Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 4

Opening comments
Attention anonymous user: You and I may think that Kim is a dictator and should be called one, but there is no point in altering the text to that effect, because it will always be reverted, and it is more important to save revert wars for matters of substance rather than symbolism. The text makes it clear enough that he is a dictator. Adam 04:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * For the record, I also think that Kim is a dictator and call him one whenever I'm not writing an encyclopedic entry. Given that WP doesn't have a standardized set of editorial policies, to avoid endless squabbling about when to use the term and when not to use it, we might as well just avoid the term in general. 172 05:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to create a policy about this. But for that matter, I couldn't agreem ore with what you two have said. Anyway, was protection really necessary here? Ambivalenthysteria 08:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was necessary to end a long and pointless revert war. Adam 09:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I know you might object to that table, but don't get mad at me :) - See: Naming conventions (Korean). WhisperToMe 21:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il is a dictator
what else would he be? do you think he is elected, or a king, or what? Sam [Spade] 01:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * King wouldn't be far off given that he inherited his position. Then again, so did George W. Bush:) AndyL 23:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * True--Gustuv 22:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Communist leaders with absolute power are generally refered to as dictators, democraticly elected leaders are generally refered to as president, or Prime minister. The benefits of nepotism are irrelevant, a king is a completely different role. Sam [Spade] 14:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are speaking for yourself, but encyclopedias refer to leaders by their formal and institutional titles. In the case of Kim Jong-il these are Chairman of the National Defense Committee and General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party. If you take a look at the entries on Kim in Encarta or Britannica, you'll see that their editorial policies are not based on the reasoning that you're expressing above. They do not refer to him as "dictator" in the introduction. 172 18:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Suprisingly enough, I find that convincing 172. I agree that offical titles aught be the default. Thank you for participating in the talk page here, its refreshingly beneficial. Sam [Spade] 15:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Communist leaders with absolute power are generally refered to as dictators"

By whom? Not by themselves or their followers but by their opponents. Dictator is a POV term and while I personally agree that Kim is a dictator I also recognise that this is a POV. "Dictator" is not a Communist description. You misunderstand the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" which means workers control over society (ie workers democracy or the populace dictating policy) rather than an individual dictatorship over society. AndyL 04:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dictator is certainly a POV term. I don't have many kind words for Kim either, but I cannot allow that sort of propaganda to go unchallenged. AndyL is right on every point. Shorne 08:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up a bit, though I've left behind some annoying inconsistencies in orthography that I may attend to some other time.

I removed the statement that Kim initiated North Korea's nuclear-weapons programme as a way to extort money from the US and Japan. There is no evidence of that. North Korea has perfectly good military reasons, too obvious to mention, for developing nuclear weapons. In any case, the same allegation (by Baby Bush) of nuclear blackmail appears later in the article.

There's a bit of a POV problem with the section on Kim's personal life. This article goes to the trouble of pointing out the possibility that favourable reports were "manufactured" while according "credibility" to defectors' tales of debauchery. It seems to me that a defector who sold his story for fame and money would have good reason to cook up a few tales that would sell well in the West, whereas the flattering comments of Albright, who certainly won't be a charter member of any Kim Jong-il fan club, were probably sincere. I have left this material unchanged for now, but I do think that it reflects a bit of a bias. Shorne 03:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess we know where your biases lay, with the "Baby Bush" comment, but that has little to do with the article (thank $DIETY). IMHO, the nuclear blackmail issue is pretty clear, from DPRK's own statements "give us fuel oil and aid and we will stop the development".  The DPRK has never needed nukes to stop an invasion from the South, it has never tried to defend against that.  The overriding strategy for NK has been to hold Seoul hostage-- the entire city is within simple artillery range.  In short, the DPRK doesn't really really need nukes (tactically).  However, since the DPRK has never acknowledged the blackmail scheme outright, let's leave it out of the article.


 * On the other topic of the "manufactured flattery"-- this was included as counterweight to the manufactured stories of debauchery. The reality is that both may be true, neither may be true, or some combination.  Albright's statements certainly smack of manufactured flattery, coming at a time when she was trying to assure the DPRK of their rightful stance in the world (which was their complaint in 1994 during the first blackmail session).  It would make sense that her statements towards Kim's personal smarts, virility, or good looks (whatever) were orchestrated to appeal to his ego-- Kim's ego and the state of DPRK are very closely aligned.  I would hope that we leave the statements in. Davejenk1ns 06:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I make no secret of where my biases lie with regards to Baby Bush. I do, however, strive to keep my biases out of articles on Wikipedia.


 * The DPRK's nuclear programme had been under way for years before that issue of oil and money came up. It is far from clear that the programme was started with the intention of offering to trade it in for money many years down the road. In any case, I left Bush's accusation of "nuclear blackmail" in place; I merely deleted the assertion that the programme was intended as blackmail, which is a matter of conjecture, not of fact.


 * I'm not saying that the defectors weren't telling the truth or that Meddlin' Albright was. I'm just expressing distaste at the apparent bias of the article: one set of dubious claims has "credibility", another set may have been "manufactured". Shorne 08:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia consistently refers to "military dictatorships" and such. Considering that power in North Korea is concentrated in Kim Jong-il's hands, I don't see what the problem is. You can still keep his official titles on there.

Dictator really isn't a POV term when it's true, and I've read plenty of entries in this encyclopedia where it's used. I mean, some people may refer to democratic leaders as having dictatorial tendencies ("Nazi" GWB comes to mind.) That's a matter of opinion. When someone officially has absolute authority, it's not. Supreme Moolah of Iran 08:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) 08:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Haven't we been over this enough times before? "Dictator" doesn't say much. It is not "true"; it is a loaded term with propaganda value. It would be hard to come up with a clear definition that everyone would accept. Besides, the word has been thrown about so much that it essentially means "bad guy". And that is POV.


 * I would need evidence that Kim's authority can be called absolute. That means no legislature, no courts, just one man calling all the shots. Too much of a stretch.


 * As for whether the military power is concentrated in his hands, that is also true of the president of the US, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. I'll bet big money that the page on Millard Fillmore doesn't say "ruled as dictator".


 * The way to say that someone is a dictator is to present the evidence in a neutral way. Merely asserting that he is a dictator just amounts to labelling him, and people have no clear reason to accept the label. Confronted with the data, they will assign the label themselves. Shorne 09:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I shouldn't've used military dictatorships as an example. I meant that general power is concentrated in his hands. In certain situations "dictator" is not an opinion, it's a fact.

You can dispute whether Kim is technically a dictator, I'm just saying that certain other individuals in this wikipedia are listed as dictators, and no one really disputes that they are. Supreme Moolah of Iran 05:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to dispute such listings. To me they have the air of propaganda and POV.


