Talk:Kim Jong Il

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

---

Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 1
Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 2
Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 3
Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 4

Children:

The use of the word 'illegitimate children' in the Western legal sense in the Far Eastern context is incorrect. To a Far Eastern person, a child is 'illegitimate' only if the true father did not recognise it as his own, not whether the parents were legally married or not. Thus, all of Kim's children are 'legitimate'. The term 'illegitimate children' in the Western legal sense must surely be seen as outdated and should be changed given that even 'gay' marriages in some jurisdictions are now permitted; after all the 'children' themselves did not know whether they were 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' when they arrived on this earth. The number of couples in the West who chose to not to have a formal marriage and to have children must render the term 'illegitimate children' discriminatory and disenfranchising against a group of people who are exactly the same as any group in the human population.

How about altering it to "13 children out of wedlock" then, if we can safely assume that's what's being referred to? Rōnin 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference article doesn't seem to pin the number at exactly 13 or say that all his children are "illegitimate", though. Rōnin 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest we ignore the vote and move on, as it has degenerated into a farce. I have tried another approach to the opening. What do people think? SqueakBox 17:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Bletch 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this won't do. Kim does not hold the highest government positions in the DPRK. The DPRK has both a head of state and a prime minister, neither of whom is Kim. And his position as General Secretary of the KWP is not a government position, it's a party position. The fact is that Kim is a dictator. He does not rule the DPRK not by virtue of any official position. He holds power with the support of the army and the police, like any other dictator. Since we are not allowed to call people "dictators" at Wikipedia, there is no way of describing his position which is both entirely accurate and "NPOV." The nearest we can get is "ruler," since it is an undisputed fact that he rules the DPRK. Adam 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this a few hours ago. Is leader/ruler still an issue? I am frankly unfamiliar with why 'ruler' would be considered POV; to me 'leader' has propagandistic overtone (he doesn't 'rule' anyone, he 'leads', and his people follow voluntarily); but 'leader' is clearly the normal usage in English. The current version sidesteps the issue altogether, and reads okay, except that it takes a while to figure out where he is in the hierarchy. Adam's objection to his not being a govt position could be sidestepped as well (except how do you object that a party position is not a govt position, if the party is the government?) kwami 03:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It also says in the later parts of the article that the position of President was never filled in respect to Kim Jong-il's father, so maybe the positions he holds now are the the top ones. Plus, while I do not know the DPRK structure, Kim-Jong-il is the head of state that meets delegations from Russia and other nations. Zach (Sound Off) 03:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I see Appleby had already linked to [1]and [2] for the wording "highest post". That seems to-the-point and NPOV to me. 71.139.185.141 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the above: the DPRK, like all communist party-ruled states on the Soviet model, maintains a formal distinction between state and party, regardless of the realities of the situation. The DPRK's formal head of state is the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, Kim Yong-nam. It is he who receives ambassadors' credentials etc. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister) is Pak Pong-ju. Therefore Kim Jong-il is neither head of state nor head of government. So no description of his formal positions will be an accurate description of his position, which is that of a dictator. (I point out, by the way, that Deng Xiaoping for part of his career held no state or party position at all, but was still the undisputed ruler of China.) Adam 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So, from what I see, this debate is about whether the word "leader" or the word "ruler" should be used on this article, right? It sounds like a pretty simple choice, but it became a large discussion. I say that, to avoid other connotations, the use of "leader" is favored. If we are to choose a more neutral word, that is the one. Even if most people agree on the fact that the person in question is a big totalitarian politician (for example), it's a bad idea to use the word "ruler" because it shows the opinion of the author, and this is something that should be avoided in Wikipedia. It's a known fact that one can't write a text completely free of any opinion, but you can try your best. I say, keep it with "leader" and no parties will be injured..--Kaonashi 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, the only undisputed fact about Kim is that he rules the DPRK. That he leads it is a matter of opinion, and it is an opinion I and many others do not share. Adam 05:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If that was an "undisputed fact", this discussion would have never started.--Kaonashi 05:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Is fact of his rule disputed, or is it only that some people do not like the connotations of the word 'ruler'? kwami 06:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The latter, obviously. Adam 08:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How about "effective ruler". CIA wolrd fact book call him the ruler and refer tothe govenment as "Communist state one-man dictatorship". Rich Farmbrough 10:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is "power behind the throne". This phrase seems to me to best describe his position, after reading this discussion page. Wesley 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be okay if there were someone else--some figurehead ruler--nominally on the throne. But who had heard of anyone but the Kims ruling NK?

—wwoods 17:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that Britannica/Encarta/Columbia/Random House/BBC News all use "leader" I can't personally see why not go with the majority of authoriative sources. -- user:zanimum

Because it's an insult to the people of the DPRK, who are starving while their "leader" lives in luxury and wastes their money on parades and bombs, and because it's our job to tell the truth and not hide behind disgusting euphemisms. Adam 12:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's insult only as far as looking at the social implications of actually calling him a "proper" leader of the peoples of North Korea. That's not the issue here. He has been recognized as the official leader by numerous sources, government and what have you, he's the leader of N. Korea as far as the world is concerned. Shadowrun 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While North Korea does have food production problems and is accepting aid, the CIA World Factbook 2005 estimates place North Korea as a mid-ranking country for infant mortality rate (similar to China, Ecuador) and life expectancy at birth (71.4, similar to Dominican Republic, Romania). Sadly North Korea is nowhere near unique in having an elite living in luxury, while much of the populace is poor. Aren't you overstating the position somewhat? -- Rwendland 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(1) I like the opening as it is right now. It's fine. (2) I think that 'ruler' does imply that he is a dictator, rather than a popularly elected president or prime minister. Pres Bush does not 'rule' the US in the way Kim rules North Korea or the way Henry VIII ruled England. I also agree that 'leader', while a much more generic term on its surface, and arguably less implicative of Kim's dictatorial and thus not-good status, implies that he leads. Kim Jong Il is not a popular leader in the way that the President or Prime Minister of a Western democracy is; nor is he a popular leader in the way someone like Hitler or Emperor Hirohito were - people liked Hitler because he was charismatic, and people liked Hirohito because of their cultural connection to the Emperorship. People like Kim Jong Il because he makes them like him - because he is a dictator and a tyrant. In the end, I really don't care whether we use 'leader' or 'ruler'; both sound fine to me in the context of the article and I cannot honestly think of anything better offhand right now. But I think the denotations of these words, rather than just their connotations, should be noted. (Thanks to Applewiki, who notified me of this.. discussion.) LordAmeth 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not questioning what Kim is generally referred to as. Adam is right. It's not about hurt feelings, it is about what the words used mean. He is a "ruler" i.e. he rules, that is it and anyone can tell you. He is not NECESSARILY a "leader" because a lead must lead and that is opion, especially knowing there is civil unrest. It really is just as open and shut as that. --JPC

"leading" is not a qualitative. if North Koreans accept him as leader then he is their leader. the only qualitative aspect of this discussion is the connotations that Adam is putting on the Kim's "leadership." if you can cite specific instances of disputed leadership by all means put it in the article. otherwise, attempting to denigrate someone's legal legitimacy and position in a wiki article for political reasons isn't in the spirit of this project. Kim is both "ruler" by the political/military control he exerts on North Korea as well as "leader" for the position he holds in North Korean society. you and I dont have to like it, but we have to put in a good faith effort to properly represent the facts. due to the cult of personality around him, Kim is more of a leader than most Presidents and Prime Ministers. it's primarily from ignorance but it's no dispute that the North Koreans look to Kim as a moral force and arbiter for their nation. he's not just a ruler, he very much leads the day to day life, morality, and spirit of North Koreans. ie. leader -bigK

Is it just me, or has the curse of political correctness spread everywhere now? Kim is a dictator, so why, in an impartial and hopefully authoritative publication like Wikipedia is it not possible to describe him accurately? I completely endorse JPC's comments above: "It's not about hurt feelings, it is about what the words used mean." He isn't a "ruler" and he isn't a "leader" - he's a dictator. James Barrington

Lying by ommission

By choosing not to call Kim Jong-Il a dictator this is an implicit lie that does not inform the reader of the actual nature of his role in North Korea.

