Talk:Kim Jong Il

I wrote this great article about the greatest man alive, didn't I?

Don' forget: His birth assumed the appearance of a lodestar over Mt. Paektu

The propagandistic version was better than nothing. It gives the reader a sense of how the cult’s promulgated. -User 172

What is Juche? -- Zoe

172, thanks for incorporating my material into the article a little better.

I still think that the article paints an overly favourable view of a despot who starves his own people whilst living in luxury and wastes money on monuments, mass displays and a huge military, and runs a stupid foriegn policy that ensures that the West will always remain implacably hostile - in comparison to Deng Xiaoping who did genuinely improve the lives of most of his people.

A laundry list of points that I'm wondering about in the context of this article:

Madeleine Albright might have said that Kim was "decisive and serious". In what context did she say that, and what else did she say about him and the regime he heads? Have you considered that politicians say nice things about despots to try to cajole them into doing things they might otherwise do?
Is your portrayal of Asian opinion of Kim realistic? They might have realized that he's not as insane as he was made out to be, but I can't see too many volunteering to have him run their own countries.
Amongst other things, the North Koreans kidnapped dozens of Japanese citizens, and IIRC there was a dispute about the role of Kim Jong-Il. Isn't that worth addressing in the article?
As I've said, isn't it arguable that rather than saying it's all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure, might it not be arguable to lay much of the blame at Kim's feet?
What does, say, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, have to say about the methods by which Kim Jong-Il keeps himself in power?
The anecdote about the film director is true [1] and says a considerable amount about the man if you ask me. Don't you think it's relevant? It is interesting that it appears that they have some nice things to say about him, too.

Oh, and this is probably offtopic, you seem to spend a lot of time defending people like Mugabe and now Kim. Why? Do you really think the West gives them a bum rap or something? --Robert Merkel 10:44, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll somewhat busy now; so I'm going to wait about another 12 hours to respond. BTW, I'll try to ignore it, but you know that such a snide rhetorical question toward the end isn't going to illicit a positive response from anyone. But I actually will respond even to the last question in time. For now, I will just say that I've never had much respect for the personalization of history. 172 00:04, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to respond, don't. It is offtopic for the purposes of getting the article right. My interest is purely personal. --Robert Merkel 00:39, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you'd like to respond to my questions I raised some time ago, I would appreciate it. --Robert Merkel 06:50, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Those questions are rhetorical. I don't give a damn about making personal judgments. In addition, the article does not state that it is "all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure." Stop with the straw man bullshit. I'm not interested in debating some Sean Hannity type. 172 08:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As you can see from his snide response here, 172 is quick to be rude to people who don't just agree with everything he says. And the bias! Say something that might possibly reflect poorly on an anti-Western dictator, and he's all over it to revert, but he has no problem mentioning Nancy's astrologer and repeating every unsupported anti-Reagan insinuation as if it were an important part of History of the United States (1980-present). It makes me weep to think of how much authoritative-sounding but biased material 172 has been getting into WP because people get tired of dealing with him. Stan 09:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan:

I don't take these snide, mindless rhetorical flourishes seriously, that's all. And this last smart-ass remark of yours is just another canard. Keep in mind that we simply don't know enough about Kim Jong Il's activities to cover him in the same way that we treat a US president.