 * I would need to see evidence that Kim Jong-il is a dictator. I don't know enough about North Korea's government to be able to say. Nor am I convinced that having "general power &ldots; concentrated in his hands" is what makes a dictator. Technically the queen of England might qualify, by that standard, and we could say that Canada languishes under a British dictatorship. Shorne 08:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I would need to see evidence that Kim Jong-il is a dictator." Are you really this stupid, or just pretending to be so as to provoke a fight? Adam 08:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My words are clear enough. What is the factual basis for calling him a dictator? I doubt whether you can provide a useful definition that can be applied consistently without including a lot of other politicians that you or others would not consider to be dictators. Shorne 08:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A dictator is a person who rules a state autocratically and by force, without democratic or other legitimacy, and unrestrained by a constitution or other laws. Kim Jong-il fits this definition, as anyone with the slightest acquaintance of North Korea knows. The Queen reigns but she does not rule, let alone rule by force, and all her actions are governed by law. Adam 08:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Every person reaches their tolerance limit - i have reached mine with Hanpuk/Shorne. PMA 11:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that we have an english word to properly describe Kim Jong Il's role. Kim Jong Il's actions are restrained by a very elaborate system run by the ruling factions, which is now almost exclusively the military. North Korea's political system is based on Korea's form of neo-Confucianism in which there was a king, but rather then the dynamic or scheming ruler we think of in the west the was the "enlightened scholar" by birth and functioned primarily as a symbol of authority and an example of what a life of study would yeild. The king was constrained by an elaborate ideology and bureaucracy that influenced the king to the point of control or sometimes resorted to bribing him away from conflict with the bureaucracy. North Korea basically took the same system and designated the supreme leader as a perfect "revolutionary man" then worked to maintain him in that state.

Kim Jong Il does not get want he wants although it is difficult for anyone in the bureaucracy to say no to him in his presence. The failure of Sinuiju project is one example of how Kim Jong Il is kept from having his way under this system. Kim Jong Il wanted China's 2nd richest man, Yang Bin, to create a Hong Kong on north Korea's west coast, at Sinuiju. The military in north Korea did not like this at all, for ideological(would have given control over part of Korea to foreigners) and practical reasons(Sinuiju is the location of many military factories and the primary entry point for Chinese aid) but since Kim Jong Il considered Yang Bin as a son, the military had to go to their friends in the Chinese military to get Yang Bin broken and eventually jailed. That effectively ended the Shinuiju project. --Ctustison 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuri Kim
"Kim Jong-il was born as Yuri Kim" Kim Il-sung gave his son a Russian name and not a Korean one? This seems highly unlikely. What is the source for this? Adam 23:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's true. He was born in the Soviet Union. Shorne 23:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Soviets generally used Russian names in official papers (especially during Stalin), especially when converting from other writing systems, both for ideological reasons and for simplifying th pronounciation. For example after USSR annexed Bessarabia, a citizen by the name of Ion Mihai Tarcau would become Mikail Ivan Tarkov. So Yuri Kim isn't such a wierd name. --Xanthar 19:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation requested
User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birth place and date
Official biographies say that Kim Jong-il was born at Mt Paektu, in February 1942. Other sources not just claim that he was born outside Korea, but also that he was actually born in 1941. Why does this article mix these two claims? What are the sources for this version? Babelfisch November 8th, 2004
 * I wouldn't trust his "official" biography, 1941 sounds like a safer bet.--Fallout boy 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Kim and flying
It is widely known that Kim Jong-il has fears of flying. It is indeed true that all his official visits to Russia and China are done with a train, not a plane. Yet, other sources also claim Kim Jong-il was in the GDR back in late 1950s to be trained as a fighter pilot.

I think it would be wise to sort out that little part of Kim Jong-il. Any ideas or sources provided would be great. Sandmann

Kim Jong Il was seriously injured in a helicopter accident in 1976. See Kim Jong-Il's fear of flying 'caused by copter crash'

Quote: "His unexplained aversion to air travel, which led to his epic 24-day train journey to Russia in 2001, was revealed by Ingolf Kiesow, who served as Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang from 1979 to 1982, in an interview published in the Japanese weekly Shukan Gendai.

"I have met Kim Jong-Il up close several times. A close look exposed a scar from the top of the forehead to the pate," Mr Kiesow was quoted as saying.

"It was the scar of a serious injury, which he suffered when he boarded a helicopter and got involved in its crash inside North Korea toward the end of 1976," he said.

The interview was conducted in Stockholm by Japanese diplomatic writer Masayuki Koike, who claimed to be a long-time friend of Mr Kiesow." --Ctustison 17:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Move
Whoa, was anyone consulted about moving this page before it actually happened? Could someone justify why it was done? Wally 17:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Officially designated sucessor
When was Kim Jong-Il name the successor to the N Korean dynasty? This article states 1974 but (cough) britanica states it was Oct. 1980. Can anyone find out the correct answer? This is a google search I did to try and get a definative answer.

Google search

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Kim Jong-il
 * ''Kim Jong-il, political and military leader of North Korea, son of Kim Il-sung, is being worshiped in North Korea with devotion similar to cults of Saint Mary. Praise and words of adoration do not leave the North Korean newspapers, radio channels and TV broadcasts. Gigantic portraits are seen everywhere in the country.

It's POV to call it "worship". Everyking 21:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless it's worship. 64.7.89.54 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that he qualifies as a cult of personality, rather than a religious cult. Even so, "worship" may be the right word. Leader-worship in Communist countries has happened before, from what I gather. Anyway, I'm just dumping this material. I don't know who wrote it or why they compare him to Mary. The juxtaposition of Mary and Kim is incongruous. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed-Style of Formal Address
Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style Dear Leader to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.

Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for Pope Benedict XVI) but not for others (such as Kim Jong-il) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. Whig 04:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"Dear Leader" is not a formal title like "Pope" or "King" - it is an epithet habitually applied to him in the DPRK. His formal title is presumably "Chairman." In any case we do not begin articles with the formal title. Our article on George Bush does not begin "President George Walker Bush". Adam 06:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Dear Leader is not a title of office, but the Manual of Style (biographies) requires not only the positional title be used but that the style by which he is referred to be prefixed. For instance, His Holiness for a Pope, Her Majesty for a Queen, etc. Therefore use of Dear Leader is not optional unless you can support a claim that no substantial number of people address him that way. The North Korean people do so, according to the article text itself.


 * The article on George W. Bush has been changed to conform with policy as well.


