Jump to content

Talk:Kim Jong Un

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:8388:1641:8380:3ad5:47ff:fe18:cc7f (talk) at 12:17, 28 April 2020 (→‎Wikipedia is not for breaking news). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Birth year confirmation

According to [1], Kim Jong-Un's birth year has been confirmed by his relatives to the CIA as 1984. Is this evidence sufficient to nail down the birth year in the article? Quote:

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

Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus: It's already in both the Early Life section and info box. If sources conflict, then sources conflict. Not sure it's within Wikipedia's power to "make the call" beyond that. The other sources will need to be proven as falsehood. Are you willing to go that extra mile? -- Tytrox (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fifield, Anna. "The secret life of Kim Jong Un's aunt, who has lived in the U.S. since 1998". WashingtonPost. Retrieved 27 April 2020.

@Tytrox: ah, I totally missed that in those sections. I'll pass on the extra mile required to confirm the birth date. :)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

change "un" to "on" it is correct Fefexd12 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the common way of spelling it. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to where his name has been spelt as "On". I've personally never seen it anywhere (not that that my argument holds any weight, but just adding to the argument that it's not known). Any citation on this? Tytrox (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could be from a language other than English. boldblazer (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In North Korea his name is romanised Kim Jong Un.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved in a current event"

I don't know how to do it but someone should put the thing on this page that says "this person is involved in a current event" etc Dotdh15 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dotdh15: Done. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dotdh15 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that's necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jack Upland, these rumors occur regularly and are usually wrong. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I also don't see any rapidly evolving coverage. Rather I see the same vague report repeated over and over. I will remove the tag for now. Dr. K. 04:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. See [1] and [2]. There was heavy speculation by reliable sources on whether or not he actually is gravely ill that have recently been refuted by other sources about 30 minutes before I wrote this comment, such as Reuters. I believe it was appropriate when I put it up an hour ago especially considering that CNN was (and still is) reporting this as a front page story that Kim Jong-un "is in grave danger" citing unnamed US government sources. While these rumors do occur regularly, the fact that this specific rumor has been reported by numerous reliable sources as being true makes it a current event. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 04:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, Chess, by that token, any person etc who is in the news should have a "current" tag. What is the purpose of that?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would {{Recent death presumed}} be applicable here? Ionmars10 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have gone here before with North Korean leaders, WP is not news and until something is confirmed it doesn't belong here. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We need to wait for something definite. The rumour seems to be receding now.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not get involved in unsourced speculation. That would be a BLP violation. Dr. K. 05:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It literally was sourced to CNN and other sources. I added the tag because of the highly intense speculation & information floating about. The tag is to let readers know that yes, Wikipedia is aware that there's a bunch of news coming out about Kim Jong-un and that the article might not be up to date with the latest information. Read the template yourself. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 04:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Jack Upland noted correctly above, following that logic any person etc who is in the news should have a "current" tag. What is the purpose of that? Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. There is no ongoing current event regarding Kim, other than some cryptic news releases and a few more equally vague news. Until this clears up, if it clears up, there is nothing ongoing of any value to this article. Dr. K. 15:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN confirmed that Kim Jong-un was gravely ill. Anyone who's the subject of a current news event where information is subject to change should be tagged with the current event tag until news stops being published. It appears the news is receding now and was when the tag was removed, but at the time I put the tag on the page the situation was very unclear as CNN, generally considered a reliable source, openly published as fact that Kim Jong-un was "in grave danger". That's not a baseless rumour. That's a reliable news source publishing a claim that Kim Jong-un is close to death. And right after that occurred, numerous other reliable publications such as Reuters were publishing new information while the tag was on the page. This isn't just a random rumour some person posted on 4chan. This was a breaking news story confirmed by CNN. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 08:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS and don't make changes based on unconfirmed media reports.Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have inconsistent reports about a Chinese medical team heading to North Korea. Again, these are rumours. I think we need to wait until we have some concrete information.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argubly the "current event" banner is not appropriate here. There's news, but its not a flurry of news yet. The reason that tag is there is to warn readers and editors of rapid updates of which there haven't been that much really - roughly 50odd edits total over the last week, not all about these death rumors. Just because there's news coverage doesn't make "current events" a proper tag. --Masem (t) 13:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is consensus against the tag, why do we have it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Guardian reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April" should be Reuters reported, not the Guardian