He heads the comittee that leads The DPRK, he is as much a "Dictator" as Queen Elizabeth of England.

To be an accurate entry it must include the fact that he is a dictator, and while this word may have a negative connotation there are far more aggressive words, such as tyrant, that would serve as POV; a dictator is not inherently evil. Simply listing his ceremonial titles as leader of North Korea does not provide an accurate representation of his political power, he has Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in North Korea, denying this is POV. For this to be fair and NPOV, wikipedia must be willing to accept that some individuals are dictators and that by calling an individual a dictator does not make it POV, it can simply be a statement of fact. As for the arguement that he is not a dictator that is supported only by the North Korean Public-Owned Newsmedia and communist organizations, both of which have an obvious bias. The world agrees that he is a dictator, because in point of fact he is. 64.0.88.82 03:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I broadly agree with what you're saying here. But given that there has been such strong opposition to the much milder word 'ruler', I just don't get the feeling that 'dictator' is gonna fly. You're right that, in theory, dictator has less of a negative connotation than 'tyrant'. But in practice, I think they more or less amount to the same thing. Just look at the definition in the dictator article. So yes, I think the article should say dictator. However, I suspect that we would need to achieve a consensus or at least a strong majority view before making this change. I'm interested in hearing what others have to say. --Alexxx1 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not various leaders are considered "dictators" is almost always a matter of dispute and it certaintly is in this case. You cannot refer to him as such or the DPRK in general in as a "dictatorship" in a wikipedia article not because it might 'hurt his feelings' which are irrelevant, but because it would violate the requirement to have a neutral point of view. Whether or not Kim Jong Il is considered a dictator is a matter of opinion, it is not a matter that can be varified by anything factual. NoJoyInMudville 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A summary up to this point, please?

User:Adam Carr just moved a great deal of discussion to Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 4, including many comments that were only hours old. I don't think this was a good idea, because it might hide the fact that this is a longstanding and involved debate. Would the participants please summarize the debate up to this point? Is 'ruler' vs. 'leader' the only thing that's contested at the moment?

On that Archive 4 page there's a long list of noteworthy publications (with links) which consistently refer to Kim Jong-il as 'leader', and I don't see any sources at all which consistently refer to him as 'ruler' - that's why I believe that Wikipedia should follow convention and use the term 'leader' when referring to him. The only arguments I see in favor of the word 'ruler' are emotional appeals based on semantics and POV shades of meaning (which are backwards, to me - when I see 'ruler' I think of a monarch, and when I see 'leader' I think of Stalin or Castro).

If you believe there is reason to debate the use of the word 'ruler' vs. 'leader', then please cover both sides of the debate in the article itself, and let the reader decide which term is more appropriate. - Brian Kendig 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not possible to conduct that debate in the opening sentence of the article, where there must be a description of who and what Kim Jong-il is. The fact of the matter is that he is the dictator of the DPRK, but I have given up the argument on the use of the word dictator at Wikipedia. The only other word which accurately describes Kim's role is "ruler." He rules - he gives orders and they are obeyed, he is accountable to no legislature, no electorate, no constitution, he simply rules, exactly as Attila the Hun or Ivan the Terrible ruled, by force and fear. Leaders do not need to rule this way, because the people willingly follow their leadership. It is not possible to be a leader without some kind of popular legitimacy, and Kim Jong-il doesn't have any. That's why he has to spend so much time and money faking legitimacy with his grotesque personality cult. Adam 13:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You are assigning shades of meaning to the words "rule" and "lead" which I disagree with - in my opinion, he "leads" because he gives orders and they are obeyed; "rulers" have more legitimacy to their rule. Please provide references (dictionary or otherwise) which justify your definition of these words; or, better yet, please show a precedent where Wikipedia or a substantive number of outside sources use the term "ruler" in relation to Kim Jong-il. What it comes down to, regarding which word to use here, is that there are opinions both ways; in this situation the deciding factor will have to be precedent set by other sources, because Wikipedia's aim is to summarize other sources, not do original research on what someone should be called. - Brian Kendig 17:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the opening (mine) is very satisfactory. For me leader is POV for implying that he is dear leader and that he has leadership qualities (something his father obviously had but he appears not to) so I would definitely like us to return to ruler. Hard to see how we could cover our debate on the subject without strayinginto original research and self-reference. While I am amazed at the anon thinking of Castro and Stalin as leaders they clearly both have displayed leadership qualities in their own different ways whereas Kim is clearly a monarch. Another modern "socialist" monarch, Bashar al-Assad, is described as the the current President of Syria, SqueakBox 15:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not an anon, that's one paragraph of my reply. To me, "leader" simply means "one who leads", and does not itself imply leadership qualities nor popular support. - Brian Kendig 17:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Authoritative sources use "leader". Google shows "leader" in general use by a margin of better than 2:1. It is our job to report as dispassionately as possible, using the language of consensus. We can add CBC News to the list of those sources which use "leader". Denni☯ 18:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

in response to pmc's question, from below: the dispute is really about the first sentence of the article, where the subject of the article is described in brief. rather than his full official title(s), it would be more informative & professional (compare other encyclopedias, newspapers) to use a common noun that tells a general reader who he is. in the body, we can simply refer to him as "Kim." Appleby 22:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I keep getting lost in the back-and-forth discussions, so I'd like to take a poll. No debate in this section, please; just put your name under the appropriate heading, along with a brief justification of why you hold this opinion. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as "leader"

1. My vote's here because of the preponderance of other sources which use this term to describe him. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. see archive 4 for my list of sources & links for "leader," including nytimes, bbc, cnn, encarta, etc. it's the overwhelming standard of reputable publications. Appleby 20:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. I have always assumed leader was the appropriate vernacular in any post of this nature. Given the widespread use of leader to describe Kim Jong-il, it seems only approriate that Wikipedia would do the same. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
4. This seeems to be the preferred term both by media and by general consensus per Google. Denni☯ 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. "leader" generally used by other sources. 11 out of the first 12 media organisations listed by a "Kim Jong-il" search on http://news.google.com/ use "leader", the other one uses "general secretary". -- Rwendland 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. If it needs one of these options "leader" is the most neutral term used for describing heads-of-state. It does not imply any particular mode of governance in the popular understanding. However I'm not sure it needs this at all — what is wrong with stating his official position name and noting that it is the highest political rank in the country, as the current revision does? --Fastfission 00:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. IMHO, Kim is a ruthless dictator, a despot, a tyrant etc. However, the NPOV term is "leader". I don't think "ruler" is necessarily POV since it only means "one who rules" - however - I think leader is the more neutral term. Homey 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Leader sounds good to me just because it's more neutral than "ruler", and that's the kind of standard Wikipedia should follow.--Kaonashi 02:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

   Because that is not true. The highest position in any state is its head of state, which Kim Jong-il is not. If we followed that logic then the highest position in China in Deng Xiaoping's later years would have been Chairman of the All-China Chess Federation, which was his only official position. Adam 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Leader is appropriate. It's not so much a NPOV issue, as it is just proper writing. Every individual running an organisation/place is termed a leader. It is assumed that you will later predicate how the term 'leader' applies--sansvøix 07:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Almost all U.S. new organizations use "Leader", and I believe that many non-U.S. English language news organizations do the same. --Rogerd 04:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Leader sounds much better than ruler. Ruler seems to imply tyranny etc. which is not NPOV Astrokey44 10:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
13. I think leader is much more neutral then dictator or ruler. There is no doubt in my mind, Kim Jong-il is a dictator, but that being said it reflects a POV attitude which shouldn't be present in Wikipedia articles. Davidpdx 19:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as "ruler"

