Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 2

Supreme Commander of Armed Forces
NK state newspaper has designated Kim Jong-un as Supreme Commander of the KPA, should we change the article to reflect this? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2011/12/20111224531680670.html48Lugur (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes.  Maxim (talk)  16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It makes a lot of sense for Kim Jong-un to succeed Kim Jong-il today. The North Korean government is particularly fond of round numbers and here, he succeeds his father after exactly 20 years.  Maxim (talk)  16:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we sure about that? I agree about the importance of numbers and dates in the North Korean regime, but it could simply be an honorific term given to Kim Jong-un for the 20th anniversary of his father's supreme-commandership, indicating the continuity of the Kim dynasty, rather than an official appointment, that would require an official decree from the Supreme People's Assembly or other power organs. Moreover, according to the 2008 DPRK Constitution, the Chairman of the National Defence Commission is the Supreme Commander, though this provision could be departed from just as Kim Il-sung did when he first appointed Kim Jong-il supreme commander.--FedeloKomma (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to be at least de-facto supreme commander, as he has given orders that were fulfilled (e.g. ), when his office at the time apparently didn't have de-jure authority to do so. I've been fairly careful before in terms of adding titles or claims of succession, but at this point, I think it's valid to update this article, and others related to it, to call him Supreme Commander.  Maxim (talk)  17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree he is at least de facto supreme commander, mainly because he is the first-ranking vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission in a moment when both the commission chairman and the actual supreme commander are absent. My only doubt concerned the actual date of his appointment: the infobox indicates 24 December, but we may have to change it if the DPRK power organs officially appoint him supreme commander and/or NDC chairman in another occasion.--FedeloKomma (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * December 26 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/new-north-korean-leader-ascends-to-party-leadership.html?_r=2&hp) confirmes that Kim Jong-un was only "urged" to accept the title of Supreme Commander, not actually appointed.--FedeloKomma (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how the system works there. The mouthpiece "urges" Kim to accept the position, and so he is "co-opted" by the "will of the people". Out of all the titles he has been claimed to have, this one he seems to definitely have, both de-facto and de-jure, with no comment as to if he's a figurehead.  Maxim (talk)  21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

General Secretary
I think it's too hasty to indicate Kim Jong-un as General Secretary. He has been declared to be "leader" of the Central Committee, a position that do not require the holder being the General Secretary (Kim Jong-il himself ruled the WPK from 1994 to 1997 before assuming that title). Therefore, I suggest to delete last revisions declaring Kim Jong-un the WPK General Secretary. --FedeloKomma (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a statement in the article, " According to the Party Rules, the head of the Central Military Commission doubles as the party's general secretary." to which I've added a [citation needed] tag. Other editors might want to do something stronger, but as a practical matter I think it's very unlikely that it isn't essentially true even if not entirely formally true. On the other hand, there are questions about power sharing with his uncle, so I'll leave that for others to think through. Selery (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYT seems to be the only one to be reporting that; it is at odds with both the mouthpiece and tradition. I felt sufficient doubt to remove all of the recent titles, except Supreme Military Commander, and Chairman.  Maxim (talk)  21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this his twitter page?
I can't add it, so I wonder whether someone can examine and add it for me. Let us know. Thanks. --99.154.106.170 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is quite obviously a parody. :-/ Selery (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Switzerland years
There are plenty of news stories easily searchable about Kim Jong-un's studies in Switzerland and his classmates' characterizations. I'm not familiar with BLP standards, but many of them seem to be from reasonably reliable secondary news sources. E.g. this al-Jezeera video,, and. Given that these sources include reports from personal friends and all seem to corroborate each other, what do people feel about including some more detail? If so, which details are best to include? Selery (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any more detail is needed, because the article my be skewed towards his early life too much. At any rate, no one of the sources you have are reliable. Al-Jazeera has considerable bias problems; the Daily Mirror is a tabloid; the Daily Mail doesn't check their facts.  Maxim (talk)  21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you read that al-Jazeera has bias problems? Selery (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Titles
What titles/offices can we definitely include in the article? I see a list of three right now:
 * Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission&mdash;no brainer.
 * Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army&mdash;backed up by sources; appointment coincides with what would have been Kim Jong-il's 20th anniversary in the role.