The Guardian is merely one of many media outlets conveying what Reuters discovered.-Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Daxar (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, The Guardian was where I found it out. SuperGuy212 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level

Bernspeed (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC) This article is at a very high protection. I am curious about why this happened. Even some other articles like Donald Trump are only extended confirmed protected. It says "feel free to edit" even though almost nobody can even if they wanted to.[reply]

It seems a bit overboard but people adding their own theories could lead to vandalism and edit wars Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not an admin but this protection level is used only in emergencies when the edits are so numerous for an unconfirmed death reports. The article will not be updated to show he’s died until most North Korea confirms it themselves. North Korea keeps things pretty tight related to the Kim family. The official family tree isn’t even known.--Rockchalk717 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there's a lot of unreliable sources reporting he is dead whereas we have no reliable sources reporting that he is (at best, they are reporting on the rumors that he is dead but not confirming them). Users were trying to add that, and as this is a BLP that requires the highest level of sourcing, protecting this was appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand how it was so important to keep this information out that regular/confirmed users from adding any information on the entire page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an easier way to keep the death rumors out of the page due to the volume of edits.--Rockchalk717 04:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because what we have here is a genuine content dispute between confirmed editors and unconfirmed/IP editors. My position is to keep the current event template but not to update until we have a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems a bit extreme since confirmed users can not make updates on the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for breaking news

Just a general note to anyone who is thinking this article needs to be updated: Wikipedia prioritizes accuracy over urgency. Unconfirmed rumours do not belong on Wikipedia. If it takes a week for us to catch up, no big deal - we're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. Any further requests to add news about Kim from questionable sources should be removed on sight. – bradv🍁 03:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese state media reported that Kim Jong Un is dead. This isn’t something unconfirmed. As for news, adding that he was reported dead is not unconfirmed breaking news. It would be appropriate to add that he was reported to be dead. Immediately deleting any requests seems to be inappropriate. I feel that measures to take a census between users is more appropriate, especially since the entire page has been locked Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjrz nj forecast, what's your source? – bradv🍁 03:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the NYPost cited in their article. 72.47.21.2 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with bradv, WP is not news and we shouldn't include unconfirmed speculation/rumors. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post and Jerusalem Post, which I find are both reliable. Other sources have reported it too but they are not the most reliable Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any "Japanese state media", as in an agency run by the government. There are news outlets of course, but none that are run by the state. Again, I could be wrong. Wjrz nj forecast, would you please provide a cite to what you are referring? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, I took at look at The Japan News (https://the-japan-news.com/) which is run by Yomiuri Shimbun, the largest newspaper in Japan. There isn't a single article on their entire site that says anything about Kim Jong-un dying. The only article that was relevant was this one, which says the reports about his ill health are unconfirmed. If Yomiuri Shimbun isn't running an article about his supposed death, I dare say it's just rumor and nothing more. Wikipedia is not for rumors, and I agree we are not news. We don't have to be on the bleeding edge of the news. We update from secondary sources to confirm things and add such to articles. Right now, there's a dearth of confirmation in reliable sources that he is, in fact, dead. Until there is, this is a non-starter. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s my bad, there is no state run Japanese media. However, Shūkan Gendai which is a reliable news source from Japan reports his death. Also, The Jerusalem Post reports this which is one of the largest news sources in Israel. It is considered to be a moderate and reliable source.Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjrz nj forecast, there's no mention of Kim on Shūkan Gendai's homepage and JPost says he's sick. – bradv🍁 04:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Japanese report by Shukan Gendai everyone is talking about. It makes several rather spectacular claims about something funny going on for months with details of the nature that North Koreans simply would not let Chinese doctors leak to the public. No one in the media at large is saying they are right, but unfortunately Jerusalem Post and others are citing the story in order to push speculative headlines of Kim's "reported death" in Japanese media outlets. It should be ignored per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should bear in mind that Kim Il-sung's death was reported by North Korea after 34 hours, and Kim Jong-il's death was reported in two days (not sure about the hours). Some sources have said these were Confucian mourning periods. Yes, there were delays, but we have gone far past that now, if Kim died when the claim was first made. So I disagree with Hammersoft's comment that "it is unlikely we would find out any time soon...even if he was dead". From past experience we won't get details of his health problems, if he recovers. But if he dies that will certainly be announced, probably within two days. On the other hand, it is true that when Kim Kyong-hui and Hyon Song-wol were falsely reported dead, North Korea did not refute the rumours. I know that some people will say this is OR. It is not. It is simply a response to comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general with all who wrote that Wikipedia should focus on OBJECTIVE FACTS, rather than rumour-mongering. Right now if you look at the article about the health of this person, more than 50% (!) is due to recent media articles stating how he must have died, then suddenly denying that this is the case. THIS IS SPECULATION! Wikipedia MUST focus on objective criteria. Just linking to media articles, often privately held or agenda-driven, runs COUNTER to wikipedia being as objective as possible. Keep in mind that all the media outlets who claimed that he has died, IF this turns out to be WRONG, are factually called fake-news generators. Wikipedia must do a harder job preventing this. Why else is the current health-segment about this person more than 50% with new additions ALL BASED ON SPECULATION? This can not even be explained "randomly", in my opinion. Otherwise I disagree with statements such as "From past experience we won't get details of his health problems," because we NEITHER get this based on outside media not having ANY first-class information. And South Korea is, sorry to say, often massively biased too - understandably perhaps, but not a good objective criterium for FACTS. Wikipedia MUST defend its reputation! Otherwise it will sink down to the low level of current mass media. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