1. SqueakBox 20:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Not that a hereditary monarch can't be a leader, but this one isn't. -R. S. Shaw 21:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Adam 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. —wwoods 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC) de.wikipedia calls him a "machthaber" ('power-holder':ruler); calling him a leader, in German... :-)
5. Bletch 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. I think Adam's objections to the term leader may be a bit overstated. But what is not overstated is the need to keep nonsense like "he holds the highest post(s) in North Korea" out of the intro. The DPRK maintains an official distinction between state and party. Kim's offical leadership post is in the party, not the state (president) or government (premier). Unlike Hu Jintao or Fidel Castro, who are the general secretaries of their respective Communist Parties while also holding titles as the ceremonial state president, Kim Jong-il is the general secretary of the Workers Party, but not the head of state. So it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to refer to him as a "ruler," as opposed to identifying him on the basis of some sort of official post (not that the formal constitutional distinctions in North Korea matter much anyway). 172 | Talk 01:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. People don't lead subjugated masses, they rule over them by using threats and producing fear. Leadership implies that those who are following are doing so voluntarily. Just because most news agencies have decided to use the term leader does not make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. It is unlikely that any of them spent nearly the amount of time discussing the pros and cons of these terms that you all have. It is more likely that at first glance they went with the one that seemed more neutral. If you can't use dictator then fair enough, but don't go the complete other direction and imply a willing following. While I don't think ruler is the best term either, I felt that, for the purpose of this poll, I would comment on this side. [Some-random-passer-through] 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Either is commonly used, but "ruler" seems to apply more closely to dictator than "leader" does. HGB 21:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Beware of refering to him as a dictator. It is generally frowned upon around here.--Ezeu 22:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as something other than "leader" or "ruler"

1. Why don't we use chairman and general secretary? The titles are neutral in that all they do is describe his position. They are also official and accurate titles of his positions. They are clear and concise. They lack the propaganda-based bias of "Dear Leader". They also lack the potential connotations of "leader" or "ruler". (Which I am NOT here to discuss) Sentences that begin, "Kim Jong-Il, chairman of North Korea..." or "Secretary Kim Jong-Il..." make perfect sense. For those who can't stand using one word a million times in one article, there are even two to alternate between! Can anyone provide me with a reason why we shouldn't use chairman and secretary? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Because he is not "chairman of North Korea" or anything similar. He is general secretary of the Korean Workers Party, but that is not a state post. His highest state position is Chairman of the National Defence Committee. As I stated above, he is neither a head of state nor a head of government. There is no easy way around the dilemma of how to describe a dictator when we are not allowed to call him a dictator. Adam 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sematics. Despite the masquerade, he is the head of state. --Ezeu 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone should take a deep breath and relax

1. I honestly can't see much difference between "leader" and "ruler". I understand the policy against the use of the term "dictator" (although that seems a little silly to me, too, in the case of someone like Kim), but is there really anyone who is prepared to argue with a straight face that Kim is not the "leader" and "ruler" of North Korea? I suppose if this difference of opinion can't be resolved, I would have to vote for using his formal government and party titles, but it seems as if a lot is being made here over very little. Brandon39 05:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Taking deep breaths and relaxing is always good in situations such as this. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Why not call him "dear leader"...;) But seriously, there is no discussion about "leader" or "ruler", is there? Makes no sense at all.
4. Why not call him "God?" - It's what the North Korean's believe he is AStaralfur 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the poll

My purpose for requesting a poll was not to decide on 'ruler'/'leader' by majority vote, but to get an overview of what the opinions are which support either side. (I am a bit disappointed by the failure of some individuals to heed my requests to post their justification and to avoid debate here.)

When I boil down the responses, here are the reasons I see that have been given to support each term.

"Leader":

• a large number of reputable publications use this term
• Google reflects more widespread use of this term than of "ruler"
• some Wikipedians consider "leader" a more NPOV term

"Ruler":

• Kim Jong-il isn't a leader
• the German wikipedia uses a term which can be translated as "ruler"
• Kim Jong-il can be NPOVly called a ruler

Based on this, it seems to me that there is a stronger case for using the term "leader" to describe him. Unless someone can cite compelling precedent to call him "ruler" instead, such as a dictionary which defines the terms in such a way that "ruler" clearly fits him better than "leader" - or some other major source which refers to him as "leader" - I don't really think there is a solid case for using the term "ruler" here. - Brian Kendig 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

while i obviously agree with what you said, i think we can leave the poll open for a day or two more, to see if we can get more of a consensus. it's apparent that the "ruler" side is sorely lacking in reasons (none of the votes for "ruler" actually explain why "ruler" should be used: wwoods explanation is a little confusing, saying both ruler & leader; shaw is against "leader", 172 is mostly against "highest post" although he says "ruler" is not against wikipedia policy). but sheer number-wise, it's close enough that a change to "leader" will probably revive a revert war. if we do get a few more votes on "leader," i think we can safely call it a decision; if we get a few more on "ruler," we'll all have to accept the current article wording, or start a new discussion on an altogether different wording. Appleby 05:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The only conclusion we can draw from the poll so far is no consensus. This poll can not claim to justify the use of the word leader at present, SqueakBox 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

if there's no consensus on "leader," there's certainly no consensus on "ruler." yet, there you have it, 172 reverting to ruler, despite the discussion & vote. this is the same behavior that led to the protracted discussion & a vote, & turns of a lot of good-intentioned, knowledgeable, mature people away from contributing to wikipedia. Appleby 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you have been a critical part of what you describe as behaviour that turns of a lot of good-intentioned, knowledgeable, mature people away from contributing to wikipedia. Given the lack of consensus just means no consensus, it doesn't mean 172 can't put in ruler, SqueakBox 17:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the term 'ruler', since it seems to me more neutral than 'leader', which seems to connote a degree of voluntaryness on the part of the followers. Presumably the positive tinge to the word is the reason the Kims chose it for (the English translations of) their epithets. The reference to the German version was due to idle curiosity, since, in Germany, calling him a 'leader' would be a highly POV allusion.

Does anyone know what ko.wikipedia says?

—wwoods 18:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think either "leader" or "ruler" is fine, it this really such a big deal? :) I like the wording at Caesar Augustus. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Know what the terms state, government, and regime mean before editing this article

The poll results do not matter because the most fundamental rule on Wikipedia, which happens to be an encyclopedia, is that dubious content be removed from articles. Inaccurate content must be removed regardless of the poll.

On that note, I just edited a version of the intro that stated that position of general secretary of the Workers Party is the highest "government" position in North Korea. [3] It is not a government position but rather a PARTY position. It appears to be that someone is confusing the terms "regime" and "government." Kim is the ruler of the regime, but not the official head of government. Anyone who finds what I am saying here confusing should go look up the terms. Referring to formal North Korean titles presupposes recognition of how they are constitutionally defined in North Korea. If North Korean terminology is going to be adopted here, at least get it right. 172 | Talk 09:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the CIA World Fact Book, Kim is the "Chief of State", and his position as Chairman of the National Defense Commission is the nation's "highest administrative authority". I do think some people are making too much stew from one oyster. Kim is, in fact, in charge of the DPRK; whether he is referred to as "leader", "ruler" or "Supreme Galactic Commander" doesn't seem to me to make much difference. Brandon39 09:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

the problem that led to this mess is, a small number of people with very strong feelings are monitoring & constantly reverting everyone else's edits to the article. they are all part of the "ruler" votes, while the "leader" votes consists pretty much entirely of people (except me) without any attachment to this topic, actually consulting relevant authority. once the objective people lose interest, the 3 or 4 people will continue their grip on all aspects of the article, i fear, continuing their reverting of sourced edits. for example, "leader," as seen above, and "highest post" [4]and [5]. Appleby 14:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

it's so messy i don't expect other people to follow it, but what happened was i suggested "highest post in north korea" as a compromise, quoting from the article body, it was reverted, i cited to encarta & cnn, it was reverted, after a revert war, squeakbox pretended to "compromise" to "highest post in the state", then adam & 172 attack the "state" part, & revert to "ruler." it's happened before & it's happening now, & it'll happen again. not that the single word changes the world, but this process makes contributing to wikipedia not worth it. it'd be hilarious if we were in kindergarten. Appleby 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are not telling the truth in your above statement where you blame all the problems in the article on people who want ruler not leader. I can assure that I don't have an attachment to this particular topic (being focussed mostly on Latin American politicians) and your claims about what has happened are a gross distortion. You are the one who has been coming in with an aggressive, know-it-all attitude since the beginning of your short time here at wikipedia, SqueakBox 17:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

regardless of what you think of me or what i think of your little clique, it's nice to publicly record that dispassionate wikipedians, fresh to the issue, saw the debate & voted 7-2 for my position. of course, nothing, not other encyclopedias, nor news organizations, nor reasonable debate, nor a majority vote, will change you, but at least there is no plausible justification for continuing to revert to "ruler." it's been real fun. Appleby 18:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Chill, all of you, please. This sniping isn't helping anyone. It's not about who wins, it's about writing a good article. Please take the high road and stop the back-and-forth and try to remain objective. - Brian Kendig 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