 * Supreme Leader of North Korea&mdash;regardless of whether it's de-facto, de-jure, or a figurehead role, it seems that he's been named that both externally and internally (cf. Kim Yong-nam's speech) so it would make sense to include it. The only question is when we say it started; the article present says 28 December; however, I think that it might make sense to put it to December 17 as per the precedent for Kim Jong-il in 1994.

As for the other positions, I'm confident that he has not been formally appointed to them (e.g. General Secretary or Chairman of the CMC).  Maxim (talk)  16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it say in the Kim Jong-un article that he's been General Secretary since 17th December? Why is the WPK article still vacant? The Madras (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So far DPRK media just declared that Kim Jong-un has been "at the helm of the Korean revolution", supreme leader of the party, state and army since December 17. It was also said that he is acting as head of the Military Commission and he is in charge of the overall Central Committee. This however doesn't make him the General Secretary: Kim Jong-il himself was regarded as the party leader from 1994 to 1997 without being the General Secretary, but only in virtue of his status as "supreme leader". This also has some "legal" value: the General Secretary is the party's top leader and the Military Commission chairman; if the General Secretary is absent, and there is no deputy-general secretary, it is natural for the CMC vice-chairman to be the interim top-ranking leader.--FedeloKomma (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate?
Is there any reason that the article has been changed to reflect only 1983 as Jong-un's birthday, all the sources that I see show that it is not sure if it is 1983 or 1984. I do not know how or if I can roll back the individual edits that have been made by user:Koreanj03, possibly done that way to make it more difficult to fix, but perhaps not?--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens in Names
North Koreans do not use hyphens in their names. That is a recent South Korean trend. None of the names of North Koreans on this page should be hyphenated. The Romanization should be as a North Korean would Romanize, and the hyphen should be omitted a a North Korean would omit. The habitual presentation of North Korean names in the South Korean format is rather amateurish and certainly not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hyphenating Korean names seems to be the "house style", regardless of whether the subject is from the North or the South. The best place to ask this question would actually be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean).  Maxim (talk)  20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question, it's an observation of the sloppy and inaccurate nature of Wikipedia. "House style" is great -- except it is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Images please.
Why are free images on the new leader so hard to come by? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dynasty or Monarchy...
Would it be fair to refer to the Kim family as a dynasty now? Would it technically be considered a monarchy based on the family succession? --   Alyas Grey   : talk 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like original research. as its called around here. RashersTierney (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many sources refer to to the family's control as a "dynasty". I can post some cites if you like.   Will Beback    talk    01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was really only addressing the latter part. RashersTierney (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of sources refer to it as a "Marxist Monarchy", but they aren't as strong as they "dynasty" references.   Will Beback    talk    01:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in form it appears to be little different than a monarchy. However, I doubt the country considers itself a monarchy or a dynasty, still shrouding itself in Marxist overtones that have long since been abandoned in reality. It would be NPOV to explicitly state that they are definitively a monarchy, even if their own belief that they are not is, quite honestly, delusional. However, I think it would be OK to point out one of the references you claim to hold that states that it's a "dynasty" or "Marxist monarchy", and say that this individual or organization has pointed out that the country has many similarities to such a system of government.65.0.96.147 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture
Hello, I am sorry if I am posting in the wrong section but there is a free picture of Kim, from Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries of N. Korea. You can find it on their reddit page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.252.203 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, not Kim Jong Un. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.235.240 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What, still no picture? Is it just me or is a picture for the most important man in N-Korea a must for this article? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we can't use a non-free image, as it falls afoul of our fair-use criteria, and no one has created a free image yet.  Maxim (talk)  16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There must be some free image out there. There is one for his father, too. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No wonder Wikipedia has been losing editors for years. Strict bureaucratic rules and an emphasis on policing over contribution. It would be nice if there was a rule saying that nobody could remove a piece of a fair use media unless they personally can find a free one to replace it, rather than just saying "it must exist somewhere". Not that it will ever happen. I'm probably breaking some WP:POLICY just by typing this out. Esn (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia losing editors? --88.83.35.117 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Esn; you're always welcome to post. As to your proposal, you are welcome to propose a change to the WP:NFCC policy at WT:NFC. Your proposal would require such a chance, as currently WP:NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). Policies have been changed in the past, in fact rather frequently.
