Talk:Kim Il Sung/Archive 2

Eternal President / Leader
The article could be more clear as to when he was made Eternal President vs Eternal Leader. It's mentioned in the lead but maybe should be better explain in Legacy? It also lacks citations on these points. Digging into this, I found clear sources establishing that he was made Eternal President when the constitution was revised in September 1998 — see NY Times — but the June 29, 2016 revision of the constitution is harder to parse. It is clearly established that parts of it were revised then by the SPA — see Times of India, NY Times, Rodong Sinmun (an official NK newspaper). But the changes to the Preamble (the section salient to Kim Il Sung's "title") are not so clear to me. The official DPRK website still has their old constitution listed (I think) and articles such as Joongang Daily and three "amateur" news sites — 38th North, NK Leadership Watch and NK News all seem to suggest that Kim Il-Sung's title may have changed because Kim Jong-Il was "promoted" to be an equal Eternal Supreme Leader, but these articles do not give primary sources for this information. And I haven't found the official text of the new 2016 constitution online (NK Leadership Watch posts text but without citing its source). Henry chianski (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an article Eternal President of the Republic which explains that it happened in 1998.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, he was made Eternal President in 1998. But why does the Kim Il-Sung article list him as "Eternal leader" instead?  Was his title actually changed in the June 2016 constitution?  If so that lacks citation. Henry chianski (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know what you meant. I don't see any reason to doubt the text posted by NK Leadership Watch, even though it is a blog. The key part of the text is confirmed by NK News (which is a professional news service, not an amateur site). (And, by the way, the Korean Friendship Association website is not an official DPRK website.) The preamble as quoted by NK Leadership Watch and NK News says Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are both "eternal leaders". However, this seems to be just rhetoric, not a title. In any case, I don't think the infobox should echo the grandiose honours bestowed on the leaders after death. Anyway North Korea gives its leaders many titles, as List of Kim Jong-il's titles shows. We should just say "Leader of North Korea" for both of them instead of "Eternal leader...".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing up. Agreed that these posthumous appellations shouldn't be in the infobox, but that's another battle. Henry chianski (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Il-sung. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417010008/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/363_103451.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/363_103451.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/117-1-7.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

President / Eternal President
Would it be correct to still list him as holding the office of Presidency, eternal or otherwise? The 2016 Constitution makes mention of him and Kim Jong-Il as Eternal Leaders, it does not mention the Eternal President of the Republic. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bad use of English
"From North Korea establishment" and "has been" referring to a period that has now elapsed (should read "was") make clear that this article was not written by a native English-speaker. I hope someone who knows English well can consult the author and make the necessary changes.188.230.240.75 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

North Korean belief origins

 * North Koreans believe Kim-il-Sung is an "almighty god" who "created the world" in seven days as a divine spirit millions of years ago, and came to Earth as a human in 1912 as a messianic figure..

I have removed this. The citations have just been copied from the information about his birth later in this article. The Daily News article says nothing like that. I don't have access to the book, but I don't believe it says anything like that either. I couldn't find any such statement searching through Google books. I've never seen this claim in other sources, and I've never seen this claim in North Korean propaganda. It seems that this is either a hoax or a personal theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Improving the level of NPOV in this article
This article appears subject to regular revisions that are biased in favor of the North Korean government's interpretation of events, and that express unsourced opinion as fact. I realize Wikipedia has guidelines on how such issues are best addressed but I haven't read them lately. If someone could provide links to them that would be helpful.

Here is one example of the problem:

"North Korean history emphasizes that the United States had previously invaded and occupied the South, allegedly with the intention to push further north and into the Asian continent. Based on these assumptions, it portrays the KPA invasion of the South as a counter-attack.[47]"

The reference provided for this sentence is "Ho Jong-ho et al. (1977) The US Imperialists Started the Korean War Archived 29 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine." Clearly, the title of this document shows the bias. Also, it's more than 40 years old. There must be hundreds of more up to date sources that are more NPOV and factual.