7-2 is a fantasy figure, and I have no idea where you got it from. It is 8-6, and the justification on reverting to ruler is the same as with leader. To claim I am part of a clique with 172 and Adam Carr is ridiculous. A very unlikely clique indeed, SqueakBox 19:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Adam 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I think SB is a great guy, any chance on me joining the clique? I've been shopping around for one... Sam Spade 20:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

From the RFC: I like "chief of state" best. The "highest post in the state" leaves out that he is in control. It's obvious that he is, but semantics wise it's not perfect and someone will probably complain. I don't like leader or ruler. People don't say Bush is the leader or ruler of the US. And there's a reason why the CIA says "chief of state" because that is probably the best way they can describe his position. I suppose you can say he's a ruler in the article though, since he is a dictator and does make all the rules, but that doesn't describe his position very well. For example, you don't call a king a ruler, you just call him a king--even though he is for all intents and purposes, a ruler as well. Leader implies everyone in the country follows him, which is kind of true too, but it also has connotations about the nature of the people in the country. What we have is that he is a ruler, a leader, and a chief of state. Chief of state is the most neutral, does not characterize his position, and conveys the most information. You can offer people the facts and then let them decide for themselves whether they want to call or characterize him a leader or ruler or even Supreme Galactic Commander.--Ben 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that he is not "cheif of state." Look up what the term means. He does not hold any non-military state posts. 172 | Talk 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh ok. You want it to convey that he is both in the top military position, and the ruler? (I actually didn't know this, I probably should have read the article). Hmmm. What about "State General" or something? Governor General, literally speaking, sounds good, but is not appropriate as the position has so much historical meaning. To tell you the truth, I don't think there is a phrase that conveys what you want to without it seeming like you are creating a neologism. Would you consider breaking it up? Like saying he is "head of state and the commander of the army?" Pervez Musharraf is both the President of Pakistan and the General of the army (basically, but you might want to check this out). On his page it simply says he is the head of government.--Ben 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I didn't realize you have already had a "head of government" discussion. I was looking through the article and I didn't see anything that contentious. The introduction is fine, right? Noone has problems with that? It is just the other instances of ruler/leader? There's a lot of ways to change it. For instance:

"as the supreme leader of the DPRK." could be "as Chairman of the National Defense Committee of the DPRK."

"engineered Kim Jong-il's acceptance by the Army as the next leader of the North Korea" could be "engineered Kim Jong-il's acceptance by the Army as the next Chairman of the National Defense Committee"

"The only other possible leadership candidate," could be "The only other possible candidate,"

"a struggle within the North Korean leadership" seems ok to me

"In June 2000 the two leaders held a summit meeting" could be "In June 2000 they held a summit meeting"

"(For additional details on the June 2000 summit between the leaders of the two Koreas, see Sunshine Policy.)" could be "(For additional details on the June 2000 summit between North and South Korea, see Sunshine Policy.)"

"met with Chinese leaders" could be "met with Chinese officials"

How about that? Done and done, I say.

i think the disagreement is about the introduction, where we briefly describe the subject to the general audience, with a simple common noun rather than official titles or convoluted explanations that belong in the body. the basic problem is that this discussion is not centering on authoritative citations, but rather personal views or original research. once again, the overwhelming majority of reference works & news organizations describe kim as a "leader" as opposed to "ruler." various people have offered compromises citing various publications, but they are all shot down by a few regulars here who consistently try to insert the connotative "ruler" because of what i can only see as personal political ideology. we need to go back to citations, and the vote above (11-6 so far). or at the very least, stop tampering with brian's compromise. Appleby 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Titles

http://www.answers.com/kim%20jong-il

answers.com is a handy source, and has him down as a dictatorial leader. Myself, I'd call him the worlds ugliest elvis impersonating munchkin, but thats just me.... Sam Spade 15:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I am reverting edits by 172 (which removed part of the first paragraph as "gibberish") and Adam (which re-introduced the word "ruler" and "ruled" to the first paragraph). I believe that the words "leader" and "ruler" are ambiguous and may be biased (as witnessed from the long slug-a-thon on this Talk page and archives), and so therefore Kim Jong-il's relevance must be spelled out in specific detail without using these words, so that a reader can reach his own informed understanding of this person's place in his country and the world. As such, I don't see that an attempt to spell out the person's role is "gibberish." If you believe that Kim Jong-il's titles are self-declared and meaningless, then this is something which bears discussion here and possibly also in the article.- Brian Kendig 20:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:172, you just reverted my reversion, with this edit summary: Adam Carr's version happens to be much better, for reasons stated over and over again on tak - I don't know which reasons you're referring to; would you please elaborate? - Brian Kendig 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouild have thought that was fairly obvious. From my poiunt of view you could start with the fact that it reads better and has an encyclopedic feel to it. Perhaps yiou would equally care to explain what you find objectionable in Adam's version, SqueakBox 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, I just explained this: the words "leader" and "ruler" are ambiguous and may be biased (as witnessed from the long slug-a-thon on this Talk page and archives), and so therefore Kim Jong-il's relevance must be spelled out in specific detail without using these words. Remove the explanation (as 172 did), and the titles make less sense; put the word "ruler" in (as Adam did), and the whole "leader"/"ruler" argument comes right back up again. I agree that the current revision after 172's and Adam's edits "reads better" because it's simpler - but it still runs afoul of the same shades-of-meaning issue that's plagued this article for over a year, and this is not acceptable. It would read even better if it just used the word "dictator", but that's not acceptable either. - Brian Kendig 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A question.

This will help me to understand the situation better, and it may also help decide on the best terminology to use in the article: why is Kim Jong-il considered the "leader" (or "ruler" or "supreme power" or whatever-you-want-to-call-him) of North Korea? So he calls himself the Chairman of the National Defense Committee and his party's General Secretary; so what? If he's not the highest elected official of his country, then how is it that he has any say in Korean affairs? Why do people listen to him; why isn't there a representative government silencing him? The answers may be obvious, but please humor me and spell them out anyways; the nuances may help us find more accurate and more specific language to use instead of "leader" or "ruler". - Brian Kendig 19:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

the answer for why "leader" is simple: A. it is used by most other publications, & B. it is correct. other words may be arguably B, but no other term satisfies both A & B.

• american heritage[6]: 1. One that leads or guides. 2. One who is in charge or in command of others. 3a. One who heads a political party or organization. b. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.
• meriam webster[7]: 2 : a person who leads : as a : GUIDE, CONDUCTOR b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority Appleby 20:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my question. Why is he "in charge or command of others" - if he doesn't have an official government position, why does anybody pay attention to him? Does he bribe the army? Is the police force corrupt? Why does he have any authority? What does it mean that he's the "leader" or "ruler" - why does anybody have to listen to him; what's the basis of his authority? - Brian Kendig 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm looking for. It's one thing to say that a crime mob boss is "in charge of" Chicago; this might be arguably true, but would be a very POV way of stating it. On the other hand, if you give a history of how this crime mob boss has assassinated his opposition, how he's paid off elected officials to look the other way, how he's orchestrated political coups, how he has personal bodyguards and how lots of people owe him lots of favors - then you've effectively shown how influential this crime mob boss is without having to assign any labels to him. That's what I'm looking for with regards to Kim Jong-il: don't say he's a ruler or a leader; show me why he rules or why he leads. - Brian Kendig 20:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

i see what you mean, but isn't that the kind of detail that belongs in the body of the article? the full answer would involve poli sci question of "legitimacy" & the history of korea's last monarchy, japanese occupation, korean war, cold war, etc. & there is constant speculation about kim's struggles with the "hard-line" old guard & the military, but the detailed political structure & mechanisms are not well known.