 * @88.83.35.117: Wikipedia has been losing editors for years now, yes. Attributing the loss to any one specific reason is misplaced judgment. There are a dizzying array of factors at work. For example, after you're written nearly 4 million articles it becomes harder for people to find new things to write about. Interest in editing wanes. That's just one potential factor. What is unequivocally clear though is that Wikipedia has been for years and remains a top ten web destination. See for yourself. It is also unequivocal fact that the recent fund raising campaign for Wikimedia raised a record amount of money. Success of a project isn't defined solely by how many people edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found a picture of Kim Jong-un on the Korean Central News Agency website but I'm not sure if I should upload it or not. I saw a copyright notice on the bottom of the site but I'm not sure that counts for the picture too. What should I do? Geofal204 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link please? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The link is http://www.kcna.kp/goHome.do?lang=eng then you go to Kim Jong-Il's Activities tab, then on the right click on "Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un Are Always Together in Songun Revolutionary Leadership" article, then click on the camera.Geofal204 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you may consider that free of copyright, or free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Military Theory
In every picture I've recently seen of Kim-Jong-Un, (Excepting his inaugural portrait), I've noticed he has been grasped quite tightly by at least one military official. After further research, I've discovered an online theory that he is merely a figurehead for the military. I think a theory like this should merit at least one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.203.14 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable secondary sources for this theory? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Death
Can someone at to the lead that he died today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.211.137 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) But Gawker says he is dead: gawker.com/5884033/ So it must be true. What reason they have to lie? 194.86.153.167 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that he isn't dead, no. We don't post rumors here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Gawker says there's a rumor that he's dead. We don't post rumors here.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is aReuters article that discusses it. I think it deserves some mention, even if unconfirmed. This is highly significant, considering he is a world leader.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- give this a few hours at least. We need at least some kind of response from a credible source (like a North Korean official -- yeah, I know).  Whether or not it is significant depends on it being true or not as a precondition; saying it is significant implicitly assumes its true.  Remember people come to Wikipedia expecting to find high quality information, not be a tabloid. Qed (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree agree about getting confirmation from a (yeah) credible source. Don't let's hold our breaths. If memory serves, Kin Jong-Il had been dead for two days before the fact was announced. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012
On February 10, 2012, rumors spread across popular Chinese social media platform Weibo speculated that Kim Jong-un was assassinated.

Glenathon (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Twitter account that spread death rumors has been closed, rumor is a fake
The Twitter account is closed and the death rumors have been refuted. We can safely put this nonsense to rest. Safiel (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To add, and before anyone has to ask, false death rumours on social networks isn't noteworthy information to include in an article about any celebrity or politician. Thank god for that. 80.202.90.249 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on how big the rumor gets or if there is any fallout it might be worth putting in the article.
 * Well now hang on. Closing a twitter account is not proof that the story is false, or true or anything.  We need reliable sources no matter which way this gets resolved.  Qed (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No confirmation either way that I can find, other than that there is a rumour in China. A rumour isn't fit for en.WP, unless the rumour itself becomes notable (which this one may, or may not). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As an update, ABC (the US broadcast network) has blogged, "US officials" are saying the rumour is untrue. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kim Jong-un assasination rumous sparked by Beijing embassy birthday party (National Post, Canada). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see how any of this (rumour) is of encyclopedic value to this article, it's value is sensationalism at the moment, yet does not add to or take from the subject treated here. It's value might have place in an article about rumours and/or effects of rumours.--UnQuébécois (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically there are no sources confirming he's alive or dead? Schrödinger's cat would be proud! :D CodeCat (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If he were dead, there would be a major power struggle happening and by now there would be obvious external signs. At this point, I am going to go with "almost certainly false".  Qed (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, if Kim Jong Un were REALLY dead it would be ALL OVER the news media CNN, MSNBC etc and not to mention a power struggle and perhaps even a military coup  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.81.38 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Confirmed. He's far too animated to be dead. :) Qed (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012
There is a typo at the end of the third paragraph of the "Early Life" section.

"taken at an unkown location" should be "taken at an unknown location"

Sitongpeng (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  Maxim (talk)  18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un’s statements

 * Message of greetings to the President of the Syrian Arab Republic
 * Message of thanks. To all the service personnel and people who deeply mourned the death of the great leader Kim Jong Il. In: “Pyongyang Times,” Saturday, March 31, Juche 101 (2012), pp. 1–2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.237.224 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a really notable event. If you've ever read KCNA, various delegates send "messages of thanks/support/reverence/whatever" to Kim Jong-il all the time when he was alive. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 09:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012
In april 2012, new documents of the Swiss federal archive proved that two north Korean boys lived in Switzerland since november 1991 or at least november 1992.

