Talk:Kim Jong-un

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Does This Article Have No Picture Of Kim Jong Un?[edit]

It shouldn't be hard to find one that isn't copyrighted. However, the page's "locked down" condition makes it impossible for most Wikipedeans to simply add a pic ourselves. RobertLovesPi (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Every image of Kim Jong Un that has been found is copyrighted, and would be non-free under WP's policy. As the Foundation requires us to not use non-free where free content can be made (as is the case of the living leader of a major country of the world), we can't use copyrighted images and thus have no image until a free one comes about. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There's one on Commons right now: I think it should be put into this article. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Done - finally!!!! :-))))) --Krawunsel (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The same image was placed on this article last year right about this time [1], and rapidly removed [2]. It was subsequently deleted from Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong Un graffiti.jpg. The graffiti is a derivative work of this image, and as such is encumbered with rights from the original photograph, making it incompatible with Commons licensing requirements, and not free as we define it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's typical - we've finally got a solution but you've got to destroy everything. You proved once and for all that you are unwilling to have ANY image in the article. I could personally travel to North Korea and take a picture of him and you'd still find some flimsy pretext to remove it from the article. This picture was obviously taken from an outdoors wall, therefore we are talking about the freedom of panorama!!! Something which you chose to ignore since it doesn't fit into your plans to keep ANY image from this article. Well, Kim Jong-un is not exactly what I'd call an amiable or sympathetic fella but I can only imagine how you must be hating Kim Jong-Un that you're constantly at keeping ANY image out of the article. --Krawunsel (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comments above are completely wrong, Krawunsel. If you go to North Korea and take a photo of Kim Jong-un, and freely license it, then the photo will stay in this article, and you will be showered with barnstars. Just do it, or stop complaining. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Krawunsel, your latest rejoinder here is nothing short of a personal attack. The only sentence that is not so is the 4th sentence. If you persist in personally attacking me or anyone else, you may be blocked from editing. You may consider this a warning.
  • To continue, I'll respond to the 4th sentence: First, Freedom of Panorama does not exist for this artwork, as it is installed in France. Please see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Therefore, the artist's rights to the artwork are protected by law. The artist can release such rights, and in fact did, as we know from his flickr posting. However, the image is not free because it is a derivative image of the one shown here. Please read Derivative work to gain an understanding of this subject of law. We have a three prong test in this case; the rights of the original photographer on which the artwork is based (owned by Associated Press), the rights of the artist that created the graffiti (Thierry Ehrmann), and the rights of the photographer (Thierry Ehrmann). We must have release of rights under a free license for all three prongs. We do for the second and third, but not the first. Therefore, the image is not free and we can not use it here. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Then what if someone just drew a sketch of KJU? Would that be un-professional? Or still non-free because all known photos of KJU are non-free, and it would have to be based on a non-free photo? Schvass (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • A drawing, if not a derivative work of an existing non-free image, could be made available under a free license. Thierry Ehrmann's graffiti is effectively a drawing, but it is a derivative work. If he had chosen instead to use imagery of Kim Jong-un as influences in creating an original art piece (but not derivative), then his licensing of his art work would make it available under a license compatible with this project. As to the question of whether a drawing would be permitted to depict him, I don't know. I've seen arguments on other articles where such images were not allowed, but it's not an absolute and such discussions have less grounding in policy than the issue of non-free vs. free. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a photo on flickr here in which has a creative commons license. Would it be possible to upload this photo to Commons?—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Although the license is good, the flickr account does not actually own the copyright of the photo, which belongs to China's Xinhua news agency. BabelStone (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be made a priority as this is an important leader and pertinent to current events and therefore the lack of even a drawn picture lowers the respectability, legitimacy, and prestige of Wikipedia. It's disgusting when bureaucratic nanny laws and policies prevent the spread of information in this day and age of supposed freedom. (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want this to be a priority,, then make it a priority and start working on your drawing. Alternatively, please feel free to take a plane to Pyongyang, take a photo of this man, and freely license the image. Until then, please feel free to refrain from criticizing other editors for complying with policy, or for not doing the volunteer work that you have not done yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone then ask the copyright holders for permission for use here then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. As far as I know, there have been multiple attempts to contact KCNA, but we haven't heard back from these editors yet, so I'm assuming that the requests haven't been successful. --benlisquareTCE 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks, User:Cullen328. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks on what constitutes a personal attack. In rebuttal, if I had any talent for art, I would draw it and gladly license it. .I am not criticizing other editors. I am criticizing this page as is my right. I am appreciative to all Wikipedia editors who strive to improve this public source of knowledge. (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is possible to visit North Korea (as I have), but that does not mean you have a chance to photograph Kim Jong Un. Nor did I see any statues or official portraits that could be photographed for these purposes.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Jack Upland is right. Of course it is possible to travel to North Korea. Unfortunately it is, however, VERY unrealistic to expect to be able to take a picture of Kim, closed as the North Korean society is. Just being able to travel there is not enough to disallow using a image based on the fair use rationale. @ Cullen: Why don't you just do as you said and take a picture of him, thus proving your theory? ;) And, well, as to the much-quoted policy, this is one of the cases which prove that it does not always work, especially as the situation we have here is, obviously, not provided for. We need to be more flexible, that's as much as this debate has proved. Buerocracy and obstinacy doesn't help us here. Anyway, we have at least a sketch now, that's better than nothing. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The cases that prove the policy does not always work are called exceptions. We do have exceptions. Unfortunately, we do not have exceptions for living leaders of countries. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This case has proved that the policy does not always work. So this IS one of the exceptions. If the rules do not provide exceptions for living leaders of countries who are just as unreachable as if they were dead already the rules are faulty. And buerocratically insisting on sticking with rules that do not work may happen in North Korea but it should not happen here. That's not the way a free project like the Wikpedia should and can work. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Not really - saying that we should just allow a non-free picture of a person is the first step on the path alluded to by WP:VEGAN. Yes, he's not like as easy as walking down the street to get a shot, but we have never including "difficulty" in the consideration of such a shot, as long as any general member of the public can possibly get the photo. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the cases where policy does not have an exception, we have RfCs. We had an RfC on this subject. The dominant view was that a non-free image was not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the cases where policy does not an exception to fit certain cases the policy is obviously faulty and needs to be changed. And you may repeat over and over that "any general menber of the public" could get a picture of Kim Jong-un (you did that many times, like the proverbial tibetan prayer mill). Well, if that were so we'd have a photo by now. But we haven't. So far as to the truth of your statement. It' certainly not got anything to do with veganism. I don't believe Kim is a vegan. --Krawunsel (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not all members of the public are Wikipedia editors, so a free picture (or someone with a pictre they are willing able to freely license) might be out there, but unless they come to Wikipedia and are aware of the lack of photo, it will remain unknown. We don't require that it has to be WP editors (which, I would suspect, being more American/European, will have a much more difficult, but not impossible, time getting to NK), just any member of the public. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The irony is that the users so 'respectful' of DPRK law are in fact biased critics of the DPRK. According to previous discussions on the Ri Sol-Ju, DPRK diplomats indicated they were OK with Wikipedia taking a photo from a pro-DPRK website, but this was dismissed on xenophobic grounds. This whole argument showcases Wikipedia at its worst.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that Wikipedia has too many rules and many of them are subject to misinterpretation and that's why there are so many unnecessary arguments here. A few people ought to be a bit more lenient and things would go much easier. I mean, people here are just trying to improve things and I can understand their frustration when there's always someone who vetoes everything. Wikipedia rules are NOT the Holy Bible, so take it easy!--Maxl (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me!!! That's POV. The Bible is just a Jewish literary text, but Wikipedia rules have jurisdiction across the Universe and beyond! Dude, get with the pogrom!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