but in the end, shouldn't wikipedia defer to publications that do the professional original research & then decided "leader" was appropriate? Appleby 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to the degree that I haven't yet heard any defense of the term "ruler" that wasn't based on subjective shades of meaning - and while there's been plenty of subjective defense of "leader" as well, that's trumped by the use of the term "leader" in the preponderance of sources out there. So, I see no objective defense of the term "ruler" over the term "leader" - but I'd prefer to find a way to phrase the article without using either. - Brian Kendig 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is that he is a dictator and anyone within the circles of power in North Korea who opposes him is likely to regret it, SqueakBox 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have been decided that the article should not say "Kim Jong-il is a dictator", but would it be acceptable and appropriate for the article to say that the Western world generally considers him to be a dictator? - Brian Kendig 22:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the fact, Kim Jong-il is a dictator. The only reason I'm posting here is because I am very interested (and fascinated by) in North Korea. In terms of POV, I think calling him leader is the lesser of the evils. It looks like this has been a long drawn out debate and one I haven't been part of. That's just my two cents. Davidpdx 07:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just western first world countries, its everywhere where you find democracy that Kim is considered a dictator. I don't have any objections but I bet it would be controversial to say so and in the longer run would inevitably be a cause of contention, SqueakBox 22:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Finding resolution?

Judging from the archives of this talk page, the "ruler"/"leader" argument has been going on for a few months now and it doesn't appear to be any closer to a resolution. A more general debate over what term to use to describe Kim Jong-il has been going on for more than a year. I was asked to come here and attempt to find a fair and objective solution, but it appears that my efforts to do so have been ignored and reverted. This bickering can not continue; it's counterproductive. Please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - is there some approach there which would be accepted as binding by all sides? Should this issue be brought to arbitration? - Brian Kendig 00:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

i, for one, would accept arbitration, which i think had long been the only apparent solution. & thanks again for helping managing this mess in a mature manner. Appleby 00:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You've had longer (and more direct) experience with this article - would you (or anyone else who's had a history with this article) please document what approaches from the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page have been tried? Or, if these approaches have not yet been formally tried, would you please set them in motion, in the interests of resolving this conflict before it reaches arbitration or else paving a clear path thereto? - Brian Kendig 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it is within the remit of the Arbitration committee to decide on the leader/ruler issue as it is an issue of content and what concerns the arbcom is the behaviour of individuals, SqueakBox 01:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there another method of resolving this dispute which you'd recommend, and by which you'd abide? - Brian Kendig 04:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• when i first came to this debate on oct 13, nwog & bletch were reverting each other over "rule" & "leader," among other things. i compared the 2 versions & took some wording from each version, including "leader," in addition to many copy edits. but the entire thing was reverted repeatedly by adam & squeakbox, without discussion. i was blocked for 3rr violation.
• oct 19, i suggested new wordings, "effective head of state" & "highest post," both based on the article body, but both were promptly reverted by squeakbox & bletch,. i asked for an explanation in discussion, but nobody responded except squeakbox, who didn't exactly engage in a substantive discussion.
• oct 23, i again tried "highest post" with citations to encarta & cnn, but was reverted by squeakbox & 172. same day, i tried to set up a poll, but was sabotaged by squeakbox & ignored by everyone else. this is when i contacted several administrators for help. a few people commented on the issue, & brian actually set up a poll.
• oct 24, i publicized the poll on wikipedia:current surveys, & also posted at request for comments/politics. as of oct 25, the vote was 9-6 in favor of "leader," but brian's compromise using neither "leader" nor "ruler" remained.
• as of nov 2, vote was 11-6 in favor of "leader," but 172 removed brian's compromise & adam re-inserted "rule" & "ruler" without discussion.

it seems what you've been doing is essentially third opinion/mediation, unless it has to go through a more formal request process. because of what happened to my attempt to start a poll, i'd rather a third party take the next step, but i will do whatever you suggest i do next. Appleby 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so in summary, it appears that these are the steps which have been taken thus far:

• Talking to the other parties involved: there's ample discussion here from all sides.
• Discussing with third parties: that's why I'm here, and I believe a comment from LordAmeth above indicates that Appleby asked him here as well. This has also spent more than a week in RfC.
• Conduct a survey: I put up a straw poll, and Appleby publicized it. Results are now 12-6 in favor of the term "leader", but most of the reasons given on both sides were subjective; the only objective reason I've seen has been that several independent publications use "leader". Regardless, User:Adam Carr submitted an edit that used the word "ruler".
• Mediation: This is what I'm informally attempting to do, but I'm not officially a mediator; the proper Request for Mediation has not yet been submitted.

So I believe that the next step is to submit a formal Request for Mediation. I will go ahead and do this. [8] - Brian Kendig 04:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned, by the way, by what appears to be several past violations of 3RR by Appleby, as well as by the insistence of several people in the "ruler" camp to continue using that word despite a clear majority preferring "leader" on the Talk page each time a poll is taken. Will all people involved agree to abide by the decision of a mediator, whatever that decision might be? - Brian Kendig 13:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, i've been exasperated & stubborn in the past, & was wrong to violate 3rr. but i did not change this article despite the majority for my position, haven't reverted adam's latest provocation, & will abide by a poll, mediation, or arbitration.Appleby 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been going on for months. While I don't insist on putting in ruler I couldn't imagine a situation in which a mediator were to say they thought it should be leader would resolve anything. Nor am I convinced that Appleby's straw poll (which I thought resulted in 8-6 not 12-6) signifies anything. I think a third way is the only option if there are a reasonable group of editors who cannot abide ruler, SqueakBox 15:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm counting the results of the straw poll above, and I see 12-6. (I just fixed the formatting of the list to keep it from being renumbered in the middle.) Why do you believe a mediator's opinion won't help matters - do you believe that 172 or Adam Carr or someone else will continue to insist on the word "ruler" no matter what a consensus or a mediator says? If this is the case, then it would demonstrate bad faith on their part, and this situation would begin to become a user behavior issue. Let me ask you this directly, SqueakBox: will you assist in finding a way to reword the article without using disputed terms such as "leader" or "ruler"; do you believe this is a workable and acceptable solution? - Brian Kendig 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe a mediator would work because this is a content issue, and content is and should be outside a mediator's remit. Personally I am happy with ruler and unhappy with leader but I am willing to find a third way, very much so. I don't believe mediation is the answer. The edit history clearly shows this issue is far deeper than any one editor, a whole variety of people have passed through both camps. I also don't believe there are any easy solutions to this one (in that Kim is like fellow dictator Fidel). So I think I would oppose mediation and say lets keep working with it as editors on the talk page. I know this is the difficult path but I believe we are duty bound to follow it, SqueakBox 16:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