 * Not for long. Adam 07:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the policy (or if you do), please participate in the survey to change (or uphold) it. Whig 07:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

So do we now have to begin all articles with "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever? This is absurd. Adam 07:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Just the formal styles that certain people hold by virtue of special position in political, religious or tribal office, or according to their titles of nobility, etc. Yes, I think it's absurd too, but that's just my POV, and the policy is the policy until and unless changed. Whig 07:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read the policy. "President" is not a formal style. It is an adjectival use of his title. His formal style, if he has one, is "Mr." As for Kim Jong-il, "Dear Leader" is also not a formal style, it is an epithet applied to him by the DPRK media. If he has a formal style in English, it is probably "Comrade." Adam 08:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * President is the Form of Address for George W. Bush. Dear Leader is the form of address used by the North Korean people for Kim Jong-il. Do not revert again, without discussing on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and I strongly advise you to look at the ongoing survey. Whig 08:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am removing "Dear Leader" as I do not believe it is a formal style or honorific (such as the Queen and the Pope hold) and as such the rules on styles and honorifics in the MoS do not apply to it. Whig has not as yet provided a source to support his contention that "Dear Leader" is such an honorific style used, say, in diplomatic correspondence. I therefore request that he cites his sources if he wishes the words to be reinserted, jguk 12:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct. "Dear Leader" is a propaganda slogan, not a formal style. It is the equivalent of Mao's "Great Helmsman" or Stalin's "Leader and Teacher of the Peoples." Whig says "Dear Leader is the form of address used by the North Korean people for Kim Jong-il." How does he know this? Has he been to the DPRK? Has he seen any North Koreans "address" Kim Jong-Il? I don't think so. The DPRK is a police state and all we see and hear from it is official propaganda. This is a silly policy, but even if it is the policy Whig is applying it incorrectly. This sort of fetishistic pedantry is one of the (many) things that drives sensible people away from contributing to Wikipedia. Adam 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * On the basis of this article it is claimed that the North Korean media have ceased to use his formal style of Dear Leader. Therefore we can leave it off for whatever official style is now used instead. In regard to Adam's point, all styles are propaganda slogans, whether His Holiness or Her Majesty or His Excellency or The Right Honourable etc., etc. ad nauseam. I think the argument that these styles can be used in a NPOV fashion only has weight if we accord them to those we respect and those we do not respect equally. Otherwise, we are taking a position of non-neutrality. Yes, I may dislike Kim Jong-il. But that is just POV, and if the article denies him style purely on the basis that you or I dislike him, but prefers style for the Pope, then we are violating NPOV. With that said, the reversion stands in this case because of the report that the old usage has been discontinued. Whig 08:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

But is is NOT A STYLE! How many times do I have to say this before you will address the point? It is merely a slogan used by the DPRK state media. IT IS NOT TITLE OR A FORMAL STYLE. Adam 08:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

And here is a record of diplomatic usage of Chairman Kim by the President of South Korea, Kim Dae-jung. On that basis, and answering jguk's insistance on a source citation, the formal style of Chairman should be prefixed to the biographical entry. Whig 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In that speech Kim Dae-jung refers to Kim Jong-il with reference to the latter's position of Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission. That's somewhat different from Kim Jong-il having the formal style. I think you need more sources for that one! jguk 12:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sample quote from the cited speech, "To this explanation of mine, Chairman Kim, to my surprise, had a very positive response. It was a bold switch from North Korea's long-standing demand, and a very significant move for peace on the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia." There are quite a few references of like kind there. The fact that he was initially identified by his positional office does not discount that the honorific was used repeatedly and consistently. Whig 19:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It does put it in context. Now, if every speech about Kim Jong-il used that term, and if it were used more generally, you would have a point - but I do not believe that this is the case here - it is a style used on occasion, but not generally. There are other "styles" that are also frequently used such as "Leader" or "Comrade", as well as many occasions when no "style" is used. I see no reason to prefer this one style over others, jguk 19:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk, the style His Holiness or The Right Honourable or whatever other styles you support prefix of, are not used always and in all places. No style for any leader is used at all times. You are inconsistent in your position, without any clear basis for exceptions, and this is the least NPOV way things can be done. Whig 04:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The obvious solution to this is to put no title or style at all before a person's name at the first reference. If they were awarded a title or style in later life that can be noted at the appropriate spot. If they were born with one that can be noted parenthetically after their birth date. We should all go to the appropriate page and argue for this position. In the meantime we should leave off this silly argument. I'm sure we all have better things to do. Adam 00:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style (biographies) states otherwise, and there are a sizeable number of people who favor the continuation of the present policy. There are however a sizeable number of people who oppose it, and the problem that results is that we are using prefixed styles selectively for those who have certain editors enforcing the policy, such as in the case of Pope Benedict XVI. An inconsistently applied rule expresses a non-neutral POV, purporting that this or that person is entitled to be given a prefixed style, but that others should not be accorded the same respect. Chairman is quite neutral, it is used diplomatically, and it expresses nothing more than that Kim Jong-il is the present leader of North Korea. His Holiness (in the case of the pope) does not have similar neutrality, affords the reader no understanding of the reason he is so called, and even implies that the usage is practically universal. Whig 04:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I add an additional citation to support the diplomatic usage of "Chairman Kim". Both President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan use this style.


 * You can find many more examples of this style (and of other styles being used too) with a google search. Part of the problem here is that it is non-standard. North Korea is not a country that is accustomed to using styles such as this, so we can't see how they will develop.


 * Compare the circumstance with Pope Benedict XVI. We know that Pope's are styled "His Holiness" and have detailed conclusive evidence that this is the style modern Popes enjoy until such a time after death as they are beatified. With Queen Elizabeth II, we know she will enjoy the style "Her Majesty" forever (unless something extreme happens such as her abdicating). There is plenty of precedent around. There is no such precedent here. Indeed, this terminology has only relatively recently begun to be referred to by KCNA, for example.


 * In time, it may be that the style "Chairman" becomes so widespread that it is inevitable that we should use it. However, I'm not sure we are there yet.