New potential Kim Jong-Un sketches[edit]

Hey, just letting you know that we have more options for freely-licensed drawings of Kim Jong-Un. They were sketched by members of the Reddit community r/ICanDrawThat. They are hosted on Flickr under Creative Commons here and here, however the latter doesn't allow for commercial-use- an issue that I'm addressing. What do you think of these new options? Note: I'm using a throw-away so I don't link my Reddit account with my Wikipedia account which uses my real name. Thanks, F0064r (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The second image is now properly copyrighted. F0064r (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please replace the sketch in the infobox with file:Kim Jong-Un Sketch.jpg? Thanks, F0064r (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a more realistic drawing. The old one wasn't bad, but it was shaded with scribbles, the ear isn't very accurate at all, and all the edges of his features are jagged. The new one doesn't have these issues. Thanks, F0064r (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is possibly more realistic, but I personally think the original one is artistically better. Moreover, because the new one is oval, you get a distracting white square background against the light blue of the info box. All in all, a sketch is a sketch, and it's just a stand-in until we get a photo, so I don't see any real point in having a sketch war -- let's just stick with the one by the first person who could be bothered to make a sketch, as it's good enough. BabelStone (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
When adding an image to a blp we are trying to find the most accurate image possible. The new image is more accurate, even if you think it isn't as "artistic" as the old one. Retaining a less encyclopedic image because it was the first one available is a poor argument, and is at ends with Wikipedia's goal. I think it's worth the change. Cheers, F0064r (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: There does not appear to be clear consensus for the change at this time. Biblioworm 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If the image is better, why not? Why not vote on it? --Maxl (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let just say that as a casual observer I find you people as we say on the internets, retarded. Common sense should be the guiding principle in all things and I think the majority of readers would agree with me that even taking a copyrighted picture would be acceptable here even if it didn't fall under fair use which it does. Ridicilous. A random dude made a random sketch of a world leader...what an encyclopedia (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, dude, some respect - that sketch is righteous. I'm just pissed they didn't accept my crayon drawing of a nuclear bomb. Inconsistent, dudes!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me be the first to then fully support the introduction of such great art. Crayons, my god that implies color. The Democratic Republic of Wikipedia will have made a great step forward! All I ask for you is to not forget "Made by Kim Jong-un" somewhere on the bomb. We wouldn't want Wikipedia getting 9/11 haxed. (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Let's not forget that no less than US Secretary of State Colin Powell used pencil sketches in his "slam dunk" WMD address to the United Nations. Photographs are for fools! A drawing never lies.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt[edit]

I don't think we should have this section. There are many speculative reports and rumours about North Korea, and this is just one of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This one is well sourced though, with strong secondary sourcing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so was the execution of Hyon Song-wol.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014[edit]

I discovered an error on this page. In the first paragraph on this page, the text states: "He is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il and his consort Ko Young-hee."


However, at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled "Early Life and Education," the following sentence contradicts the earlier statement: "Kim Jong-Un was the second of three children Ko Yong-hui borne to Kim Jong-Il, his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong is believed to have been born in 1987."


New comment from DrJulieSunny on 12/3/14 I'm new to this stuff (sorry). Thank you for asking for clarification. My specific question is: Is Kim Jong-un the third and youngest son (1st citation/1st reference to his biological family) of his parents or the 2nd of 3 children (with an older brother and younger sister - see 2nd citation link/2nd reference)? I requested an amendment to this conflicting information because I'm not very informed on this topic and I don't have the answer myself. I'm wondering if any other readers have observed this inconsistency. Thank you!

Drjuliesunny (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Drjuliesunny (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The change would be, I think, to pick one correct description of his mother's name and his place in the family. Does anyone know the truth of this?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

according to the family tree, he was the third son of his father, but the second by his father's mistress Ko Yong-hui. This information can be straightened out in the test. While you're at it, the name of his mother can be corrected in the lede Ko Yung-hui from Ko Young-hee Richardson mcphillips (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
But either transliteration is correct.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Addiction to Swiss Cheese[edit]