I could just delete the sentence but that may be reverted. So I'm asking for input on what should be done. Can the sentence be re-written in a way that shows that it's the view of one party in a geopolitical conflict, and differs from that held by the United Nations then and now? EvidenceFairy (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's sort of weird to complain about unsourced, biased, non-factual content, and then give an example that isn't. That passage clearly states that is how "North Korean history" "portrays" the war. The source is a North Korean publication that was revised in 1993 and posted on the web by the North Korean government as recently as 2011. It is a valid source in the context, and the passage is accurate. The article uses a range of sources, including Rogue Regime and The Black Book of Communism. If claims in the article are unsourced, I think it is OK to delete them or place a "citation needed" tag on the relevant sentence. With regard to the regular revisions, I think that is the nature of Wikipedia. We get everything from propaganda (both sides), hoaxes, and vandalism...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion but I think you didn't understand what I was asking. Each to their own.EvidenceFairy (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To be pedantic, your addition to the article — "However, the US was operating, along with many other countries, under the auspices of a UN resolution that responded to the North's invasion of the South." — is misleading. United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 was voted for by the US and a few of its allies, and was opposed by many members of the UN, notably the USSR. It was a Truman initiative which took many by surprise. The resolution called for the defence of the South, but did not authorise the invasion and annihilation of the North. Many countries did join, but the US supplied 80% of the fighting force. In any case, you are trying to counterbalance a sentence about the US occupation of the South, which happened in 1945, prior to any UN resolution — in fact, prior to the existence of the UN. Furthermore, the sentence you are responding to is also misleading. The North Korean position is that the US started the war in 1950, not that they were counterattacking against a previous occupation of the South. To quote from the source cited:
 * Early in the morning of June 25, 1950, a large-scale aggression was started against the young Republic. The south Korean puppet army, under the direct command of the "AMAG", launched an armed invasion all along the 38th parallel on a preconceived war plan. According to a report released on June 25 by the Ministry of the Interior of the DPRK, early that morning the enemy started its aggression against the Republic over the whole length of the 38th parallel, intruding one-two kilometres deep in the directions of Haeju, Kumchon and Cholwon.
 * The "AMAG" evidently refers to the Korean Military Advisory Group. Hence, North Korean history claims that the North was defending itself against an invasion from the South (masterminded by the US), not that it launched its invasion of the South as a counterattack against previous US occupation of the South. But I don't think we need propaganda blasts and counterblasts about the Korean War in this article, which is supposed to be about Kim Il Sung. Perhaps it would be better to delete it all.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Korean propaganda
"During his rule, North Korea was widely characterized by the Western fake news media as a totalitarian state with widespread human rights abuses, including mass executions and prison camps." Aren't statements like this a bit problematic? I'm not familiar with editing wikipedia pages, but if I read thinks like this it makes me question the accuracy of the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.39.157 (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence had been vandalized and has now been reverted to what it should read. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Assassination
There were multiple attempts on Kim Il-sung's life. The top secret plan that attempted to kill him, the time he was thought to be dead from assassination in 1986, there were even attempts on him prior to him coming to power (the assassination attempt on him in March 1946). That should be enough for him to get into the "Failed assassination attempt survivors" category. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * categories should reflect what's written in the article, and what's written in the article should follow what reliable sources say. That's where you need to start. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Info in Annie Jacobsen's book Surprise, Kill, Vanish
FYI, Chapter 3, pp. 40-42 has some interesting info for this article, maybe. It says, according to CIA files, he "killed a fellow student" in high school; addresses the name change/identity theft; and covers a failed assassination plan. Plus notes and bibliography. Someone might want to follow up and see if anything is useful here. I don't plan to. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

How to handle presidency status
I (ignorantly) tried to replace the end date of Kim's presidency listed in the infobox from the present to his death date, and by. There are still a few discrepancies, though: How do we want to handle these things? I'll defer to those more knowledgeable about NK politics, but I think at the very least an explanatory footnote is warranted next to "present" if we choose to keep that. Sdkb (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox says "office abolished" in the "succeeded by" field, which doesn't quite square.
 * He wasn't declared eternal leader until 1998, four years after his death; are we willing to allow him to be declared president retroactively?
 * This doesn't fit with our approach to Kim Jong-il, whose infobox lists his office term ending with his death, despite him being declared eternal chairman.
 * as reverter, do you have any opinion on this? Sdkb (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Only the technicality, as I have heard it, of Kim Il-Sung being the eternal president, which I never heard was given at any specific point necessarily; just that he is officially called the eternal leader of North Korea is all the basis I knew I had KenYokai (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized you two have been edit warring over this issue. I'm satisfied with the current version, but please, you both need to use talk pages to discuss this sort of issue. Sdkb (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been edit warring; I undid one edit. Of the three edits, one was my own, one was an undo, and another was undoing an unexplained edit. SpaceFox99 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't violate me Josephbernardlim (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