 * Finally, at present I would ask you to note that of the current participants in this discussion, two think the style "Chairman" should not be prefixed to this page. Until and unless this changes, may I ask you not to re-insert it? jguk 09:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reasonable-sounding tone belies the fact that you are claiming, in the face of multiple citations of diplomatic usage, a style guide which you yourself expressly changed to make clear that styles were non-optional, and your expressed preference that styles be kept mandatory for all biographical entries, that somehow, some way, Kim Jong-il ought to be denied his honorific (not even a style), because one editor objected and you want to play both sides of the fence while claiming to advocate a NPOV rule, and without offering a single contrary citation to support your contention that the honorific is improper. I maintain, the honorific is not improper. Whig 08:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The honorific styles discussed in the MoS (bio) are those which tend to last till at least death, and perhaps beyond (except in extreme circumstances). It's too early to say whether this is the case here. The examples you cite refer to Kim being the Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Committee. If he were to lose this role, he would presumably cease to be chairman and the style would cease. Compare what happens in a more familiar situation: President Bush may refer to "Prime Minister Blair" or "Prime Minister Howard". As soon as they cease to be prime ministers of the UK and Australia respectively - that epithet would no longer be appropriate, however they would still be "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" respectively. If you want to be helpful there are many undisputed cases where we could add styles. By omitting genuine styles in cases being strongly POV - in particular - look at all the Tongan royals and nobles - in Tonga these are considered important unless you wish to slur the individuals. Kind regards, jguk 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the real problem is here is that Whig fails to see the difference between the use of honorific styles and titles in constitutional states and the propaganda slogans of stalinist dictatorships. Kim Jong-il may the Dear Leader today, Chairman Kim tomorrow, the Great Red Sun In Our Hearts next week and the Enemy of the People Kim next month, all at the whim of the Communist Party in the DPRK. These slogans are not the same as titles like "the Right Honourable" which are awarded by due process of law according to agreed rules, and should not be treated as though they were. Adam 10:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with your point above is that Wikipedia is not supposed to take a POV on what is a "good" or "bad" form of government. You and I might personally detest Kim Jong-il, but he is a national leader, he is recognized diplomatically, and he is addressed as such by other heads of state as "Chairman Kim". You cannot very well expect North Korea to follow British or American law, and unless you have a reasonable basis that you can cite to say that Kim Jong-il either is not internationally recognized as the leader of North Korea, or that he is not diplomatically addressed as Chairman Kim, which would be to somehow disprove what I've already cited above, then the fact remains. He is entitled to the neutral honorific of "Chairman" irrespective of the economic and political system of North Korea. Could he be deposed tomorrow? Sure. Is it likely? If it happens, we can change the entry. In the meantime, put your bias away. Whig 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Whig, since you have stated elsewhere that you do not believe our article on Kim Jong-il should start with the prefix "Chairman" - stop adding it. Please read WP:POINT. Kind regards, jguk 12:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have stated no such thing. Unless you think I am arguing that the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not start with Pope or Queen Elizabeth II should not start with Queen or that the article on George W. Bush should not start with President. I have consistently stated that the neutral title of office, without formal style, is appropriate both as disambiguation and as important information the reader ought to have right up front to know the significance of the biographical entry. Whig 17:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is notable that User:Jguk keeps dishonestly citing WP:POINT as if it were policy. It is not.  WP:Point is currently "semi-policy", but after a current vote, it will probably be demoted from semi-; most certainly there will not be consensus to make it policy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:15, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Is "Dear Leader" an equivalent of "His Holiness" or "His Excellency"?okay, let's all just put it this way: when a foreign diplomat goes to the Pope, he addresses the Pope as "your Holiness". Now, suppose Kim Dae-jung goes up to Kim Jung-il, would he address the latter as "Dear Leader"? Voila, problem solved.
 * If Hu Jintao addresses Kim Jong-Il, would he address the latter as "Dear Leader"? Voila, problem less solved. If President Fidel Castro addresses the Pope, would he call the latter "Your Holiness"... nope, oops, not so solved. NPOV isn't just "how do the politicians we (the editors) like address other politicians." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

68.6.40.203's dispute of Dmcdevit's revert
On 09:11, 23 May 2005, Dmcdevit edited this page with the comment "(rv stealthily inserted anon personal attacks)". That's very odd, since there was nothing "stealthy" about how I added my comments, nor were they personal attacks. Here they are (now out of context): Whether someone is a dictator and how s/he came to power are orthogonal issues.
 * How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit?

It's sad that you find your own susceptibility to rational argumentation surprising.
 * How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit? It's a comment on expectations concerning reasoned discourse, but it's not an attack on anyone.

''Referring to "Baby Bush" tells us about Shorne's biases in re Kim Jong-il? That tells us a lot about your biases, methinks.''
 * How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit? It's an ironic observation of an apparent bit of hypocrisy.  If my comment is "personal attack", then surely the comment that I responded to was "personal attack" as well, and should also have been deleted -- if deleting talk from talk pages is what WP is about.

''"counterweight"? Encyclopedias are supposed to inform; they aren't platforms for this sort of POV crap. As the NPOV policy says, "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."''
 * How, in heaven's name, is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit? Perhaps you take calling something crap to be a "personal attack" on its author.  That would be a mistaken view (is that a "personal attack"?), but if it is in fact your view (is that a "personal attack"?), then you might have just removed the word you found offensive and left the substantive comment (and indeed it was substantive).

That "when it's true" argument can be made for all POV language, and it's bogus in every case.
 * How, Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"? Do you take saying that a general form of argument is bogus as a "personal attack" on the person who wrote the specific instance of the argument?  Treating such non-ad hominem rhetoric as I wrote as if it were ad hominem diminishes the distinction and debases the concept.

Calling people stupid both provokes fights and is contrary to WP policy.
 * How, dear Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"? It was in fact a comment on a blatant personal attack, but you saw fit to leave that personal attack in place on this page; just search for "stupid".

''Intolerance for disagreement? If that manifests itself as your going away, that's good for WP.''
 * How, my good Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"? Note, once again, that it was in response to a substance-free smear of someone else, yet you leave that person's comment in place.  People have thanked me for my efforts in improving WP articles and urged me to spend more of my valuable time doing so, but encounters with folks who delete material even from talk pages for no good reason, as well as the various other immature behavior seen on WP in the form of revert wars, grossly POV edits, and so on discourage me from doing so.  Do you take that comment to be a "personal attack", Dmcvedit?  At best, one might consider these comments out of place on this page, but then a responsible and mature person would move it somewhere else -- like, say, Dmcdevit's talk page. 68.6.40.203 01:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the funny thing: I went to your talk page to find the people who have "thanked" you and boy was I surprised to see who I was really dealing with (sorry I hadn't memorized your IP numbers). I know your history of this sort of thing. From the day I welcomed you (that's right), and you responded by calling me "fuckface" it's been quite obvious that you deal only in personal attacks. Your condescension is both unwarranted and offensive. And I find it hard to see how saying "It's sad that you find your own susceptibility to rational argumentation surprising" isn't a personal attack. It wouldn't have been reverted if that discussion hadn't been half a year old. So that's why it was "stealthily inserted" as your comments served no purpose for the discussion and attacked editors who had no doubt long since stopped watching the page. Please try to make more constructive edits in the future. --Dmcdevit 01:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are a liar; I did not call you "fuckface" -- that was a comment to Pioneer-12, who called me "a jerk". Your comments here, which are false, libelous, and ill-considered, are in no way "constructive", Mr. 18-year-old hypocrite.
 * And on sadness, it's unfortunate that you find it hard to see how my expressing my disappointment is not a personal attack. Someone characterized his changing his mind as a result of a cogent argument as "surprising" -- but in a civilized world, that would be the norm, certainly not surprising.  So I found it sad that anyone would find it surprising -- especially that they would be surprised by their own rational response to a cogent argument.  I believe you saw it as a personal attack because you are being uncharitable, as with your reading of my calling you "fuckface", which never happened.  What I did do was express my distaste for your vapid backslapping.  I'm an adult and I don't need a welcoming committee from some self-inflated 18-year-old, especially from one who goes on to make wild overgeneralizations about my "history" or what I "only" deal in.  But hey, go ahead and get into a spitting war with me; you're the one with the registered name, the reputation, the WP experience, with something to lose.  Me, I'm just an IP address, but with a real life outside WP.
 * Haha. I have a life outside WP, too :). For anyone interested, you could just check my talk page for the record this anon left, and see that everything he said is untrue. In any case this discussion has gotten out of hand and is inappropriate for this talk page. --Dmcdevit 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You claim that it's untrue that my "fuckface" comment was directed at Pioneer-12 after s/he called me "a jerk"? With such dishonesty, your life, wherever you lead it, isn't worth much.  And if this discussion is inappropriate here, then one might wonder why you chose to continue it -- other than being steeped in hypocrisy. 68.6.40.203 10:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removed text
''Like his father, Kim Jong Il is the center of a very extensive personality cult within North Korean society in which Kim is constantly praised and honored as a tremendous hero and great statesman. As a result, many facts regarding his early life are conflicting, with "official" state reports claiming one thing and independent sources often claiming another.
 * An editor removed this text, with the edit summary "Removed "personality cult" weasel language". I don't see the weasel language here. Please point it out. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

"ruler"
What the hell is wrong with it? J. Parker Stone 06:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure. On the other hand, what is wrong with "leader"?  I don't understand where either of them implies any judgment on the legitimacy of his power.  A leader is someone who leads, legitimately or illegimately; likewise, a ruler is someone who rules.  Seems like either designation could reasonably be applied to Kim Jong-il.  Although perhaps "head of government" would be more neutral.