The document: https://rapidshare.com/files/4190819919/Kim_Jong-Un_in_Switzerland_1991.pdf

The article explaining it: http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/kim-jongun-reste-neuf-ans-suisse/story/20273993

Unpakpak (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect
It is believed that the student at the Gümligen “International School” was not Kim Jong-un but his elder brother Kim Jong-chol. It is not known whether the student known as Pak-un in “Liebefeld Steinhölzli” lived in Switzerland prior to 1998.[31]

This blurb is not supported by the indicated source and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philovitist (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dates and titles
I think we should revise some dates and titles in the article. He should be regarded as supreme leader starting from Kim Jong Il's death on 17 December 2011, just like Kim Jong Il was considered leader just after Kim Il Sung's death ("Standing in the van of the Korean revolution at present is Kim Jong Un, great successor to the revolutionary cause of Juche and outstanding leader of our party, army and people.", KCNA, 19 December 2011). His acting chairmanship of the CMC also should start from 17 December. I'm not so sure he should be considered as acting General Secretary since he has never been publicly regarded as such.--FedeloKomma (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Name convention: Kim Jong-un or Kim Jong Un?
North Korean convention would write 김정은 [his name] as "Kim Jong Un" not "Kim Jong-un". A quick check of North Korea's official state media outlet, the KCNA, shows all instances of his name as Kim Jong Un. Writing "Kim Jong-un" fits neither the McCune-Reischauer (Kim Chŏngŭn) nor Revised Romanization system (Gim Jeong(-)eun). Separating the "Jong" from the "Un" with a hyphen and not capitalizing the "Un" is South Korean convention.

The same can be said for Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung. Is the convention with names not to follow with how the person makes themselves known within their own culture? Indigoloki (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally we follow whatever the WP:COMMONNAME is in English (yes, English, not native) sources. It's the same reason we have an article at Lee Jae-Dong, but not Yi Je-dong or I Che-tong. In other words, whatever gives the most hits from English-language sources out of Kim Jong Un and Kim Jong-un should be the title. Article title naming is based on what the common usage is in English, and not what established conventions exist; otherwise Chiang Kai-shek would exist at Jiang Jieshi, and Szechuan cuisine would be at Sichuan cuisine, as Hanyu Pinyin is the de jure and de facto standard for Chinese romanization. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 23:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point, I do, but the entire country refers to him as that in their English language publications and I just feel slightly uneasy at the prospect of using nothing but search results to determine which convention we follow. When North Korea has little or no influence on the internet, then of course sources originating from South Korea (where the convention started) are going to dominate English language discourse. In the case of "pinyin" I can accept that "Jiang Jieshi" is inappropriate for "Chiang Kai-shek" but do Chinese academics writing in English honestly use pinyin to render his name? Wouldn't they follow the English convention too? My point is that South Korea dictated this particular convention and following it just seems potentially insensitive and I'm not sure we can apply the same rules to what is such a unique situation. Indigoloki (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to spell the name in the same way as North Korean official sources do it, how about typography? Nodong Sinmun uses boldface in Korean (김 정 은) but not in English or Chinese. On the other hand, Chosŏn Chungang T'ongsin does follow the North Korean convention in the English version of the site by writing " Kim Jong Un " in English (Korean: " 김정은 "). Using a different font for the names Kim Il-sŏng, Kim Chŏng-il and Kim Chŏng-un looks like a WP:NPOV violation (only supporters of the North Korean government would write it that way), but maybe this is what you are requesting when you are asking that the article should follow the North Korean naming convention? --Stefan2 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, the size of the font has got nothing to do with it. For starters, not all English-language publications from North Korea render his name in a larger typeface. Many English-only books just stick to a uniform size throughout. That's a question of etiquette (call it what you will), not romanisation or spelling. If that was the case then we might as well always refer to him as "Comrade Kim Jong Un"! So, no, please don't misunderstand my argument as some kind of misguided propagandising. What I was requesting is quite simple. His name is romanised as Kim Jong Un in North Korea and Kim Jong-un in South Korea. Following Southern convention just doesn't feel impartial on a sensitive article. The only reason many refer to him using South Korean convention is that South Korean sources have dominated English rhetoric on it since he first started to gather interest from the outside. Perhaps it would be advisable to at least include "Kim Jong Un" in the article introduction where it says "also romanised as Kim Jong-eun or Kim Jung-eun". Surely not doing so would also be a WP:NPOV violation?Indigoloki (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, why do articles in North Korea refer to "Chosongul" and not "Hangul". Isn't this the case for exactly the same reasons I suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigoloki (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

His politics? his goverance?