Right now there is WAY too much alleged fake news concerning this article. While corporate media can do so, I think wikipedia needs to hold itself to higher standards. Literally about 95% of what is written about the current health is TOTALLY SPECULIATIVE. This is just like the movie "Wag the dog". I'd recommend to shorten the paragraph, rather than continue to speculate AS THE OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS DO RIGHT NOW. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:7AE8:E1F7:6958:7F1C (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph we have is fully appropriate to what has happened. That he wasn't seen on a big day of celebration is a fact, and everything else is a few statements about where he may be, if not dead. Once we have affirmation of either way, we can refine to explain better, but we certainly arent' going chase the rush that we have in the news right now that's completely unclear. --Masem (t) 04:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, first time here in the talk section. A lot of news in the past 12 hours re-guarding Kim's train movements. The source seems to be 38 north news agency citing satellite imagery of Wonson. The train was not there on the 15th of April 2020 but was shown in images on the 21st and 23rd. On the 23rd it was cited that the train appeared to be in preparation to leave. It is of note that unlike his farther, Kim Jong Un uses the train less and usually fly's his own plane to Wonson when able. This information is none speculative and I believe pertinent to this ongoing biography, should I request it as an edit?

Train movements in North Korea are trivial. Conclusions based on this are speculative. I don't think this would ever belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Kim Jong-un was born in 1984 NinJack1121 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the page it says he may have been born on 1983 or 1984 and he was born in 1984 NinJack1121 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your source for this certain knowledge is what? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any formal confirmation of his actual date of birth. OnlyIPForMe --2600:8802:2200:2320:20A5:BCF2:1A60:982B (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Reliable source required. El_C 05:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Adding reports of alleged deathWKeyMaster (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC) WKeyMaster (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please, see discussions above. --MarioGom (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

As I added to the emmental cheese page:

