Talk:Kim dynasty (North Korea)

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

Requested move 25 December 2013[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus is for "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" or an otherwise close variant whereof. There is consensus against the current "Kim family" and the proposed "Kim Communist Dynasty". (non-admin closure) czar  01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kim familyKim Communist Dynasty – "Kim" is the most common name in Korea, there are many other prominent Kim families/tribes/clans. This should indicate it is about the Communist dynasty. -- (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose, North Korea is not a communist state, in 2009, all references to communism were removed from their consitution, I think Kim Dynasty (North Korea) or just Kim Dynasty would be more appropriate. Charles Essie (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really matter if the NK constitution calls itself a Communist state or not, since the ruling party is the Communist party, and the Kim family is the dynasty at the head of the party and the state. Kim Dynasty (North Korea) is acceptable to me. -- (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and also oppose the current name. Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and there are lots of other notable people with the same surname, so the title could cause mixups with other families. Also, chuch'e seems to be more prominent than communism in present-day DPRK. The final title should match similar requested move such as Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree#Requested move. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename to something, such as "Kim Dynasty (North Korea)". "Kim family" will not do. Oculi (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title as vague. Evidently, the proposed title is at least technically inaccurate so how about the suggested Kim dynasty (North Korea) but with a lowercase d since it is not a proper title of the family? —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

up until 2013, Kim family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was not about the North Korean ruling family. According to Kim (Korean surname), this is the most common surname in Korea, so there are many families that someone might create a tree for, so just "Kim family" is insufficiently precise or disambiguous. Many Kims are notable. -- (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment see Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree and Template talk:Family of Kim Jong-il for related move requests -- (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Category:Kim Il-sung family was recently moved to Category:Kim family, which I find a bit confusing. This category title is hardly descriptive, as Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and the family of Kim Il-sung is hardly the most notable. What about 16th century Korean nobles? What about wealthy business tycoons named Kim? Calling the whole thing "Kim family" is a bit counter-productive in my opinion. "Kim Il-sung family" uses the name of Kim Il-sung (the first president within the successing line of three) as a descriptor to firmly show which Kim family it is about. --benlisquareTCE 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment feel free to enter a suggestion for the name of this article, since I am assuming someone did a speedy rename based on the name of this article. (though they should not have, considering this requested move is open) -- (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I fully agree that "Kim family" should not be used to designate the Kim Il-sung family. The category name should either include a reference to North Korea/DPRK or it should be "Kim Il-sung family" since it's his dynasty we're talking about. Coinmanj (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it should be "Kim dynasty (North Korea)", because it has outlasted Kim Il-sung by 20 years, and he's already had two sucessors. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I know its very easy to cll this a "dynasty" but seeing as it isn't exactly a feudal or constitutional monarchy, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as a "Family Dictatorship", like the Julian-Cluadian dictatorship in Rome?2600:1002:B025:5FDF:8953:F600:8EBC:BE9B (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Title of Kim Jong-un[edit]

This is a bit ambiguous and unclear. It seems correct that Kim Jong-un doesn't have a title including the word "leader" (or at least I haven't seen any such title in use anywhere), but the wording could suggest that he doesn't have any title at all. He certainly has titles – every North Korean leader has lots of titles. For example, the article List of Kim Jong-il's titles lists lots of different titles held by his father. A particularly popular title for the moment seems to be "Beloved Comrade Kim Jong-un" (경애하는 김정은동지), as seen for example here (official state propaganda: Rodong Sinmun), although "Comrade" (동지) sometimes is replaced by "Marshall" (원수). Also, Kim Jong-il is sometimes "Great Leader" (Great Leader Comrade/General Kim Jong-il, 위대한 령도자 김정일동지/장군).

