Talk:Commander-in-Chief of North Korea

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for //www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jJYCeXinUm40ybUlJzb4_aOAiSAQ?docId=CNG.abd2d9a288a1831892829dfc484f077e.6a1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Notes" section is empty
The Notes section is empty. Should it be deleted?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"North Korea"
North Koreans do not officially use the term "North Korea". We shouldn't pretend that they do for our own convenience, and we shouldn't make up fake official titles for any reason.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * article has been moved now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * we're back at a "North Korea" title. Please discuss. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, we follow common name guidelines relating to naming of articles, with exceptional circumstances which this does not meet. Whether you believe "North Korea" is a fake title is your own POV, mainstream media uses it. Otherwise, articles such as those relating to the Republic of China and People's Republic of China would still be at their conventional long form titles, but now, the main state articles of the ROC and PRC are at Taiwan and China respectively, regardless of "official" usage.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is not the article on North Korea. The title of this article purports to be an official title, which it isn't. I see no evidence that "Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of North Korea" is a common name.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * North Korea is the common name of the state, which is why the article is titled as such. Why do you think the US President isn't at President of the United States of America, or the British PM isn't located at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or others, President of the Republic of South Africa. Short forms are the convention, and this certainly doesn't mean the requirements of exceptional circumstances. your preferred title would count as longer than necessary, among other criteria, hence the examples given are redirect links. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is that those forms are in common use. The "Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of North Korea" is not in common use. In fact, I think there is no common name for the position. We shouldn't make up fake official titles. And this is what this is. If it was the ""Commander-in-chief of the armed forces of North Korea" that would be different. But capitalising it suggests that it is an official title. And it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about your personal feelings. "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not in common use by the way. Nobody is naiive enough to think this would be the official title, given that North Korea is the common name. The introduction uses the full official title in any event, so I fail to see how it is misleading or "fake". Your need to use "official titles" would literally be about changing everything regarding state names to use the official long forms, which just isn't common name policy, nor does it meet exceptional circumstances, whether you like it or not. You are welcome to challenge the policies surrounding article titles if you wish, however, until such time as they are changed, which seems highly unlikely, they take precedence. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That comment is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but just because you don't like policy, doesn't mean you can disregard it nor ignore other views than your own. Policy is not irrelevant, and my comment was very relevant to the point of splitting hairs if you want to get really "technical" about article titles. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy of common name clearly doesn't apply to official titles. As it stands, the title is a fake official title. I think you are ignoring what I'm saying, and piling on irrelevant personal attacks and citations of policies.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy of common name clearly doesn't apply to official titles. - yes it does ("should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.") and you may want to check out the criteria for using common names. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title". It is unfortunate that you perceive my responses as personal attacks, but at what point does rehashing the same "I think it should be this way" argument become tiresome? As I've said, you are of course free to challenge policy.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read my comments before responding to them. Why are you opposed to changing the capitalisation?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If your suggestions were more consistent and not throwing around terms such as "fake titles", I would not be so "opposed" as it were. This thread did start as the title in relation to the name of the state after all. However, to be perfectly honest, I'm not of the opinion that the article itself should be standalone anymore, especially since the position is now akin to most other heads of states' role as commander-in-chief.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can someone double check to make sure that Kim's title is "Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
I know that the title of "Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army" is no longer used in DPRK state media since April 2019, however can someone verify that DPRK state media sources is using the title "Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the DPRK?" From what I'm reading from numerous source such as Rodong Sinmun, they refer to Kim Jong Un as the "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the DPRK" not as the "Commander-in-Chief". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1508:DF:6C92:8FBA:D033:9A8B (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Article 102 of the Constitution declares the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission as the "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. This article should probably be merged with the SAC chairman now that the post is constitutionally linked with the position of SAC chairman.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While the Constitution states that the SAC Chairman is the commander-in-chief, Kim Jong-un continues to be referred to as "supreme commander of the DPRK armed forces". In addition, in a 4 December 2019 statement of KPA General Staff chief Pak Jong Chon, he referred to Kim Jong Un as "Supreme Commander" and not commander-in-chief. I think that the article name should be reverted back to "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea" and the article should be edited to reflect this. --Migs005 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kim Jong-un IKS 2018.jpg

Requested move 1 April 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 04:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of North Korea → Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea – While it is true that the DPRK Constitution mentions the title "commander-in-chief", North Korean state media continues to list Kim Jong-un's title as head of the armed forces as "supreme commander of the armed forces of the DPRK". This means that Kim is still referred to as supreme commander in daily use and the title of commander-in-chief is just an emphasis on his role as head of the military. Migs005 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the Supreme Commander flag not shown in the article?
I realize that Songun politics is not as strong as it use to be since Kim Jong Un took over in 2011 but it's still strange to not see the image of the Supreme Commander flag in article titled "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the DPRK". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:CE01:D7E7:203E:8FF2:A849:1FED (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to either update or delete this separate page as the emblem has been erased
https://www.nknews.org/2022/02/north-korea-completes-erasure-of-kim-jong-uns-supreme-commander-symbol/

I don't want to spam this message again but going back to what I was saying in the previous post on the List of North Korean flags, the Supreme Commander emblem and flag have been officially removed and is no longer featured on state media broadcasts and confirmation from South Korean guard posts confirm this fact.

Given how the Constitution has been updated in 2019 with the State Affairs Commission being in the de-facto sense the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Kim's position as Supreme Commander is no longer really relevant as the President of the SAC is also the supreme commander of the armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:810B:10BF:817D:581E:BC0C:AF51 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)