there's no doubt that working on it as editors on the talk page would be the first preference, but as you can see, nobody's participating in a substantive discussion, & what squeakbox & i tried didn't go so well. the "ruler" camp simply ignores citations & polls, & apparently won't even participate in or abide by mediation. to keep on doing what's been shown not to work is not an answer. i'm not going to revert because i believe wikipedia must provide a rational solution, but substantively, i cannot understand the flat-out dismissal of overwhelming cited authority for "leader," & process-wise, how does this kind of ideological control help people contribute well-researched & properly sourced information? Appleby 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, SqueakBox, for discussing this rationally - I think we're making some small progress in the right direction (though I would really like to see 172 and Adam participate in this discussion). Let me ask you another question: what's your opinion of my version of the first paragraph from 29 October [9], and the edits by 172 and Adam to what it is now? What are the merits you see in each version? I feel that the verbage about "ruler" should be removed and the explanation about what his titles mean should be re-added, but 172 and Adam apparently disagree; what do you think is best for the article? (Incidentally, I think we're all to a point where it's clear that none of the terms "dictator" or "leader" or "ruler" should be used, as they all are obviously considered POV; I think it's in our best interests to decide how to word the article without using any of these words.) - Brian Kendig 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this edit of 172, agreeing with his comment about Kim's personal power but also trusting in 172's judgement as a specialist in the field (which I am anything but) and I don't object to this edit by Adam. To me Kim seems reminiscent of Stalin (who I know more about) in holding political power in his person rather than in any offices held. I am not greatly fond of "a position described by The World Factbook as that nation's highest administrative authority", SqueakBox 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss his titles and what they mean is further down the article. The opening paragraph must state what he is, and cannot contain lengthy qualifications and debate. I think my last suggestion was a reasonable compromise between calling him a ruthless psychotic stalinist despot (which is what he is) and calling him the benevolent father of his loving subjects (as his propaganda would have it). Matters of fact cannot be determined by voting, but I am not going to conduct a prolonged edit war over the "leader-ruler" issue. I accept that Wikipedia is dominated by soft-headed leftists and it's my choice to keep involved. Adam 23:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the opening paragraph must state, clearly and simply, what the man is. I want to find a way to say "dictator" without being POV. The problem with "leader-ruler" is not that "Wikipedia is dominated by soft-headed leftists," but that the words "leader" and "ruler" convey subtle colors of meaning which may differ from reader to reader and which may be interpreted differently than intended. (This should be obvious by now, from all the ample debate over these two words.) To me, "ruler" brings forth an image of a benevolent and much-loved king, while "leader" brings forth an image of a cold-hearted Stalin. I have yet to hear any objective defense of the term "ruler" (and likewise the only objective defense I've heard of "leader" is that a lot of outside sources use it when referring to Kim Jong-il); nevertheless, I really think that the best approach for this article is to avoid both terms. If anyone disagrees, please speak up now. - Brian Kendig 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

fundamentally, i still don't understand the departure from the weight of authority, & why adam or 172 can veto them, but the current version is npov & acceptable. it's not the clearest introduction of the subject to the general reader, but it is no longer a question of bias, & that's fine with me. but then, brian's previous compromise was fine with me, too. if i understand squeakbox, i think we actually agree(!) there's no reason to start a new debate on "dictator," (the details of what he is & did are in the article) which wasn't really part of this problem (introductory description). Appleby 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• A ruler is one who rules - one who exercises power over others. This term says nothing about the attitude of those being ruled. They can be ruled willingly or unwillingly. It is thus an NPOV term.
• A leader is one who leads - one who exercises leadership, whether political, religious or some other form. It necessarily implies that others willingly follow: a leader is not a leader unless s/he has willing followers. It is thus a subjective and POV term.
• To say that Kim is a ruler is to state no more than that he rules the DPRK, that he exercises power over its people. It makes no judgement over whether they accept or reject his rule. It is thus an NPOV usage.
• To say that Kim is a leader is to imply that the people of the DPRK willingly accept his leadership. This may be true, but it is disputed and cannot be verified. It is thus a POV usage.

Adam 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

but that's not what the dictionaries say. see above, ahd & wm definitions of leader.it is one in charge, in command, heads an organization, has influence or power, directs the military, has authority, etc etc. , there is NO implication of WILLING followers, or even leadership, anywhere in the definitions. in fact several people specifically have said they have the exact opposite subjective reaction to the terms. what matters, i thought, is not what adam carr determines to be the truth, but what authoritive publications say. why does adam get to veto the bbc, nyt, reuters, encarta, & now, american heritage & merriam webster dictionaries? Appleby 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The implication is in the verbs, to rule and to lead. And given that dear leader is what his accolytes called him (either to get a slice of power or out of sheer fear or both) maybe this word should be seen as too POV towards Kim being what he claims to be, whereas many people think he isn't the dear leader of North Korea but a criminal dictator tearing the country apart (just compare it with South Korea) and therefore to imply that he is a leader is POV. Ruler doesn't have the same Kim propagandist associations. And remember, Appleby, that none of the dictionaries or media companies or other encyclopedias that you quote have the NPOV policy that we have to adhere to here at wikipedia, and to adhere to them when they breaks what we see as POV is not acceptable, SqueakBox 03:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

would you change your mind if i cited you the npov policy of any of these organizations? who is "we"? the majority of wikipedians who voted for "leader"? Appleby 04:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

from wikipedia:verifiability: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false". Appleby 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, so please bear with me. I've got two points I'd like to get across to you.

1. The shades of meaning you're assigning to the word "leader" - and then protesting about - are subjective and unjustified. The dictionary.com definition of leader says absolutely nothing about leadership (they are two distinct and different concepts), and also says nothing about the attitude of the people being led. Saying that "leader" implies leadership skills and loving followers is as baseless as saying that "king" implies these things. If you can point me to a noteworthy reference work on the English language which attests to these shades of meaning you're assigning to the word "leader", then let's talk about that; if you can point me to a dictionary which defines "leader" in a way which Kim Jong-il does not fit, then we've got something to work with. Otherwise, consider the fact that numerous independent news sources in the Western world all use the term "leader" when referring to this man; this should be evidence that the professional world does not seem to consider the word to have overly positive connotations.
2. The point is moot, anyway. Both the words "leader" and "ruler" have both been shown to be interpreted with POV shades of meaning (cf all the discussion here over the past months; some people believe "leader" is POV while others believe "ruler" is POV), so it seems clear that the article should use neither of these words - to avoid possibly expressing the wrong connotations to readers, as well as to end this argument here.

- Brian Kendig 06:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How about autarch? -EDM 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

It occurs to me that Madeleine Albright would probably wish that the infobox had a different picture, not including her looking like she's Kim's #1 fan. —wwoods 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Serves her right for being suckered by him. "She who sups with the devil should take a long spoon." Adam 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find another public domain/free use photo, be my guest.--Fallout boy 09:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

apparent resolution

well, looks like problem is solved, thanks mostly to brian's patience. so the present version should not be changed by any of the previous participants of the dispute.

couple of loose ends: bletch & nwog were the original (well when i came to this article) disputants, i wonder if they are not editing this article anymore, want to mediate, or ?

and, if squeakbox wants (or someone else wants & squeakbox consents), i am open to further discussing improving the introduction, as it could probably be made more simple, concise, & clear to the general reader, just as a matter of better writing (without resorting to leader/ruler, of course). if not, that's fine, too, & i won't initiate any further changes. Appleby 04:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Cognition got blocked for 3RR warring as a member of the leader camp, SqueakBox 14:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

squeakbox, you haven't answered my questions: 1. "none of the dictionaries or media companies or other encyclopedias that you quote have the NPOV policy that we have to adhere to here at wikipedia": would you change your mind if i cited you their npov policies? 2. "to adhere to them when they breaks what we see as POV is not acceptable": who is this "we"? majority of wikipedians? Appleby 16:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, it's really not necessary to draw that line of argument out any further. It's obvious from the months of discussion here that 'leader' and 'ruler' both contain POV shades of meaning in some peoples' minds, and therefore we should refrain from using either term in the article. There's no point to continuing to fight for the legitimacy of either term. - Brian Kendig 22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

brian, i really appreciate your mediation of this silliness, & of course you're right, there's no point as far as the article is concerned. but you can see from the history of the discussion, squeakbox continuously makes provably false statements, then when i point them out, he just goes on to make new ones. my tone may not be the warmest because i simply cannot imagine a plausible answer, but maybe if he did answer my questions, just maybe, i can see where he's coming from & learn something new. he should either defend his statements or stop telling me things he can't defend.

btw, i don't agree that "leader" has been shown to be POV, in the sense that matters to wikipedia, since no publications have been cited, & disinterested wikipedians new to the issue, (that is, excepting myself & the 4 long-time "ruler" debate participants) have said "leader" is npov, by 12-3 (if you count everyone who's commented in discussion over time, the consensus for "leader" would be similar; a vocal minority's persistence doesn't give their position more weight). but your view is at least understandable & defensible, & i can respectfully disagree & move on. Appleby 23:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

'Leader' (like 'ruler') appears to be POV because editors have spoken up here to protest shades of meaning they believe the word carries. That's reason enough to me that the word should be avoided, and the fact that attempts to use it will only continue the flamewar is just icing on the cake. If you wish to continue to debate SqueakBox's statements with him, I request that you please handle it on his or your User Talk page. - Brian Kendig 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

brian, just wondering, shouldn't there be a "the" before "Chairman"? & also, how about "north korea" instead of dprk, since wiki policy is to use most common english name & that article is titled "north korea"? roh moo hyun, in his article, is identified as pres of "south korea," not the official name "republic of korea". possibly the party position could be in a separate sentence? not objections or anything, just trying some ideas for readability, if you are still interested in working on it. Appleby 06:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Kim Jong-il" or "Kim Jong Il"?