"Kim Jong-un of is said to enjoy emmental cheese.[1][better source needed]" Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a coatrack for a link to rumors in a non-reliable source for the topic. --MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Khushbu Shah (30 September 2014). "North Korea's Kim Jong-un May Be Suffering From Cheese-Induced Gout". Eater. Colbert notes that the North Korean leader's favorite cheese is Emmental
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The first footnote explaining that 'Kim is the family name' should be removed and {{Korean name|Kim}} added to the top of the article instead.  Nixinova   T   C   08:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this edit request. This is the standard we follow for Korean names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just came on here to request the same thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information

The lead and infobox says he was born in "1983 or 1984" but §Early life says "1982 or a year later or 1984". Which is it?  Nixinova   T   C   08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contradictory info is a product of the uncertainty, which the sourced content addresses. El_C 09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone added that same "1982" source into the info box over the last 24 hours, which I reverted, but then I hadn't noticed it was already under Early Life. We can review it once the full protection has been dropped. Tytrox (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the info is contradictory, I'm specifically saying that the article itself is. The lead and infobox do not mention 1982 at all, but Early life does. That needs to be fixed.  Nixinova   T   C   00:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should give the official date and just have a note that this is disputed by some. This isn't very important.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources says his is dead

Here is the link

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1273869/kim-jong-un-dead-north-korea-kim-jong-un-health-latest-kim-jong-un-dead-reports/amp#aoh=15878917688779&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Isn't Wikipedia rely on multiple media sources, why don't Wikipedia update he is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5607:1853:A548:3F1C:D3FB:525A (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source. And anyway, we are likely to wait for the official announcement. El_C 09:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSP#Daily_Express. And anyway, it's just a reprint of the same unconfirmed rumour. --MarioGom (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Associated Press is reporting Kim Jong-Un is reportedly alive based on the satellite tracking of Kim Jong-Un's train though as of 26 April 2020. 2601:640:C600:3C20:34D8:C6C9:97F7:488 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


https://apnews.com/374ed249ba31391dbcda21531d8b6470 Another Link suggests that Kim died of a heart attack on 25 April, 2020. Thats not that reliable, because it is a page by some random person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggy72 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Years of Service (Military) 2010-2020 Died 25/04/2020 North Korea Philipp Dase (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First line of entry

The article leads with "Kim is a North Korean politician." He's not a politician. He didn't win an election. He's a hereditary dictator. When he dies, newspapers will correctly call him that in the lead to his obituary.

I note that Wikipedia calls Pinochet and Stroessner dictator in the lead, but not Fidel Castro. A political bias?

Sajita (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-Un is a head of state, therefore he is a politician. He also won an election: "On April 14, 2012, during the fifth session of the 12th Supreme People's Assembly Kim Jong Un was elected as the country's supreme leader." [1] Daxar (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth is a head of multiple states; does that make her a politician?--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:8D92:BA3A:7779:C450 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "head of state" being a politician or no depends on the constitution of the country. The UK is a constitutional monarch which disallows the royal family from holding any political power/office, urgo Queen Elizabeth is not a politician. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea does not run on your typical western democracy type government/electoral system in the way that you suggest. You should read more into how politics works in one-party states. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tytrox: You're wrong on that part. There's a difference between a dictatorship, where power is concentrated in one person, and a one-party state, where power is concentrated in one party. There are many one party states that are not dictatorships, such as the historical Soviet Union after Stalin, (disputably) Singapore, or the post-Mao People's Republic of China. Some dictatorships aren't based on party rule either, such as some military juntas or Ancient Rome. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't claim he rules a western democracy, it claims he's a politician (specifically, the supreme leader) in a dictatorship -- and yes, it does refer to North Korea as a dictatorship. This is an accurate portrayal of his position. - Tga (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are not necessarily elected representatives, and even elected politicians are not necessarily elected by universal suffrage. --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajita: The lede (although not the first sentence) refers to him as "ruling a dictatorship" and goes on to list numerous human rights atrocities. In all honesty though you're right about the inconsistency here. The lede sentence is what gets grabbed by Google and other places for their knowledgebox. It's also what most people read. I would support changes to other articles to remove "dictator" from the lede sentence and shift that characterization elsewhere in the lede to maintain the emphasis on purely descriptive & factual information rather than value-laden terms like "dictator". Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_People%27s_Assembly#History