 * ...Since this has proven so problematic, however, maybe the best thing is to rewrite the introductory paragraph so that it does not need to include either designation. Why not just say he is the Chairman of the NK National Defense Committee, etc. etc.?  -- Visviva 07:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That Kim "rules" the DPRK is a statement of fact. That he "leads" it is a matter of opinion which has never been put to the test of a free election. He is not the DPRK's head of state (that is Kim Yong Nam), nor its head of government (that is Pak Pong Ju). His formal state position is Chairman of the National Defense Commission, which hardly conveys the reality of his absolute personal power. "Ruler" is the only term which is both accurate and NPOV. Adam 07:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be interesting to note that Kim Il-sung says "ruler", Stalin says "ruler", Pol Pot says "leader", Engelbert Dollfuss actually says "dictator", Fidel Castro says he leads Cuba, Francisco Franco says "dictator", Benito Mussolini says he 'led Italy", Josip Broz Tito says "leader," and on and on. I'm not saying that all of these people are necessarily perfectly analogous to Kim Jong-il, but I find the discrepancies unsettling. Perhaps this needs a wider policy discussion to see where the consensus lies. --Dmcdevit·t 07:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other article inconsistencies, I have to agree with Adam here, and i found Everyking's initial rv summary that acted like "ruler" was some ultra-POV term a little odd. J. Parker Stone 07:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is of course no chance of consensus on issues like this while Wikipedia allows itself to be infected with communist POV-pushers like Ruy Lopez, who is probably responsible for whatever fictions appear at Pol Pot (I will get round to fixing that one soon). I don't in any case think there can be a "one title fits all" solution. One could make a reasonable case that Castro, who actually led a revolution, is a genuine national leader despite his also being a dictator. During World War II Stalin was a genuine national leader. But the Kim family were put in power by the Soviet army and have never had any legitimacy as national leaders, which is why they resort to this bizarre personality cult to prop up their rule. Adam 08:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed that anyone on Wikipedia is so knowledgeable about North Korean public opinion. :-) But I guess that's beside the point... There are two basic things I don't understand in this discussion:
 * 1.What is POV about "ruler"?
 * 2.What is POV about "leader"?
 * I can't find a single dictionary that suggests that "leader" carries any hint of legitimacy. So regardless of who started this revert war, aren't we simply arguing over which of two synonyms to use?  Why should any of us care?-- Visviva 09:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's tough to be knowledgeable about North Korean public opinion when the North Korean government won't let you. anyhow, we aren't going by strict dictionary def. here, and there are clear differences in how the "synonyms" "leader" and "ruler" are used. J. Parker Stone 09:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A "leader" is one whom others voluntarily follow. It does not necessarily follow that a dictator cannot be a leader, as I noted above. I would have to concede, for example, that Hitler was a genuine leader. But in the case of the Kims, they are merely a dynasty of petty thugs installed by the Soviets and now holding power solely by tyranny and brainwashing through their bizarre cult. "Ruler" is therefore the only NPOV term. Adam 10:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

lead·er n.
 * 1) One that leads or guides.
 * 2) One who is in charge or in command of others.
 * 3) One who heads a political party or organization.
 * 4) One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.

None of the dictionary definitions of the word "leader," in its senses relating to political power, have any implication of "voluntarily follow," Adam. Basically, you're just making things up in order to justify your imperialist edits. Other articles describing figures in positions of power like Kim use "leader," not "ruler." Despite your hatred of this leader, do not force your politics into the semantics of the intro. Cognition 22:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Carr, and not with Cognition. Leader has too many positive connotations for this chap, SqueakBox 22:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should put down your pipe and open a dictionary. Cognition 23:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You heard the man, all you dopehead DPRK haters. --TJive 23:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What pipe is that? I am not a plumber, and I certainly am not a tobacco smoker (11 years tobacco free now, maybe I should start an association), SqueakBox 23:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This issue has come up again. I hope Appleby reads this section, SqueakBox 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

please stop the wholesale reverts, look at the actual changes i'm making. i'm a reasonable person. the whole ruler/leader regime/gov't thing comes down to, for me, what words do we use for the top figures of other countries? isn't that how to ensure there's no bias? Appleby 01:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Apopleby has now reverted 11 times, and been reported at 3rr. He either couldn't be bothered to read the 3RR link I left on his talk page, or he is deliberately floutiong the rules. can someone please revert, as otherwise we are supporting the power of flouting the rules, SqueakBox 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Pejorative Parlance of the Neoconservative Attack on DPRK and its Chairman
I do not accept neoconservative attack structure paradigm on the Chairman. He is a leader. A ruler is a pejorative. One might like or not like him or accept his inspiring leadership, this is an individual decision that ought not be imposed by a rightist dialectic.

Dr Carr's definition is unhelpful in my submission because it ignores the fact that in the "democratic" polity there is no voluntary following of leaders.

If I reject the leadership of George W Bush and took action to remove him from office or overthrow that system, I would face treason charges, as I would in the DPRK. It is a common attribute of statehood to protect itself. Ideally we could do away with this. This is what the Juche idea is all about, if one takes time to embrace it.

I am concerned that one can characterise the leadership of a sovereign nation as a "dynasty of petty thugs...holding power solely by tyranny and brainwashing through the bizarre cult." These unfortunate words could equally be ascribed to the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush "dynasty" if one were to indulge in such beligerence.

Rather, the Wikipedia project aspires to NPOV and even in figures reviled by Americans and neoconservatives, I believe it is important to acknowledge the need is even greater in such cases to ensure neutrality. We are not here to judge Kim Jong-il, he is elected through proper, lawful processes in DPRK and you can have your views but he is the internationally recognized leader by over one hundred nations. I do not say he should define his own title, even though we extend this indulgence to President George W Bush, but can we call him a leader when he is a leader. After the forces of US imperialism invade and install Halliburton as the ruler of Korea then we can accept the word ruler but only then. It might be Dick Cheney's sole chance at leadership, in this case we might say leadership with profit share and dividends.

