather this article be written from a fact-based perspective, instead of as an op-ed piece. The section in question is currently just a parade of horribles that requires an editorial leap-of-faith to connect to a so-called "cult of personality" as the sources themselves don't make that contention (in this section). BlueSalix (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Added link in See Also

I have added a link to the new entry Issues in reporting on North Korea to the "see also" section. BlueSalix (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140828045348/http://ndfsk.dyndns.org/kuguk8/rem/rem-1.htm to http://ndfsk.dyndns.org/kuguk8/rem/rem-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Copied from the Background section:

North Korean authorities have co-opted portions of Christianity and Buddhism, and adapted them to their own uses, while greatly restricting all religions in general as they are seen as a threat to the regime. An example of this can be seen in the description of Kim Il-sung as a god, and Kim Jong-il as the son of a god or "Sun of the Nation", evoking the Jesus imagery of Christianity. According to author Victor Cha, during the first part of Kim Il-sung's rule, the state destroyed over 2,000 Buddhist temples and Christian churches which might detract from fidelity to Kim. There is even widespread belief that Kim Il-sung "created the world" and that Kim Jong-il controlled the weather. Korean society, traditionally Confucian, places a strong emphasis on paternal hierarchy and loyalty. The Kims have taken these deeply held traditions and removed their spiritual component, replacing them with loyalty to the state and the ruling family in order to control the population. Despite the suppression of traditional religions, however, the website "Adherents.com has described Juche, sociologically, as the religion of the entire population of North Korea.

• Co-option of Christianity and Buddhism: the source doesn't say anything like this. This should be deleted.
• Restriction of religion: this cites articles about the detention of Jeffrey Fowle, which is not particularly relevant. This should be deleted.
• God and Jesus: this cites what appears to be a student's website, which only uses the terms "god" and "Jesus" metaphorically. This should be deleted.
• Son of a god: Korean source that I can't access. It would be good to get this verified.
• Creation of the world etc: please see my comments at Talk:North_Korea#Kim_Il_Sung_created_the_world?. I think this should be deleted because I think it is a weak source and a case of citogenesis.
• Juche as a religion: this is essentially a self-published source, which doesn't claim to have any expertise on North Korea. The claim that it is the religion of the entire population doesn't seem to have any basis, and it's unclear what "sociologically" means in this context.

Overall, this paragraph is misleading and rather irrelevant. Cults of personality do have religious aspects, hence the term "cult", but we know that the Kim cult was copied from the Stalin cult and developed in parallel with Mao's cult. It did not come from the co-option of religions in Korea. No doubt Korean culture, including religion, influenced North Korean ideology and the personality cult. If there was scholarship on that it could be cited. But bundling together a paragraph from dubious references is not the way to go.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Great Successor

The article says: 'With the death of his father, state media began to refer to him as the "Great Successor."' Several media outlets call him the "great successor" in lower case.[7][8][9][10]As does the KCNA. In other words, it was a description rather than a formal title. And there doesn't seem evidence that the title or description has persisted since the succession period. The source used merely states: 'North Koreans poured into the streets on Monday to mourn the death of leader Kim Jong-il and state media hailed his untested son as the “Great Successor”'.[11] It doesn't say that the state media continued to call him that, which is what our text implies. I think we should be careful here because some people are obsessed with the titles of the North Korean leaders: Kim Il Sung was Great Leader, Jong Il was Dear Leader, and Jong Un is...? In reality, the leaders have been loaded down with various titles and honorifics and epithets. I don't think we should create the factoid that this is his official title...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

KJI's weather control - possible citogenesis

I'm trying to the claim that the Rodong Sinmun has written that Kim Jong-il could control the weather based on his mood. I ran a google search for "kim jong il" "control weather" rodong sinmun with a date range through the end of 2012. The results consisted only of a Wikipedia mirror and this article. That article mentioned it in the same sentence as the apocryphal legend about his holes-in-one, which is now known to be based on a misunderstanding. Given that North Korean state media usually gets extensively covered by English-language media when it publishes particularly outrageous claims, if this is real then it's surprising I am finding nothing. I suspect WP:Citogenesis here. CJK09 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, but I can't find the discussion now. I think this is referring to North Korean reports like Wonders of Nature[12], but I think these are viewed portents rather than phenomenon caused by the leader himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is also this quote from North Korea researcher B. R. Myers: "Divine powers have never been attributed to either of the two Kims. In fact, the propaganda apparatus in Pyongyang has generally been careful not to make claims that run directly counter to citizens' experience or common sense." (Cleanest Race, p7) He further explains that the state propaganda painted Kim Jong-il as someone whose expertise lay in military matters and that the famine of the 1990s was partially caused by natural disasters out of Kim Jong-il's control.(pp114, 116)--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)