Contradictory Age

In the past (on other articles) contradictory birth dates generally led to the birthday of the subject to be removed until there is a credible consensus. Why is this article promoting the contradiction? *Note: I'm not opposed to it, just curious* -- Sleyece (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the contextual nature of how strenuous it can be to get info about certain topics in and about North Korea, it's not something that can easily be backed, but as long as there's consensus that the given source material is deemed credible, as well as best information provided. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'll just need to ensure the info box and "Early Life" sections are consistent with each other. -- Tytrox (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unique among Wikipedia pages. The consensus on the rest of the encyclopedia is that when birth data is contradictory, it is removed until credible sources come to a consensus on the date.... That's why people bringing it up and discussing it (for the record). -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that it is likely to be resolved without some dramatic development. There is an official date, and no one has produced any North Korea records to show this to be false. I think the best approach would be to give the official date, and just note that some disagree with this. Is there another article with a comparable situation to this?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements

I decided to browse this article and I'm shocked to see there are several unsourced statements on it. The article of a high coverage dictator shouldn't have uncited statements, and while I'd always amend it myself, the page is on full protection for obvious reasons. Could an admin take an in depth look over the page and either add references to the unsourced statements or remove them? – DarkGlow (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything that looks unsourced on a quick visual parse. Keep in mind the lede does NOT need to be cited as long as that's in the body, and we don't require a cite after every sentence (but every paragraph should end in a citation); if a sentence lacks a cite, presume the next immediate citation(s) applies to that sentence too. You will need to be more explicit thus for any other concerns. --Masem (t) 03:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: In the personal life section, it states: "He said Jong-un was a big fan of The Beatles and Jean-Claude Van Damme.[citation needed" – so there's one right there. And despite the personal life section being mostly sourced, a lot of it reads as a WP:TRIVIA section. Is it encyclopaedic to list what music he likes and what teams he supports? – DarkGlow (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current rumours (again)

From a look around the most reliable sources, and those presently cited in the article, I'd say that "Rumors of Kim's death circulated in late April 2020" is not an appropriate way of fronting the paragraph on the current situation. Suggest something along the lines of "In April 2020, another period of absence from public appearances led to speculation around Kim's health". U-Mos (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, fair enough. --Masem (t) 02:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic... there seem to be some words missing (around the "though had" portion) from the sentence "Kim had been absent on the Day of the Sun, 15 April, celebrating the country's founding father, Kim Il Sung, though had been last seen four days prior at a government meeting." -sche (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so simple. Not just not seen, there are intel reports. Chinese troops moving. Chinese medical delegation. Speculation he incapacitated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page fully protected?