I hope this puts things in their proper perspective. Thecunninglinguists 10:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, he's as pedantic as Ruy Lopez, and yet the style seems different, though the ideology remains the same. *scratches nonexistent beard* J. Parker Stone 10:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I know not of Ruy Lopez, but welcome all to the barricades. Thecunninglinguists 10:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've decided you're just a joke account really, though this site does seem to attract some "interesting" kids. J. Parker Stone 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, more than one person could hold this view. Everyking 10:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What're you talking about? J. Parker Stone 10:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

''I hope this puts things in their proper perspective.

Indeed it does. --TJive 10:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My humor ought not detract from the grandiose seriousness of my message. Thecunninglinguists 13:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Grandiose? Everyking 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article is the victim of self-abuse. Thecunninglinguists 13:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

chinese
if he got most of his education in the prc, his chinese must be pretty good eh?

revert
I saw a strange edit summary by User:NWOG and checked the edit. I didn't like the removal of content and rewording, so I reverted. Discuss as necessary. Sam Spade 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

title
i'd really really like to know what's wrong with "effective head of state" or "highest post." those are from the article body itself, do not have any positive or negative connotations. there's more than one accurate & appropriate way to describe things. if you change something, shouldn't there be a reason, to correct or improve? what are you reverters correcting or improving? you can offer new suggested wording, but it's already obvious "leader" & "ruler" are contentious because of their connotations. it's not obvious to me why "effective head of state" & "highest post" are being reverted. don't revert to the same, already controversial, word, suggest a new one. Appleby 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * encyclopedia britannica uses "leader": Kim Jong Il: Son of Kim Il-sung. He was designated his father's successor in 1980 and became North Korea's de facto leader on his father's death in 1994.
 * encarta uses "leader": Kim Jong Il, born in 1942, leader of North Korea (1994- ).
 * columbia encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for kim jong-il, but returns kim il-sung, who is described as the "leader": North Korean political leader, chief of state of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1948–94)

there's a reason professional, respected reference works do not use "ruler". because of the rampant childish ideological revert wars, i offered some compromises, even though it's clear "leader" is the proper term. please, work out your ideological obsessions elsewhere, not at wikipedia. Appleby 20:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with ruler? I have no ideological obsessions, but leader makes him out to be something he is not, SqueakBox 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

i think you know why, which is why you revert to it no matter what alternatives are offered, which is the same reason encyclopedias don't use it. you may have a problem with "leader," but if it's good enough for encyclopedia britannica, encarta, & columbia encyclopedia, the reverters have to come up with a better reason than personal anti-pc crusade. Appleby 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I could live with his father being described as a leader, but the fact that Kim inherited power from his father, more than the lack of democratic scrutiny, weighs heavily with me. In that sense I don't have a problem with the current version but I am worried it is original research, No original research. Can you please source the claim that he is effectively the head of state, because from what 172 says he isn't the actual head of state, and remembering that in my country at least (UK) the head of state doesn't hold any real power, so really it is not satisfactory at present, SqueakBox 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

squeakbox, the version we're talking about is "highest post," not "effective head of state," which is another version previously rejected by the "ruler"-obsessed (nominal head of state is someone else, hence the added "effective"; just google). i don't understand what possible problem you could have with "highest post" which is what his position actually is, as defined by north korean body that defines his position.

i've cited you two of the most widely regarded, reputable, authoritative sources that use "leader" for kim jong-il. what objective, even-more-widely-respected sources are you consulting to object to it? Appleby 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

i am arguing, & believe i've shown, that "leader" is the appropriate term. i am waiting a reasonable time for your citation of different wording, & we will discuss which sources are more credible & reputable. in the mean while, i offer "highest post" as a compromise, as i cannot see how it could possibly be objectionable. but if there are no countervailing sources, & we don't reach some other agreement, i will do what i can to make sure "leader" is used. Appleby 21:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Compare Google, Just because other rival encyclopedia's (often outdated) say sdomething does not mean we have to. Search for him with leader anmd we get dear leaderfollowed by Kim il-Sung, whereas we get some nice sources for ruler, SqueakBox 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

uh, squeakbox, you might want to reconsider your last comment. you mispelled the subject of our discussion. with the correct spelling, ruler returns 96,600 hits; leader returns 1,370,000 hits. & which of my sources are outdated? Appleby 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well having done it correctly it appears that encyclopedia britannica comes up for ruler (contradicting your earlier encyclopedia sources) ansd that leader is what he is called in North Korea. I would call him leader if I were in North Korea. He is a ruler who ios a self styled leader is my conclusion, SqueakBox 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

um, you might want to reconsider that last comment too. . so you're consulting yourself, to contradict encyclopedia britannica & encarta? what was that about original research? Appleby 22:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither ruler nor leader is original research, obviously. We could throw sources back and forth all night with sources and resolve nothing, SqueakBox 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

except you haven't thrown any sources back, so "leader" is the only sourced option, so far. Appleby 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) besides google hits & top 3 encyclopedias,you can also add to the "leader" column: nytimes, bbc, & cnn. Appleby 00:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

since nobody's cited any sources for any other introductory description, & since we can assume from instant reverts that the people interested have already seen this discussion, & since "leader" is more concise & consistent with other encyclopedias as well as other articles in wikipedia, i am changing it back to "leader." Appleby 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced by your other encyclopedia sources. We anyway have abundant sources for both rulwer and leader as you well know, and this is not the way to resolve the argument, SqueakBox 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

what is the way to resolve the argument? revert wars by fetishists who refuse to discuss the issue? where are the "abundant" sources for "ruler," & how authoritative are they compared to the top 3 encyclopedias, nytimes, bbc, cnn, & google results combined? i'm all for discussing the relative merits of cited sources, but you're just citing yourself (& other reverters are not citing anything). that's not a discussion & that's not how wikipedia works.Appleby 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is quite a good one, and here is another from no less an authoritative body than the Washington Post. There are an abundance of sources as you well know, and as I said before this is not the way to resolve the issue, SqueakBox 23:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

squeakbox, you've got some ballz, i give you that much. comparing "kbs world radio" with britannica, encarta, columbia, nyt, bbc, cnn, & google results. & please, haven't you learned to be a little more careful before you type? washington post used "leader" 752 times, & "ruler" 131 times. the one you linked was about the japanese chef selling a tell-all book. & please, what is the way to resolve the issue? Appleby 00:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure any of your sources are more reliable than mine. An encyclopedia based on other encyclopedia's and the press probably won't give that much accuracy anyway. I think the way tio resolve the issue is to use neuther ruler nor leader, SqueakBox 00:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure you're sane. please read wikipedia verifiability & no original research pages for examples of what are reliable sources. & if i were you, i'd stop before embarassing myself further, but hey, it's wikipedia. bring it on.Appleby 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Engaging in personal attacks is not recommended here, so don't repeat. It appears your arguments have run out of steam and you are only left with personal invective. Do you think the other people who revert you are also insane? do you think you are in any position to judge? it appears from your latest comment that you are no longer willing to debate the issue, SqueakBox 00:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