This article say NOTHING, about anything. it cites n.k propaganda by reiterating all his title. is there anything known about his poltiics? what actions did he take since his crowning? anythin..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.14.230 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if his state was a bit more open; then we'd know a little bit more about him, wouldn't you agree? Why are you asking us to do something about it, when it's not our fault? We only write what's written in the reliable and verifiable sources available. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Solution to Free Use rationale and all
Hi, instead of all this arguing about free use rationale, why doesn't one of you just go to North Korea, and take a picture, and publish it here? --UnQuébécois (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Foundation would like to provide me with the air ticket and press accreditation, I'd be quite happy to do it ;-) Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be easier than having to listen to all the bickering going on about fair use and all above!--UnQuébécois (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps an artistic editor could take a look at a few photos, get a good idea of how Kim looks, then paint a portrait. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's been discussed (not on Jong-un, but others) and dismissed, in part there may be issues with derivative works. --M ASEM (t) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Speculative"
Regarding the edits from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: "Speculative" describes most of what's in the article about KJU. Given the secrecy around him and the DPRK generally, I'm not sure that one can pick and choose which speculative bits we include, especially when reputably sources. The edits will be restores shortly. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could just enforce WP:BLP. Speculation about an article subject's love life is typically an egregious violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * *INCLUDE I challenge Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to point on specifically where that is noted, without resorting to generalities to try to stifle discussion. Not to even mention that in this case the leader of DPRK appearing with a companion at all is material in that it may shift a change in footing, as the sources note. I assume Hullaballoo Wolfowitz didn't bother to read them before mounting this UNDUE commentary.T. trichiura Infect me 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. The sources used to support these claims contain nothing that is confirmed. Yes, that includes the supposed claim from unspecified South Korea intelligence sources. Whether any of this is true or not is immaterial or not. We must be able to verify it. At this time, there is no confirmation of anything about her. @Trichuris; there's no need to attack Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Accusing him of trying to stifle conversation and not reading sources is false and does nothing to further the discussion except to add heat. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case I am certain you will do your part to keep it off the article! T. trichiura Infect me 14:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a Quick Question
I was watching this whole debate about free-use photos a couple of weeks ago, and just now I read through the whole RFC. Image copyrights aren't exactly my specialty, as the things I upload to Commons are all in the public domain, and I have a simple question...If all photographs and videos released by North Korean state media are in the public domain, then why can't a picture of Kim simply be screencapped from a released propaganda video or something? There are definitely plenty of them. Rockhead126 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Except they're not. The only government-produced works from NK that are in the public domain are documents relating to the processes of the government, not to any document or the like produced by the government as is the case in the US. Thus this is not an option. --M ASEM  (t) 04:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see...I never read the PD-North Korea tag, and some of the things people said here gave me the impression that all government media is in the public domain; you can see why I was confused. That would make things much easier, wouldn't it! Rockhead126 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, if only! Of course, if the North Korean government ever makes veneration of his image a legal requirement, as they did with his father and grandfather, then the arguments others have made above for it being in the public domain may gain some more traction, though I suspect even then there will be a lot of debate here over its status as public domain.  Snow (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the government required all citizens to have a portrait of the man hung in their homes, that wouldn't put it in the PD. A not-as-extreme example in the US: most of our national and state-level building codes that are required by law to be followed are pay-for documents; they are certainly not in the PD despite their legal requirement. --M ASEM (t) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are a grey area at the least; in most cases you can reference them, quote them and reproduce their content for any contextual discussion at length without running afoul of intellectual property laws. The state may at times reserve to the right to restrict full reproductions, including online-archiving, but yes, all laws in the U.S. are in the public domain, down to municipal codes.   