Just because KJU has not been seen in public since April 11 does not mean that we have to fully protect the page. Can't we institute something less severe such as allowing autoconfirmed or extended autoconfirmed accounts to edit? We have already implemented pending changes to the article. It therefore seems excessive to me to fully protect the page. Banana Republic (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the edit history of persistent recentism/vandalism and you'll appreciate why full protection is required.Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not see in the history a high level of vandalism / edit warring that would warrant full protection. Banana Republic (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, which I and many others do not agree with. What do you want to add to the page that's so urgent? Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Banana Republic: You need to observe the history of over the last couple of days. The vandalism is based on the frequent posting of sources that make mention of the rumours of his death, but none have been substantiated. This can breach WP:TOOSOON, WP:RUMOR, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the like. In this Talk page alone, there have been several times where people have requested to post his rumoured-death info, behind IP accounts, despite the suggestions being declined each time. Those sections have since been removed. It's not vandalism/edit-war of just 1 or 2 accounts, it's the flooding of the same unconfirmed material. -- Tytrox (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have other tools to handle such problems. We can put edit notices warning editors not to enter Kim Jong-un's death until it has been confirmed by North Korea. Here is a link to the notices when editors press the button to edit the Donald Trump article. There is no need to fully protect the article. Banana Republic (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Banana Republic: You should maybe ask @Ymblanter: why he activated the Full Protection. It might be a fact that clearly edit notices weren't enough in this case. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added full protection because on Apr 25 there was massive addition of unverified info and edit-warring which included edits by confirmed users (example). Whoever needs to edit the article before the protection would expire tomorrow is welcome to add a protected edit request to this talk page. There was of course no vandalism prior to the protection because the article was semi-protected, and normally one does not expect autoconfirmed users to vandalize articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Confirmed users should have access to the article and warnings can be put in place if needed. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that US intelligence is saying that it does not think that Kim Jong-un is dead, it's time to open up the article for editing to confirmed / autoconfirmed editors. Banana Republic (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia should be open to all editors or at the very least those who have an account, could someone please ease the restrictions? I think it’s clear that confirmed users can govern each other and don’t need to be blocked from access Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golly! What's the rush yall? 03:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.88.85 (talk)

Is he the second or the third son of Kim Jong-il?

In this page it is stated that "he is the second child of Kim Jong-il" but in Kim Jong-il it says "his third son, Kim Jong-un, was promoted to a senior position". I think Kim Jong-un is the second son from one woman, Ko Yong-hui, and there's one more son from another woman, Song Hye-rim. That makes Kim John-un the third son of Kim Jong-il. It's a second son for the couple. --Bonbonenata (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see what you mean. It could mean to read as mean the 2nd son to Jong-Il by Ko Yong-Hui and printed without noting that relationship. Submit an edit suggestion for it. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a formal edit request would be necessary here; it's pretty clear what should be changed. What's needed now is for an admin to be bold and make the change. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article is currently under full protection, no one but admins can perform the edit, hence my suggestion for @Bonbonenata: to make an edit suggestion request. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the protection is set to expire (presumably back to semi?) on the 28th, at which point someone can presumably address both this imprecision and the missing word in "though had" that I raised in a section above. -sche (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 April 2020

I propose to change the following segment-

Kim is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia in February 2017. On 12 June 2018, Kim and US President Donald Trump met for a summit in Singapore,

into-

Kim is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia in February 2017. However, according to the point of view of Kim Jong-un himself, he is an idealist who fights to defend socialism, a system which he considers to be noble and advanced. On 12 June 2018, Kim and US President Donald Trump met for a summit in Singapore, Lenmoly (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. - as there is objection above, assume this is now at phase 3 of WP:BRD and establish a consensus for the change first. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Change "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea" to "the chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea". Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page restriction be less strict?

I feel that this restriction, or at least part of it, should be lifted. In the talk page, I feel that editors have reached the consensus that it should not be listed that Kim is dead. Wikipedia is good at governing itself and I feel that opening up this page again would feel less restrictive to confirmed users. It does not seem like anything is changing anytime soon. What do other non-administrators think of this proposal? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you were until a few days ago actively pushing the Kim is dead narrative, I question why you now want page restriction reduced.Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same questions than above, Wikipedia isn't news and we should wait before reporting him dead. What edit is so urgent that you need protection lifted ? Daxar (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to say dead. But maybe also wrong to say alive. Why not just say unknown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 April 2020

"The Guardian reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April to North Korea to monitor Kim's condition." should be Reuters[3]. The source cited in the article is a newswire from Reuters only republished by The Guardian. 17jiangz1 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Masem (t) 03:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 April 2020

"Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018 and the highest amongst Koreans." to "Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018, the highest amongst Koreans." since there is no distinct ranking for Koreans warranting the "and". 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Un&oldid=953664946"