Which is the proper name for this person? Someone yesterday went through and changed all instances of the former to the latter. CNN.com uses the latter. If there's no complaint, I'll move this article to the latter name. - Brian Kendig 19:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There was a long argument about this some time ago, and this is the form that Korean wikipedians recommended we use. There is a whole page somewhere on Korean names. Adam 22:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Beyond that, it makes it easier for people to see that it's Il and not II. 66.229.182.113 05:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Jong "Eel"

I wish an entertainment company (WB, Disney, or whoever else) would make a character (likely a villain) named Kim Jong Eel that would be, of course, an eel, and prominently shown as the main villain on many cartoon shows.

It's just like how characters have been named with the name of their species as their surnames, like "Bugs Bunny", "Porky Pig", "Mickey Mouse", "Wile E. Coyote", "Chester Cheetah" (commercials only), "Donald Duck", and numerous others.

Therefore, why don't we have a "Kim Jong Eel"? Not like North Korea can sue or anything, so cartoon manufacturers could create a "Kim Jong Eel" character at anytime. When this character imitates the many things KJI does or has done, that right there is a funny way for Americans (and any other viewers) to learn of his vile nature.

--Shultz 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The less attention popular culture gives to nasty people, the better, IMHO. - Brian Kendig 16:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's like giving less attention to Hitler. Had we have done just that, he would've conquered more lands and killed more Jews (and other of his undesirables) than he did. The sooner the masses learn about KJI, the sooner something will be done about him. --Shultz 01:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Did he not even have a cook with him? – Wikipeditor 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Was there resolution?

I am late to the debate, but wondered if the whole leader/ruler thing had been resolved. If so, can we remove it from the Current Surveys RfC page? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Silver chopsticks, lobsters and cognac

I thought it might be a good idea to discuss further what material should be included in this biography. This is in relation to the following 3 paragraphs which have put in an appearance a couple of times, only to promptly be reverted back out again:

Konstantin Pulikovsky, a Russian emissary who travelled with Kim Jong-il across Russia by train reported that Kim had live lobsters air-lifted to the train every day which he ate with silver chopsticks.

Kim does has a reputation as a drinker. During his 2000 summit with the South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, Kim Jong-il was seen drinking 10 glasses of wine. It is also known that Kim has a taste for Hennessy VSOP cognac.[10]

Kim Jong-il is also associated with Johnnie Walker 'Swing', than Hennessy. [11]

But it should be noted that most world leaders including, and especially the pope, and Queen Elizabeth II have large liquor cellars, and that the constant refrences to Kim John-il's liquor prefrences and collection are a propaganda tool for the west.

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has met Kim Jong-il, said that the North Korean leader was very well informed and in her opinion "was not delusional".

The person posting this information stated two things in defence of its inclusion: 1) that the information was accurate and came from a reliable source 2) that the information would help readers to understand KJI.

As I understand it, these statements themselves are not being factually disputed. They are being removed because they are considered to be of only marginal relevance to this article. That is, they are somewhat trivial facts that are considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps partly because trivial information may have the effect of seeming to trivialise the subject matter itself.

Before inserting the material again, perhaps whoever wants this information included in the article can make an argument on this discussion page for its relevance.

Personally, I don't have very strong feelings about its inclusion or exclusion, although if it is included I think it should be given less prominence. I suppose that one argument in favour of leaving the material in would be that it highlights some degree of hypocrisy from KJI. Living a luxurious lifestyle is not exactly what one might expect from a good Communist.

I must add that that memorable Madeleine Albright quote sounds completely bizarre because it is out of context. I think Albright was addressing a public whose only knowledge of KJI probably comes from some snippet on Weapons of Mass destruction on the evening news, featuring the cliched image of soldiers marching through Pyongyang and a cursory caricature of KJI as being a possibly deranged hermit. --Alexxx1 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i think you summarized the issue nicely. it doesn't belong because it's not encyclopedic style, & inconsistent with how other wikipedia articles on leaders treat the subjects. as for hypocrisy, there's a lot of trivial facts that could be inserted in gw bush's article to "highlight some degree of hypocrisy" with his self-identification as a "compassionate conservative," but that'd be pov & undermine the credibility of wikipedia. Appleby 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why everything has to be compared to George W. Bush. If something is in/not in GWBushs page, that does not mean it has to be in or not in Kims page. Trivial facts are just about the only facts that people know of Kim other than his photos on CNN behind a microphone when they talk about North Korea. I agree that the Albright quote does sound a bit out of place. My vote goes for putting some of the personal facts in that are referenced. How many articles in Wikipedia have a triva section? Many many. This is no difference, just make sure they are unbiased and I dont see a problem.

as you can see from the existing article, we know quite a bit about kim jong il. it's not like the article is too short without the silver chopsticks bit. asking yourself if the same type of information would be appropriate for the gw bush article is a good test of whether it is npov & unbiased, to make sure you're using the same standard unaffected by your politics. how many biographies of national leaders in wikipedia have a trivia section? you would be treating this differently. Appleby 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what Appleby is saying. However, I've noticed that more personal details have been taken out of the article on the same grounds. I think that the removed paragraph was not well formulated but I just wonder whether readers of the article will now be losing out on something. I think it would be a shame if every last personal detail was stripped out of this article in the quest for NPOV. After all, the GW Bush article does have a section titled Outside the United States, which deals with Bush's portrayal in non-US media. Is this a way that this KJI article could maintain NPOV? - by having a separate section dealing with the way Kim has been portrayed in the media in different countries. And the Bush article isn't completely devoid of info that could be labelled trivial. For example, the following statement: Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature. --Alexxx1 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

i actually agree that the last paragraph that was just removed should be restored, with a bit of cleanup for readability. it was written in a relatively npov way, in the simiilar vein as your example with bush. Appleby 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr.(?) Appleby, with all due respect, have you not been warned before about your reverting ways, and have even been blocked more than once for as long as 24 hours for multiple 3RR violations and tampering with peoples notes on another talk page?[12] I believe no one is trying to promote his or her own POV. Take the Bush article you keep referring too and Alexxx1's example of Bushism's. That certainly can be seen as a negative POV, pointing how his mistakes while speaking, however it is accepted as an interesting and informative fact GWBush the person. As Alexx1 has also pointed out, KJI obviously is seen differently by other countries. A section could be set up titled something to the effect of; KJI in the foreign media. My point is you seem to be the only one with a problem (reverting) of the recent edits of Kim Jong-il and given your past record of violations, I don't believe you should be the one with an absolute authority of what should be in the Kim Jong-il article.--David Foster 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

see Ad hominem. see also article edit history. Appleby 04:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Article renamed - why?