Even if they weren't, that would still be a bit of a non-sequitur since requiring adherence to a legal principle as a condition to embarking on some enterprise is not the same as mandating something as a legally required activity in its own right.   Regardless, in the theoretical case proposed above, I was not endorsing either position but rather observing narrowly that, in the event that the North Korean government required such veneration of an image, that the argument for it being a state document would gain some traction, not that it would be instantly affirmed.   But to be fair, I don't think that your argument that this absolutely would not put the photo in the public domain is any more concrete than the argument that it absolutely would.   All of this being said, the main point of my comments above was that, seeing as such veneration is not at present required for Kim Jong-Un, it's really a non-productive exercise to debate the point at present. :) Snow (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image of Kim Jong-un are not acceptable
Our policy on non-free images includes point #1, that non-free images can not be used when free content could be created that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. Further to this, the Wikimedia Foundation has dictated in its Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" (and EDP is an exemption doctrine policy. In en.wikipedia's case, this is WP:NFCC). There is zero dispute that Kim Jong-un is alive. We do make exceptions from time to time to allow non-free images when a person is imprisoned for life, on the run from the law, or a noted (by secondary sources) recluse. Kim Jong-un is none of those things. Simply because obtaining free licensed imagery of him is hard does not make it acceptable to include non-free images either. As the leader of a nation, he is and will continue to be one of the most photographed people in the world. That free imagery does not exist now is not an excuse either. We have plenty of free and free license images of his father. We have and the answer now is the same as it was then; no non-free images to depict him. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only images of his father come from the Russian president's office during state visits. Given that Kim Jong-un has yet to visit that country, and may never do so before he is deposed or dies, this is not a persuasive argument that free imagery is inevitable. The agencies of North Korea itself obviously don't issue free images, and they aren't going to respond to emails asking for a pic to be re-licensed just for Wikipedia, so that's not reasonable either. As for commercial news agencies, they're never going to give away for free what they would presumably work hard to obtain in the circumstances (and the same goes for any freelancer, they aren't going to cut off their livelihood by giving away for free what they charge those same agencies for), so that's not reasonable either. So that just leaves the man in the street, the poor bastard who must presumably risk his own personal safety by firstly trying to get a shot of the Supreme Leader, and then getting it out of the country, either by courier or via the internet. Obviously not reasonable. Not one of these scenarios falls into the objector's description of "hard", they range from the extremely difficult to the impossible, by any reasonable analysis. Hard is buying equipment, or gaining access to private property, or having to wait for a particular event for days on end. Hard is not arranging state visits, or changing a country's policies on free images, or persuading the Wall Street Times they're not in the money making business, or indeed risking personal safety. It's not sustainable to claim there is a "reasonably expectation" of an upload coming from one of these sources, and so this is definitely one of those cases for which the exceptions to NFCC/EDP were meant to allow. Krolar62 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the point. How do you know Kim Jong-un will never make a visit to Russia? You don't. That's the point behind WP:NFCC #1. You can speculate all you want that a free image of him will never be made. The reality is he is alive, and it is possible for that to happen. He's a leader of a country. Pump in "Kim Jong-un" into Google images, and you get in excess of 11 million hits. It must be incredibly difficult to photograph him, no? If you want to carve out an exception for living leaders of countries into NFCC, please make a case for that at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I say it was difficult for anyone to simply take a picture of him? No, I don't believe I did. I said it was not reasonable to expect a free image will be forthcoming given where those photos come from and what licenses they use and why. The fact that nobody has found a free image in the 11 million you say already exist already proves what I have said about that, does it not? And did I say he would never visit Russia? No, I don't believe I did. I said it was not reasonable to use the fact that his father did, as an argument that free images of his son are inevitable. It is, and will remain, a possibility, one that is small enough to be considered a reasonable exception for the purposes of NFCC#1. And did I say I wanted to carve out an exception for living leaders of countries into NFCC? No, I don't believe I did. My case is for an exception for this leader due to these specific circumstances, so this