As someone who has spent endless hours up to my knees in documents from administration archives, I am fairly well-acquainted with the availability of day-by-day accounts of White House activities. On the other hand, our understanding of what the hell is going on in Pyongyang's imperial palaces is a bit less clear (to make an understatement). We have a better idea of what's going on in Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch than the intrigues going on in this tin-pot totalitarian theocracy, alright? 172 10:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As an aside, Stan, I'll admit that I view international relations from a neo-realist perspective. Instead of a crude way of analyzing the behavior of "rogue states," it's possible to work under the assumption that Kim's preoccupied with the survival of his regime (because we know so little about the internal decision-making process there). That way, one can avoid mouthing platitudes and working on the basis of personal judgments of Kim Jong Il's character. 172 11:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we're so short on information, then why do you persist in deleting negative material, characterizing it as "irrelevant", while keeping all manner of adulatory trivia? Then when Merkel asks you honest questions about your deletions, you dismiss them as "rhetorical". What a convenient way to avoid discussing your unilateral deletions! Also, to "work under an assumption" is to substitute your judgment for that of authorities - as an pseudonymous editor you can't be your own authority. You may fool others, but I'm onto you. Stan 16:57, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. What do you want added to the article? What do you want removed? Be substantive and direct and you will get a thoughtful response from me. 172 00:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Robert Merkel asked substantive and direct questions about six points. Why don't you start by addressing those? In addition, I'd like to see the three quotes praising him balanced by three quotes that are more objective - how about ones by uninvolved leaders in each of Europe, Africa, and South America? Stan 07:02, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do that, although they were more rhetorical than "substantive and direct." I'm hoping that this might get you to leave me alone. First, the context of the Madeleine Albright statement is stated in the article. Second, Robert sees some sort of non-existent "portrayal of Asian opinion of Kim" in the article. Anyway, I'll try to make sense out of this nonsense. The article did note ostensibly deferential gestures on the part of Kim during his meeting with the elderly South Korean president. How this suggests that Asians wish Kim Jong Il were their leader is beyond me. Third, if Robert can deal with the issue of the kidnappings of Japanese citizens while refraining from emotive language (and while keeping it short, concise, and relevant), then he should go for it. Forth, the article does not state that "it's all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure." How he conjured up this one is beyond me. Fifth, keep in mind that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are advocacy groups. Nor is this an article on North Korean politics. Sixth, some Washington Post article may tell Robert a "considerable amount about the man." My suggestion is that he write an op-ed piece and try to get it published. This is for philosophers to pronounce on, and not historians, because it rests on general interpretations of causation and human motivation. Values judgments are pointless in this context (and a violation of NPOV). And finally, to address your request, I'd like to remind you that counting quotations doesn't tell us anything about POV. You can address the matter of the quotations you’d like to add in context when you dig them up. 172 07:39, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know, instead of talking down to people, you'd get better results if you gave them the benefit of the doubt. Context makes it clear that Robert's questions were not rhetorical, and you're being insulting by characterizing them that way - and a little further on as "nonsense".

On the fourth question, Robert is clearly not asking about this article's characterization specifically, and I'll note that North Korea has a whole section on the economic isolation. It's fair to expect that all the WP articles be consistent with each other.
If this is not an article on North Korean politics, then why is this here? "Since then, some critics of the Bush administration claim that the administration's North Korea policy has forced the regime to focus more on defense than economic reforms. / With a hostile international evironment, and given the structural imbalances stemming from decades of allocating resources to the defense sector, North Korea under Kim Jong Il has shown no signs of shrinking its huge military. In addition, North Korea continues to work on missile production, and claims to have constructed nuclear weapons, despite its dire economic position. "

Come on, stop playing these games. You know what I meant. This is not an article on North Korean politics per se, but of course it's going to be addressed in an article on a "dear leader." At a certain point, the article addresses Kim's ongoing work on missile production and the international and domestic ramifications of these actions. Why doesn't this belong in the article?

I don't understand your op-ed piece remark. What on earth are you talking about?

Robert said that he figured out "considerable amount about the man" from some Washington Post article. But we have no business trying to figure out "considerable amount" about Kim's personal character. As I said, this is for commentators to pronounce on (perhaps in a ploemical op ed piece).

On quotation POV, I'm sure you're aware that the context of the three quotes was the big diplomatic effort to butter up Jong-il in the hopes of getting some kind of cooperation. Presenting diplomatic doublespeak as if it were authoritative assessment is a new and creative way to sneak in POV, haven't seen it in WP before. But now that the bar has been lowered, it should be perfectly fine to add a bunch of quotes by world leaders who say he's a nutcase. Are you going to leave them alone, or delete them as per your usual practice? Stan 08:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Albright met with him. A visit to North Korea by a sitting US Secretary of State was quite a noteworthy event. That's why she's being quoted. If you do a yahoo or a google search you can find a lot of interviews with Madeline Albright in which she discusses the visit. If you want to find out if the statement quoted in the article is consistent with most of her public statements or official pronouncements, go do some research.

Now, let me give you some advice for the next time you try to bother me. You've been rendering it impossible for me to give you a constructive response. You haven't been addressing me at all this whole time, but rather some straw man. It's really annoying and I don't know how to begin addressing charges that are utterly baseless and nonsensical. And you know what I mean. If you quit addressing me as some Stalinist and crude economic determinist using Wiki as a forum for pro-Kim Jong Il agitation and propaganda, perhaps I'd respond in a more helpful manner. 172 09:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)