User User:§ seems to have moved the article from Kim Jong-il to Kim Jongil without discussion. I suggest we move it back, and if anybody wants to change the name, they should put it up for discussion first! In this case, "Jong-il" and "Jong Il" are the usual spellings in English-language books and newspapers. Jongil doesn't match the official MR romanization of North Korea, so I can't really see a case for this move. As a side note, I don't think moving the article counts as a "minor edit." --Reuben 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting move. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

§ did it again. I think §'s contributions justify other measures. It just causes other people work and does not react to comments on its talk page. Reuben, do you have any source about which variety of MR is official in North Korea? I'd like to have a look at it.—Wikipeditor

Jongil is not even close to MR, which is the official system in North Korea. It should be Kim Chǒng'il, where the apostrophe is permitted to remove the ambiguity between Chǒng'il and Chǒn'gil (정일 vs. 전길). So dropping the hyphen in Jong-il isn't a matter of conforming to MR. I think your change to the name box is also incorrect. That's an apostrophe, not a hyphen (as you note, hyphens don't belong in strict McCune Reischauer). In any case, personal names don't often follow any consistent scheme of Romanization, and official North Korean sources seem to use "Kim Jong Il." You can see examples here: [13]. Other English-language media seem to use variants of this, like Jong il, Jong-il, etc. As Adam Carr points out below, this has been discussed before, and the consensus is to use Kim Jong-il. --Reuben 05:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a whole page somewhere on Korean names and transliteration. The form Kim Jong-il is form recommended by the Korean Wikipedians, and is the one we should follow. Adam 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to revert back to Kim Jong-il, but I can't; it may be because Kim Jong-il is now occupied by a redirect that has an edit history. If any admins are around and could help, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --Reuben 05:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this guy has been making mass movements of pages according to his own ideas of how Romanization should be done, without discussion or respect for anyone else. Any admins or experienced types know the right way to handle this? --Reuben 05:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

North Korean media always use Kim Jong Il in English and other languages using the Roman alphabet. Prior to about 1992 they had oficial language-specific translations of key North Korean phrases (German: Kim Dzong-il; Pjöngjang, Dschutsche, etc.) but around that time they standardized on the English spellings. (For this reason, German newsreaders, and for example the German dub of Team America: World Police, inevitably mispronounce his name as "Yong-Il"). For this reason, I'd prefer Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung, etc., simply because that's what he, or his English-speaking henchmen, has chosen. ProhibitOnions 12:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mandate of Heaven

When you read its article, it's clear that Kim Jong-il has lost the Mandate of Heaven. Or more accurately, the "Kim Dynasty" has. I read somewhere that Kim Il-sung was planning on reunifying the peninsula by going the way of the other Commie Bloc countries as reports trickled onto him about the beginnings of the famine. When he shared this with Kim Jong-il, he didn't like that, so they both got into a rather animated argument, which results in Kim Il-sung's untimely downfall.

Had Kim Il-sung checked with a doctor about chest and arm pains in the days up to it, he would've lived to free the Northern half at last. KIS was starting to see his Mandate of Heaven getting taken away when he passed on, but KJI is perpetuating his rule despite this. He's only prolonging the inevitable. The DPRK will go the way of the Communist Bloc whether he likes it or not. --Shultz 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, people have been predicting the imminent demise of North Korea for quite a while. I'll believe it when I see it. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm...

Why is there not one mention of political repression in North Korea conducted by a dictatorship that is widely regarded as the world's worst today? I see we have been busy with a debate on whether or not to include "ruler" but that looks trivial and rediculous by comparison to this. CJK 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You can find that in Human rights in North Korea, this article should be more of a biography. --Horses In The Sky 23:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed framework

see timeline details & citations in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. also [14] & [15] Appleby 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1983 bombings

At the moment it says -

No direct evidence has emerged to link Kim to the bombings[citation needed].

Why do you need a citation to prove there has been no evidence, surely it's only necessary if there is evidence so as to provide a link to it, I'm going to get rid of the citation needed bit but correct me if I'm wrong. --Horses In The Sky 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This is the first time I read this article and I noticed that there is no section on criticism/public perception. Most leaders of nations that have pages on wikipedia have such sections (see Tony Blair, Hugo Chávez, George W. Bush, and Hu Jintao for examples). Is there a reason that the smartest, most clever, most physically fit ruler in the world doesn't have such a section? AriGold 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• yes, because the last time I tried to write an article about myself it was deleted as an nn-bio. no article = no criticism section...even if I am the smartest, most clever, most physically fit ruler in the world...

..oh you meant kim jong il, and you were being sarcastic, my bad--152.163.100.68 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Almost everyone national leader has a criticisms section, and Kim Jong-Il should certainly have one related to how he is viewed in the west. --68.149.181.145 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does someone like Kim Jong-Il need a criticism section? I don't really believe it's necessary, considering he's perceived as a power-hungry communist dictator in every part of the world with the exception of maybe China and Russia. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, Kim Jong-Il should DEFINITELY have a criticism section. If other political figures have a "criticism" section, Kim Jong-Il should have one too, fair and square. I'm not a biased person but Kim Jong-Il is responsible for some of the most inhumane acts in the world. He's a dictator and the has the sole power in DPRK; therefore, he is responsible for every action that North Korea does - whether its the never ending human rights violation on the people, food shortage and famine, and other things.

Even the article on "Wikipedia" has a criticism section....

His sporting/creative "achievements"

His personality cult is mentioned. I think it would be useful to have a list of his "official" sporting records (such as scoring 38 under in his one and only round of golf http://www.anyonefortee.com/Shots/Kim.html). I'm sure there are many others like that. 86.135.8.222 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, it was just stated on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that one claim is that he wrote 1500 books while a college student (which would have required him to write more than one book per day. The extent of the personality cult is not really examined here, but it is getting a lot of media play lately, especially in relation to the missile test situation. 68.145.238.33 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add the fact that he is a Psycho but it was removed. I did add some colorful suggestions. I was stationed on the DMZ for 13 months. 2002-2004. JSA and at Camp greaves. If anyone can go to the DMZ do it. Youll see how bad off the North Koreans are and how hungry they are. The line itself is mined and fenced. I have a great Photograph from OP Olette that shows the Green trees and grass on the south side and dead brown plantlife on the North. Also there where no deer visible on the Norths side. The North Korean soldiers where sometimes caught swapping cigarettes with us. I dont know what happended to them after. But they didnt seem to want to spark any fight with us or the ROK(republic of Korea) soldiers....If anyone wants some great pictures from there just leave a message here. SSG G

Portrait Needed

What happened to the portrait? I think one should be added at the top of the page. --68.149.181.145 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I think it got deleted during a bout of vandalism. The image is now back in its rightful place. --Reuben 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am so confused

Some sources say that this man was born in 1942 and then others say that he was born in 1941. Why in the world would the North Koreans change Kim Jong-il's birth year? Which birth year is the most accurate? Sandy June 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to non-NK sources, it appears that the year was changed from 1941 to 1942 so as to lend credence to the claim that he was born on Paektusan and not somewhere in the Russian Far East. See GlobalSecurity.org, BBC, Infoplease. -- Visviva 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession

Kim Jong Il did not succeed his father in any legal sense, he is not the president of the DPRK as Kim il Sung was. Moreover, while Kim il Sung died in 1994, Kim Jong Il did not become general secretary of the workers party until 1997, so to say that he was the leader of the DPRK since 1994 is entirely inaccurate. Further Kim Jong Il is just one of three top officials with executive power, his legal authority is considerably less than Kim il Sung possessed as President, he has no ability to conduct foriegn relations or to lead the government, and while Kim Il Sung was both head of state and head of government for north korea, Kim Jong Il is neither as those positions went to other people; his role is strictly military and as party leader, a figure head.

I know that western news sources love the idea of it being a dynasty and the american government frequently personifies enemy governments in a single figure as a way of trying to dismiss the political complexities in any government, it is simply not accurate in any real senseNoJoyInMudville 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're putting too much credence in the official titles. Have you tried watching North Korean news broadcasts? I don't find that they support your analysis that "his role is strictly milirary and as party leader, a figurehead." If you watch the North Korean news, I think you'll find that they center on Kim Jong Il at least as much as western ones do. --Reuben 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He undeniably has an extremely prominant figure head role, like a european Queen/King, but this ceremonial role doesn't mean that his legal authority matchs it anymore than the British Queen's does despite having virtually every governmental department named for her, having her face on the currency, etc. When talking about things like succession and actual power though its necessary to look at what legal authority he actually has, and in reality his role is quite contained and his actions are limited. It is tempting to simplify the politics of a nation into a flaboyent personality, but it is not very accurate. NoJoyInMudville 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What are your sources? Again, I certainly don't buy that the central role of Kim Jong Il is an invention of the western media. You can see the same phenomenon in the North Korean news. I can point you to examples if you like. But I would definitely like to see your sources. --Reuben 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)