There is some information about this at Great Leader (concept). The current wording is confusing, but it would be too long to explain everything in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I used that phrasing to go with how the RS put it, but I also just went with the basics. Wouldn't hurt to mention that they have lots of titles if you can find a ref for it. As for the Jong-un part, I meant that he didn't have a "X Leader" title (per what the source said). I changed it to "did not have a similar title", but feel free to rephrase as you see fit. czar  03:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar (talkcontribs) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The current article title is unacceptable for several reasons, most of which were mentioned here; clearly, no one in this discussion likes this title and all agree that it should be moved somewhere. According to the consensus here, however, the proposed title fixes very few of the problems with this name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kim dynasty (North Korea)Kim dynasty – This is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the current title doesn't even sufficiently disambiguate from the Gyeongju Kim clan mentioned on the dab Kim Dynasty, as Silla also includes some of modern North Korea. No move of the dab is necessary; it can redirect here as {{R from other capitalisation}}. A hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will be sufficient. BDD (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The North Korean dynasty is the primary topic by every conceivable measure. czar  23:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment re RM1 close - User:Czar, sorry but I wish I'd followed this non-admin close and move from to Kim family to an even worse title that wasn't on the RM1 proposal above. I really don't particularly like the title "the Kim dynasty" as jokey and POVy, despite its admitted the use by some WP:RECENT news media "the Kim dynasty", something like Kim succession in North Korean would be better, and the above RM might better have been relisted with the template changed to show the new proposed title.
As to this move RM2 Oppose - the RM1 is bad enough already, RM2 is making it even worse. In encyclopedic usage the "the Kim dynasty" + Silla (or Shilla) refers to "Silla.. the cradle of the Kim dynasty" "the Kim dynasty was soon established in the mid-fourth century" "the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, backed by Tang China" "The Korean peninsula was first unified in 668 ad by the Kim Dynasty of the Shilla Kingdom" "the Kim dynasty of the Silla Kingdom began with King Naemul (356-402)" "Kim Alchi, the founder of the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, was born in this forest in 67 A.D. "..... and so on. It will not harm modern readers with little knowledge of the peninsula to know that Korea was first united by a real Kim dynasty in serious academic sources, not just 3 communist leaders who are now being called a dynasty by their critics. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Also if this (awful) proposal goes ahead a hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will not be sufficient - that half paragraph is a tiny snippet of the ko.wp article and that barely gives any information. By "Kim Dynasty" what is meant is later Shilla, and the hatnote would be to the Kim kings in Silla#Later_Silla. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the other dynasty is Kim dynasty (Silla) not "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" since "North Korea" is capitalized with a capital North, not a small Kim dynasty (northern Korea). -- (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I see no persuasive suggestion of a better name, and this name seems appropriate to me. I do think that some people may imagine a royal dynasty, which is is not, but the political situation in North Korea is called a dynasty in significant sources. In ictu oculi is correct that misunderstanding will happen but I still feel this is the best option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kim dynasty is not sufficiently recognizable. There are many dynasties. There are many Kims We all know the Nth Korean Kim dynasty, but only in the context of Nth Korea is it significant. Maybe South Korea and Japan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • I reverted Red Slash's closure in dispute of the summary and not the actual closure. The editor reverted my revert and asked that I give a longer comment than was in my edit summary. The current title is "unacceptable"? I don't see how there is consensus for that conclusion in either this discussion or the one from a month ago. "Clearly nobody likes this title"? A single editor's claims were "persuasive" even though no one else responded to them? I think it's fairly straightforward that these are (unsupported) opinions by no means summative of the discussion. I don't have an issue with the closure, just the summary given, and I think a single revert should have been enough to ask the closer to revisit their language. czar  06:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Who likes the current title? I didn't see anybody saying "yes, this current title is the right one." Nobody responded to Iio's well-written, clear and logical arguments, which makes them more important, not less. I don't mean to be rude at all and I apologize if I have come off as rude. Red Slash 04:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Who likes the current title? #Requested move 25 December 2013. Regardless, the job of a closer is to judge consensus and not to editorialize. Unless there is consensus that the name "isn't liked", it has no business being in the closing summary. Would you either strike those lines or revert your close for someone else to do so? czar  06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


(diff) First, per BRD, when your proposed change is contested, the proper response is to bring it to the talk page for discussion rather than reverting the revert. But the source cited is not secondary to the situation. That a diplomat discussed something with Cumings, as written about by Cumings, is a primary source. Another expert citing the diplomat's conversation with Cumings as prescient might warrant inclusion. The sentence also doesn't fit as is without explaining why this opinion was particularly noteworthy, expected, unexpected, etc. czar 06:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

New source[edit]

Washington Post article on Kim Jong Un's aunty.

Cantab1985 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)