- Yes, Josephbernardlim has done nothing wrong either. Violating us was overdoing it. I, at least, am happy with the current page status. SpaceFox99 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Kim Hye-sun
There is an campaign across multiple articles to scrub/censor from history the existence of Kim Hye-sun, his purported first wife. Examples: This is a classic case of historical negationism. -- Green  C  22:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * All of the English-languages sources I can find say "thought to be his first wife" or "claimed to be his first wife". Maybe it is best we don't assert she was without some qualifier, which appears to be the case so removal from the infobox is probably a good idea. -- Green  C  23:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Taewonsu/Generalissimo
Using Taewonsu as the prefix in the infobox would be more appropriate on this page and on Kim Jong-il than using Generalissimo, they mean the same thing however it is the Korean term and is therefore better in this context rather than its Spanish-language counterpart Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , pendantic note: Generalissimo is an Italian word, and it is used as a loan word in English . It is not Spanish, which would be Generalísimo. Anyway, Generalissimo is relatively common in English. I'm rather neutral on the issue of Taewonsu vs Generalissimo. MarioGom (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

New Primary Source Verifying Kim Il Sung's Soviet Background and sponsorship by the Soviets
Today I came across a translated 1945 Soviet report about Korea. It contains information on Kim IL Sung's military background in the Soviet Union from 1941-1945.

"KIM IL SUNG, who was the commander of a Korean partisan detachment in Manchuria for 10years and from 1941 to 1945 was commander of battalion 88 of the Special Brigade in the area of Khabarovsk,"

The document further identifies the Soviet Unions intentions to push Kim Il Sung into leadership in the Communist Party.

"KIM IL SUNG is a suitable candidate in a future Korean government.With the creation of a popular democratic front, KIM IL SUNG will be a suitable candidate to head it"

Translated document with original Russian included: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114890.pdf?v=b8c8f0085d94a16ce7dcf28e45b0a0b4 Secondary document: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114890

I feel this information is relevant in filling in the gaps in Kim Il Sungs life. I's appreciate if an experienced editor can use this source to improve the article. 2001:BB6:AE52:2A58:2C46:BB62:A6DF:F1A4 (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
seeks to introduce factual inaccuracies in the infobox. Here they are listed
 * 1) Kim Il-sung was never "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" (KIm JOng-il and Kim Jong-un have hold and do hold this office). He was "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea"
 * 2) Kim Il-sung was never "Chairma of the Workers' Party of Korea" but "Chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea"
 * 3) The Office of "Supreme Commander" was abolished on 27 December 1972 and the President of the Republic became Supreme Commander (similar to the US presidency). The American President is commander-in-chief as President—the commander-in-chief is not a separate office.
 * 4) Supreme Commander from 1972 onwards became a title, and not an office. --Ruling party (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to your claims of inaccuracies:
 * I had in the past tried to put "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea" and "Chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea" on the infobox, but were reverted due to Wikipedia standards.
 * The title of Supreme Commander appeared in the 1972 Constitution. Refer to the English translation of that constitution on this official English translation of Kim Il-sung's works here: https://www.bannedthought.net/Korea-DPRK/KimIlSung/KimIlSung-Works-27-OCR.pdf.
 * According to Unseen Laws: A Quantitative Approach to Developments in North Korea’s Legal System by Martin Weiser: http://www.baks.org.uk/wptest/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Unseen-Laws-A-Quantitative-Approach-to-Developments-in-North-Koreas-Legal-System.pdf, Kim Il-sung did issue orders as Supreme Commander after 1972.
 * I still stand by my reason that the infobox here, and the infoboxes on the other North Korean top leaders are not consistent with Wikipedia standards. --Migs005 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) North Korea is not like China and the USSR when the shortversion of the title has become a separate office. We cannot confuse the readers or the important name change won't become clear.
 * 2) The 1972 constitution reads "Article 93. The President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the supreme commander of all the armed forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Chairman of the National Defence Commission, and commands all the armed forces of the State."
 * 3) * THat is, Biden can issue orders as commander-in-chief as President of the United States. Kim Il-sung could issue orders as supreme commander as President of the DPRK.
 * 4) ** Also note that the constitution has written "supreme commander" in small case letters (its not an office) but it has written with big case letters for "Chairman of the National Defence Commission", which is clearly an office.
 * Note that "Convocation" is a thing that exists in the template infobox officeholder for a reason. It's true that not everybody uses it, but it is a field in the infobox for a reason. Today, all leading WPK-North Korean politicians have the convocation bare to denote in which term they served. --Ruling party (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)