did you notice nobody else is reverting me since this discussion? i'm was questioning your sources ... you were citing only yourself for your position. read your own comments, you cite only your conviction, your conclusion, your thoughts. i'm questioning your sources. please read wiki policies. Appleby 00:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually you were questioning my sanity while completely ignoring my sources. Why do I need to read wiki policies to resolve that, though we could start withj No personal attacks. You claim my sources are no good but not why you think they are no good. in many sources he is the ruler, SqueakBox 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

did you read my comments? i showed you why washingtonpost was not a source for "ruler" because they overwhelmingly use "leader". & if you read wikipedia policy, they give examples of well known media as authoritative sources, of which i gave you three of the best known, most reputable, & you gave me kbs world radio.Appleby 00:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I pointed out, and do so again, that the encyclopedia here use the word ruler. None of your arguments so far have provided a reason for not saying ruler, and nor, might I add, have you, SqueakBox 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

this entire discussion is about the reason for not using ruler: because the most authoritative, reputable sources overwhelmingly use "leader." your sources that use "ruler," i'm sure you can admit, are objectively overwhelmed, in number & quality, by sources that use "leader," even counting britannica, which apparently uses both. that is the reason i'm using "leader." so what is your reason for using "ruler" instead of the word used most by encyclopedias & international media? Appleby 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not agree with you about leader being overwhelmingly used. Anyway trying to win an argument on the basis of the alleged number of sources is not in the wiki policy you keep directing me to, and would be completely impossible to enforce, SqueakBox 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

you keep saying what's NOT the way to resolve this. what then is? i thought the overwhelming number & reputation of my sources (you have kbs world radio & britannica (which uses both)), i don't need to repeat all my sources again. what do you think is the way to resolve this? Appleby 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is not a competition, and doesn't really help in a case like this where both are used a lot, ie I could come up with hundreds if I put the time but there is no point to such a wasteful expenditure of energy because we already know both are used by outside sources. I suggest we try to reframe the opening without using leader or ruler if you will not abide ruler though I am still not sure why you objetc to ruler whereas several arguments disliking ruler have found there way onto this page. I agreew ith 172 about high office, it is confusing and I won't use it again, SqueakBox 01:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

if most sources ("leader" is favored 14:1 according to google, a method you suggested) use one word, the burden is on the reverters to explain why something else is better. "highest post" is from the article, & it is how kim's post is officially defined. nobody said "all the highest posts" which is the reason 172 gave. Appleby 01:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 14-1 is a fantasy figure and you won't get anywhere claiming you don't have to explain why you don't like ruler but we do have to explain our reasons. How is that debate? aA far as I am concerned you leaders are the reverters not we rulers-where did you get that idea from? as this argument predatres your involvement in wikipedia, SqueakBox 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

it may be my fantasy, but mine fortunately corresponds with reality: 1,370,000 for leader divided by 96,600 for ruler is 14.18219. so again, that's my reason for using "leader": it is overwhelmingly used by authoritative publications as well as in general usage indexed by google. & if 14:1 isn't "overwhelming" we can just use 14:1 from now on. remember this is the method you suggested first. the burden is on ones claiming the exceptional position. what's your reason for insisting on a 14:1 minority usage? Appleby 01:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

see &  for "highest post". you guys just keep making stuff up without even googling. Appleby 02:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tampering with text
Leave my comments alone! SqueakBox 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave the text alone Appleby instead of manipulating it to serve your purposes. It merely invalidates what you are doing, SqueakBox 06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i didn't mess with your comments, except to move them out of the area i designated for "arguments for ruler" Appleby 06:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC) please use this current space for discussion, & use the space below designated for "summary of arguments" for actual arguments summary. thank you for your courtesy. Appleby 06:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * please use the "summary of reasons" section i created for, um, summary of reasons. i didn't alter the content of your comments, just moved them out of the space i clearly designated for another purpose. thanks for your courtesy. Appleby 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well please don't. I was commenting on the sections you created which IMO do nothing to attempt to resolve this argument, and the comments were meant to be where they are as fair comment, SqueakBox 06:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * please have the minimum courtesy to not interfere with an attempt to organize a vote. nobody's stopping you from making any comment you want, but that space was created for "summary of reasons" to facilitate a vote. you are free, as i made clear, to add or change reasons, but engaging it a meta-discussion right in the summary section defeats the purpose of the summary section. please, i would think it's a minimum etiquette. don't get so excited about clearing out a space i created for a specific purpose. it's quite acceptable to reorganize or summarize the discussion page, as long as the content of messages are not changed (e.g. Refactoring talk pages)Appleby 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need some consensus on whether to have a vote or not, and you certainly don't have that. By creating an an/or situation you are precludiong compromise, so I think the best thing is to ignore the vote and strive to reach a compromise. What you did, dumping my comment where it has no meaning, is not acceptable. Where did you pull that one from? SqueakBox 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * it may not be acceptable to you, but it is acceptable to wikipedia. i moved it to where our discussion was occurring, and indicated that it was referring to "below." relax, & be courteous. why are you afraid of a vote? Appleby 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i ask you, once again, to move meta-comments out of the summary section. if you don't do it, i will reorganize the section i created to serve its stated purpose. please feel free to add or edit actual argument summaries, as you feel is reasonable & fair. Appleby 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i made some organizational changes per Refactoring talk pagesAppleby 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Appleby must stop changing or moving other people's comments, and he must stop now. Whaty he is doing is not acceptable and is totally distorting this debate, SqueakBox 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * then why are you tampering with my comments? please do read when i refer you to wikipedia policy, such as the refactoring policy i guided you to. see, how on-going editing for readability, without altering the content of the comments, is encouraged? i knew you could read english as well as i can. Appleby 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * you're of course free to try to change wikipedia policy on refactoring, but i didn't violate existing policy. Appleby 16:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't tampered with your comments. You are in violation of 3RR and you keep removing or moving my comments in clear violation of policy (how dare you think you can alter the context of my comments). Stop quoting policy at others while thinking you can ignore it yourself or I will be forced to take action about your various unacceptable behaviours, SqueakBox 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

continued discussion on leader/ruler
i'll wait another reasonable period to hear authority that overrides the citations i've given so far, because so far, "leader" is the authoritative & common preference. or we can arrange for a vote if you want. really, "highest post" is ok with me, but it is wordier & inconsistent with other wikipedia articles, & apparently it's not good enough for some people obsessed with the 14:1 minority "ruler." note this discussion & call for citations began oct 19. Appleby 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually you would have to go through the million+ entries to ensure that they were each one relevant or not. How do you intend incorporating your 14:1 statistic into the text? and without breaking the original research policy. You really are not furthering this debate by throwing Google statistics around as if they were sacred truth when all Google actually shows is that both are used. I don't either believe 172 makes his stuff up, indeed I trust his word on this one. We don't want an encyclopedia made up based on rudimentary readings of Google stats. That is not wikipeduia pilicy or the way things are done here. Why don't you like ruler? If you could answer this question maybe we could move further forward, SqueakBox 03:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