Why is there no mention of the widely publicised addiction to Swiss cheese? Often cited as a cause of his numerous health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Swiss cheese is not addictive. And if he really likes Swiss cheese, then that is a trivial factoid that has no place in a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
And all these alleged people who pretend to care about "human rights" are happy to defame another human because of his alleged consumption of dairy products. They are the secret and unconscious propagandists of the DPRK. And I would rather deal with genuine North Koreans any day before these pathetic poseurs.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's no accident that Kim Jong-un is so big (in the forests of North Korea). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
'Jack Upland' - yeah right! Hu Flung Dung more like it! No doubt one of the Un's fanatical defenders! Actually defending this fat, stupid, psycopathic, genocidal maniac is a crime against humanity. You sir are an asshat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
What you need to understand, angry IP editor, is that our BLP policy applies to every living person without exception. Charlie Manson, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whoever the senior commander of ISIS is today, the child raping axe murderer who committed his crimes in your home town. All of them. We write about them here on Wikipedia neutrally, summarizing only what the reliable sources say. Feel free to rant and rave elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Kim Jong Un was my personal hero, or that I was Asian, but what would I know? I do admit the dude has flaws. Committing genocide is one thing, but consuming Swiss cheese...??? If this is proven, I will burn my Kim Jong Un picture and switch my allegiance to Kim Kardashian...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
... beware. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess consuming Swiss cheese as such is not a flaw but it's a flaw if you eat so much of it that you grow obese and develope diabetes and related diseases... and that's what this is all about. It is indeed publicised widely, so why not mention it? --Maxl (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It is publicized widely, Maxl, but not in reliable sources. The Swiss cheese talk seems to have started out in sensationalistic British newspapers with poor reputations for fact checking and then spread to similar New York tabloids. It's all speculative rumor mongering. We need impeccably reliable sources to discuss a living person's health conditions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It sounds credible, though. Just look at him! --Maxl (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It certainly has spread. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I appear to be from the same IP range as Mr Angry above however I am not him/her. In terms of sources for the 'Cheese addiction' many national and international news agencies have published stories detailing his alleged health problems caused by excess cheese consumption, are they not suitable trusted sources? Some of the stories quote unnamed sources alegedly inside North Korea. I personally think that adding the excess cheese consumption to this article should be done, Kim Jong Un's health is an issue which is affected by the cheese consumption and I therefore think it's important to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBW 777 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose including speculation about medical conditions referenced to articles that cite unnamed North Korean sources. These sources do not meet our standards for biographies of living people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose it too. Even when it is carried by recognised news agencies, much of this speculation turns out to be utterly false. See, for example, the death rumours about Hyon Song-wol. Only Kim's closest friends and family, his personal assistants, or medical staff could possibly have this information. Cogitate, don't agitate.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose it too because I know first hand that Swiss Cheese Addiction can ruin lives and that it is best handled without the scrutiny of the public. (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There were rumours about Sting using cheese to induce strange dreams and inspire his songwriting. This could explain Synchronicity II. Not sure if it was Swiss, though, or green, or good old Coon. Suffice it to say, the sources are full of holes.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"Walking on the Moon"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It makes sense, but the evidence doesn't cut it. Tough cheddar.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop being so cheesy! (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion is atheism?[edit]

Is there any source that he is an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:562:5A01:450B:1684:19B0:2648 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Kim Il Sung was brought up a Presbyterian and apparently said Buddhist prayers. The DPRK regime frequently draws on Korean shamanism.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014[edit]

Please change the picture....hes not a portrait.... 2601:9:8500:1503:646C:D97B:5A11:3803 (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 09:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
He's not a photograph either.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014[edit]

Dennmann57 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) The difference between North and South Korea? In South Korea the people are fat and the leaders skinny.....

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
What's the difference between Kim Jong Un and Psy? One is a plump Korean man who spouts anti-American rhetoric and rules a bizarre personality cult, and the other is the leader of North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

His apparent total and utter lack of a sense of humour[edit]

As demonstrated aptly by the recent NK government hacking of Sony to prevent the release of a film mocking him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please offer a reliable source that discusses his lack of a sense of humor. That would be the basis for a conversation. Even then, biographies usually discuss the attributes of their subjects, not which attributes they lack. Perhaps he has a great sense of humor in the context of North Korean culture. Perhaps not. But why is his sense of humor worthy of discussion in this biography? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Intro should mention human rights violations[edit]

I am not informed about wikipedia's biographical standards but I think the UN report discussed in the article (and at greater length here: should be mentioned in the introduction. Specifically, it should be noted that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights warned Kim that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity ( based on hundreds of first-hand interviews documenting "unspeakable atrocities" committed by his government and that an estimated 150,000-200,000 political prisoners are being held in concentration camps under his regime.

Much of the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the current introduction should be moved lower in the article. His university degrees, his ranking on Forbes lists, and potential involvement in the Sony hacking are all less 1st order than the above human rights violations.

If someone comes to this article and reads only the introduction it is more important that they be made aware of these human rights violations than that he has a physics degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, he has not been formally accused and/or found guilty of human rights violations. There's strong evidence, no doubt, but per BLP, to put this in the lead would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)