seems as good a place as any to discuss it. We can go elsewhere if you like, but that won't change the fact that this is about Kim Jong-un alone. Krolar62 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that Kim Jong-un is alive? Do you think he is in prison? Do you think he is on the run from the law? Do you think he is a noted recluse? If you want an exception to policy to carve out the special case you are describing, then post your proposal at WT:NFC. Otherwise, there is no exception for the case you are describing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the opening questions, which surely must have been rhetorical, I'll only do that if you show this is what happened for the other so called special cases. This issue affects this page, and this page only. There's no reason why it needs to be discussed elsewhere that I can see or that you've actually shown. If you can't defend your claim that a non-free image here is "not acceptable" beyond the idea that he's alive, he's a world leader, and he might go to Russia, then kindly vacate it, and let other people improve this article in line with the EDP with a perfectly valid non-free image justified on a proper assessment of what is and is not reasonable in the specific circumstances. If you want to invite others to help you defend it, then for the avoidance of confusion, bring them here, as apparently all the prior discussion that exists on the issue has occurred here not there, according to your own link. Krolar62 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have defended my claim, and done so perfectly in line with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation policy. You don't accept it. That's fine, you don't have to. That doesn't mean you get to force a non-free image onto the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I trying to "force" an image into the article? No, I am not. I am here, attempting to have a discussion about whether policy allows it, so kindly stop using such rhetoric as a replacement for that discussion. You've tried to defend your claim, but you've pretty rapidly stopped doing so in favour of this attempt to move the discussion. Given the thinness of your argument and your other evasive behaviour, which now seems to have moved on from just ignoring my points and/or inventing ones I never made so you can respond to those instead, into overt patronisation, then I of course don't accept it. I don't know why anyone else would accept it either, if they were considering the normal English language meanings of the words "could" and "reasonable" in the policies. You've asked me to propose the exception, yet you refuse to show that this was done for the others, and now you've avoided that request too. Is this Foundation policy? I don't think so. If you do not want to discuss it further, then your opinions can safely be ignored by anyone who wants to improve this article, per Foundation policy, with an acceptable use of a non-free image. Krolar62 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Our NFC policy does not accept the arguement that just because there is no free image and may take time, expense, and patience, we don't use non-free in its place, period. Kim Jong-un is a public figure and thus per the Foundation we expect free imagery can be taken of him. Ergo a non-free image is impermissible by NFC and the Foundation. That said, if you can find a non-free image owned by press agencies that are willing per WP:CONSENT to give it free image right for WP, then that's great. But it cannot be non-free, period. This is not debatable. --M ASEM  (t) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, like Hammesoft, you seem to want to attribute arguments to me that I never made, just so you can answer them in the negatory. Did I ever argue that a non-free image here is justified simply because it would take time, expense, and patience to get a free one? No, I don't believe I did. For the record, more time, expense, and patience is not sufficient to overcome the obstacles to free images of this person emerging that I described. As for your claim that a non-free image of any public person is simply "impermissible by NFC and the Foundation", well you seem to be putting words in their/its mouth. As per Hammersoft's original post, the wording of the EDP is "almost all portraits of living notable individuals". In the NFC policy, the phrase is again, "almost all". There is a reasonable case to be made that the circumstances are such that the Supreme Leader falls outside of the category of "almost all" public figures. Therefore your bold claim that it's simply "not debatable" will not stand without you providing an actual link which unambiguously states this with no such qualifications. I don't quite understand why you linked to WP:CONSENT. Given the context I initially thought it might be advice or previous examples of news outlets acceding to requests from Wikipedia to relicense their images, but it is nothing of the sort, it's simply an instruction manual for how to properly identify releases should they ever agree, which is extremely unlikely for all the reasons already given and not addressed by either of you. Krolar62 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, you all seem to be missing a few points:
 * It is possible to travel to Korea. There are plenty of specialised travel agencies which can help you. Major politicians tend to attend events such as Arirang Ch'ukche and military parades. If the trip is arranged so that it includes one of those events, maybe you can get a photo of him, since he's probably there somewhere.