i never said it was sacred truth, you're the one who first threw google results around, in fact the same google search i'm mentioning (albeit with a typo). why would you think 14:1 would be in the article text??? 172 said he's reverting because "Kim does not hold all the highest 'official posts' in North Korea. His dead father "the eternal president" is still the head of state." in fact, the text he reverted did not say "all the highest official posts" or even "official posts." it was an accurate text i sourced to encarta & cnn. and in fact, the nominal head of state is Kim Yong Nam. not that the text he reverted even said "head of state." so he made up both the reason for the revert & "the kim il sung is head of state" comment. you said 14-1 "is a fantasy figure." in fact, the ratio as demonstrated is 14-1. need more examples? i could go on, but you can review the above discussion. & how many times do i have to give you the reason for preferring "leader" over "ruler"? because it is overwhelmingly preferred by authoritative publications and in common usage. now what's your reason for reverting to a 14:1 minority? Appleby 04:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't make up article based on bots doing algorythmic searches. Your using Google stats is original research. We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that both terms are used, so I say it again we cannot resolve the debate in this way. now iot would be great if you could give a reason for why you don't want it to be ruler. Sourcing the word leader and Kim is not a reason, SqueakBox 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

nobody proposed that we "make up article based on bots doing algorythmic searches." you're putting up another straw man argument. i'm using the same google search you proposed first. nobody disputed that "both terms are used," (another straw man); the question is which one is more appropriate & how we decide it. i prefer "leader" because that is the term used by the most reputable publications, as well as the most commonly used description. what don't you understand about my answer? you can ask me a thousand times, i will answer a thousand times. you still haven't answered why you want to use a term avoided by an overwhelming majority of reputable publications (or responded to my demonstration of your & 172's false statements.) Appleby 06:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

please continue discussion here, before the "proposed vote" section. the space after the summaries is for the actual vote & comments from voters. thank you. this page refactored by Appleby 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A leader leads; causes people to follow them through their leadership skills. Adolf Hitler, as reprehensible and vile as he was, was a leader. A ruler, on the other hand, has power because of a certain power structure (in Kim Jong-il's case, the state apparatus he has inherited from his father). The difference has nothing to do with POV connotations, but rather the English definitions of two words. --Bletch 17:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

proposed vote on "leader"/"ruler"
i think this has gone on long enough that a vote would help calm things down. i have attempted to discuss this, but only squeakbox has participated, & we're just talking past each other. 172 has reverted without explanation here or with edit comments that don't actually reflect the edit made. from their silence, albeit for a short period, other previous "ruler" advocates may have been swayed with my citations, or just got sick of the argument. but since squeakbox at least is insistent on reverting despite my attempt to explain the authority for "leader," we need some objective guidance.

this would be the first wikipedia vote that i'm proposing, & would actually prefer someone else take the lead. but i will begin the process. again, it does feel a little silly, because everyone else seems to have left the discussion for one reason or another, but squeakbox & i remain intractable. if others can convince squeakbox to stand down, or at least explain himself better, it seems we wouldn't need this vote. anyway, according to the wikipedia policy, we need to discuss these:


 * What questions should be asked?
 * the issue is what wording to use in the introductory description of the article, the brief identifying term in the first sentence.


 * What will the possible answers be?
 * it seems natural that the vote be between "leader" & "ruler"; maybe it should include "highest post," although it's not entirely satisfactory to either side.


 * Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
 * for simplicity's sake, we might try the "approval voting" method; people can indicate as many of the choices as they feel acceptable. so we would list "leader" "ruler" "highest post" etc, & one would vote under each heading, approve/disapprove.


 * When is the deadline?
 * would 2 weeks be enough?


 * How will the survey be totalled?
 * should be easy with approval voting, just count the approvals for each proposal

obviously not many people are gonna read the lengthy dispute. i already have the summary of the reasons for "leader"; others are welcome to add their proposed word & arguments below.
 * Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.

summary of reasons for "leader"

 * google (squeakbox formulation)
 * leader: 1,370,000    ruler: 96,600  (raw numbers as of 19 oct 2005. now slightly different, but ratio still about 14:1 for "leader")


 * encyclopedia britannica
 * both leader and ruler


 * encarta
 * leader


 * encyclopedia.com (columbia encyclopedia)
 * north korea: Kim jong il "took over leadership"
 * kim il sung: kim jong il "took over leadership" from kim il sung, who was "leader"


 * infoplease.com (random house unabridged dictionary)
 * leader


 * bbc news
 * leader


 * cnn
 * leader: 674   ruler: 51
 * north korea country facts: Kim Jong Il "has led North Korea" after Kim Il Sung, who was a "leader".


 * nytimes
 * leader: 806     ruler: 39


 * washingtonpost
 * leader: 696   ruler: 111
 * None of the reasons is a reason, SqueakBox 05:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

summary of reasons for "ruler" (please feel free to improve)

 * Google results. (withdrawn)
 * encyclopedia britannica
 * both leader and ruler


 * KBS World Radio
 * both leader & ruler


 * one article from washingtonpost.com
 * washingtonpost uses "leader" over "ruler" by ratio of roughly 7:1


 * He was not democratically elected, he inherited power from his father and he rules with a high degree of militarisation in North Korea, all making him very much a ruler.


 * I have removed my name from as I don't see any reasons here either, SqueakBox 05:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

for readability, please continue discussion above, before the "proposed vote" section.

Some reasons for ruler
He was not democratically elected, he inherited power from his father and he rules with a high degree of militarisation in North Korea, all making him very much a ruler. Atre you claiming he is not the ruler of North Korea, SqueakBox 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

what do not being democratically elected, inheriting power, & militarization have to do with the word "ruler"? can we have some sources in this discussion?Appleby 06:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, isn't that basic English, these make ruler a better term than leader, SqueakBox 06:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

why? Appleby 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Is English your first language? SqueakBox 15:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

feel free to respond substantively whenever you feel capable. Appleby 16:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

These words democratically elected, inheriting power, & militarisation are all inherently connected to the word ruler. if you are a native English speaker you will know this already. If you aren't, trust me as an English person that these words democratically elected, inheriting power, & militarisation are connected to the word ruler more than the word leader is, which I presume is actually why you oppose the word ruler because you don't want Kim associated with such ideas, ie I assume you are a supporter, SqueakBox 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * C'mon. I'm an English speaker and the difference between "leader" and "ruler" is hardly one subject to the points you are associating with ruler. The only obvious connotation, which seems to be the one you are attempting to make, is that by using "ruler" you want to imply dictator and by "leader" you want to avoid any sense of "popular with his subjects." The guy is obviously a dictator. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. Democratically elected&mdash;hardly. But it is not worth quibling about calling him a ruler or a leader.  He is both; and also a dictator. I think Adam (below) is pretty close to right, although quite frankly you could use both terms in the article and be close to correct.  Kim Il obviously thinks and acts like he is a leader; and the failure of North Korea as a country can be laid directly at the leader's feet. Not worth arguing about - Marshman 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Jumping in here with an uninvolved opinion: I discovered that Reuters refers to him as a 'leader' who 'rules', and other Reuters articles (on CNN and elsewhere) consistently refer to him as 'leader'. So I believe this sets a precedent for calling him 'leader'. - Brian Kendig 03:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)