The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Kim Jong-il is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Capitalization of "supreme leader". Building consensus.
So far, we have not systematically tried to build consensus on whether or not to capitalize "supreme leader", the official title of Kim Jong-il, as well as Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-un (the only discussion on the topic was inconclusive). Consequentially, the capitalization is changed and then reverted frequently. I would like to present some arguments against capitalization.
"When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e. when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon"
"When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II"
"When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)"
My interpretation is that none of these cases apply here:
"supreme leader", e.g. in an infobox, is not followed by the person's name. The current revisions of any of these articles don't include a case where the title is followed by the person's name.
I have not found a case if substitution in any of the articles either (which could be along the lines of: 'The Supreme Leader reportedly enjoyed basketball'). I find it hard to believe such usage would be preferable to the more neutral "Kim Jong-il" or simply "Kim". MOS:SURNAME calls for generally using the surname and not titles.
Consider this along with MOS:BIO#Occupation titles which says: "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns (The British Prime Minister is David Cameron; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France) [...] exceptions may apply for particular offices." Note that in the the official translation of the DPRK constitution or on KCNA, "supreme leader" is never capitalized. This leads me to conclude that the capitalized "Supreme Leader" is not the "correct formal title" MoS talks about. It may or may not be the "standard or commonly used name" for the office - but just as well it might be the "exception [that] may apply for particular offices".
My conclusion is that two of the three usages that call for capitalization do not apply to "supreme leader" the way it's been employed, but that the third one hangs on whose usage is considered "correct", "standard", or "common" and the tension between those uses. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it should be capitalised.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the Manual of Style makes it clear enough that the title should not be capitalized in the infobox, nor should there be any need to do so in the article text. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)