 * Korea has freedom of panorama, so you can take a photo of anything you see in P'yŏngyang. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How much of this is just speculation though? I would imagine the activities of foreign tourists is tightly controlled. Are they even allowed to take pictures? Completely freely? How close would they be allowed to get to the Supreme Leader in reality? And how likely is it that they would be allowed to attend military parades with telephoto lenses and such like? And murals are all well and good, but they're obviously not accurate depictions of the person are they? I can't imagine North Korean mural painters are allowed to paint him warts and all, so to speak. Krolar62 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has obviously no problem with photos of murals and the like as you can see in the article about his grandfather, so that is no issue. I don't know how easy it is for an individual to take a photo of Kim Chŏng-ŭn, but then again, how easy is it for an individual to take a photo of the leader (president/prime minister/chidoja/whatever) of a country elsewhere in the world? Most leaders tend to hide behind locked doors and it tends to be difficult to get a picture of those people too. I don't know exactly how much a tourist is allowed to do in Korea, but there is also a very high possibility that he will visit Russia at some point, so we will probably be able to get something licensed as kremlin.ru in addition to anything obtained from FOP provisions in Korea. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia certainly should have a problem with official portraits if the goal is to show what the person actually looks like. I don't think your claim that leaders hide behind closed doors stands up to any scrutiny, the Wikimeda Commons has countless images of other world leaders on free licenses, although given they almost always come from official channels, you're quite correct to say that it's not easy for private individuals to take photos of leaders - but that is hardly supports the idea that it's going to happen for the Supreme Leader. And I would not describe the prospects of a visit to Russia as high at all, his father only went 3 times during his 18 year rule, and that was in the context of thawing relations. If anything, relations have got worse since Kim Jong-un came to power. Krolar62 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned, either a photographer is willing and able to license an image under a free license, or they don't exist. Given how difficult and potentially dangerous it would be for a contributor to Wikipedia to take a picture of him, under this definition Kim Jong-un can be considered a recluse. According to the dictionary, a recluse is "a person who lives in seclusion or apart from society." Since the only part of "society" that is in contact with him is either North Koreans (probably have never heard of Wikipedia) and journalists (won't release under a free license), he does live in seclusion from the part of society that matters to us. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Who cares what North Korea thinks anyway? If there is no way to get the photo, just take it. Besides, we have many copyrighted photos here, they're just smaller than normal, so you cant get a large copy for free, can't we just use that logic? People come to his page to see what he looks like, I know I've done that many times, just to know who he is, you really don't have any excuse for using a photo that is impossible to get. and once again this is North Korea, who cares?? I mean seriously, stop being so stuck up. DISCLAIMER: I support copyright policies on Wikipedia, but this one strikes me as just stupid, I mean come on. Bluefist  talk 03:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And this explains why we don't have (in fact we do) free imagery of his father and his father before him. He isn't recluse. He's the leader of a nation, who makes frequent public appearances. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does explain it. It's not a coincidence that the only images we have of his father came from visits to Russia, the only country out of tiny few the North Korean leader would ever be welcome that publishes it's state produced photos on free licenses. And he only visited Russia 3 times in 17 years, in the context of thawing relations, so it's not a persuasive case for the inevitability of free imagery emerging should his son ever be welcome there. And as far as I can see on his article, the only free photo of his grandfather is by virtue of copyright expiry of a book published in 1946, so that's not even relevant to this case. There are many very good reasons why his many public appearances as a leader will never be released under a free license, and they remain unanswered by you above. You should address these directly and in detail, otherwise people should feel free to ignore your continued opposition. Krolar62 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, go ahead and ignore it. I offered it in good faith, attempting to explain the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Didn't work. Ok. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt you offered it in good faith, I never said you didn't. But just because you offered it, doesn't make it true. What might have made it true is if you could have responded to the points I made. You've not done so, you've even continued not to do so even with this last post, so I've no doubt people can definitely feel free to ignore you should you continue to oppose use of a non-free image in this article. For the avoidance of doubt, if you re-enter the debate at a later date, or choose to actively stop someone from uploading an image, all the above queries will still stand. Krolar62 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, but you don't feel that way. For the avoidance of doubt, please feel free to upload a non-free image of him. When it's deleted via WP:FFD, it will close the matter once and for all....and single purpose accounts won't carry weight in such a debate. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I know how I feel, and I don't think I could have been clearer than I have already that I feel perfectly free to upload an image, so your comment was totally superfluous. I'm confused by your "once and for all" comment, since you previously claimed that this issue had already been settled conclusively in your favour. I did ask you to show me where, but you ignored that, and my analysis of the outcome of the single previous debate you did link to. As for single purpose accounts, well you've got to start somewhere. Anyone who wants to play it that way at FFD or anywhere else is welcome to try. I'm more inclined to heed the advice in the box at the top of that page, and I couldn't find anything below it that matched your prediction anyway. I was drawn instead to the line, "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless". So that's good to know, thanks for the link. Krolar62 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, you mean that this has not been settled at WP:FFD? Given the rather long discussions on this matter, taking an image to WP:FFD is probably what we should do so that we get a definite decision on the matter and can end the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't, because it's so blatantly obvious a case no one has bothered. A number of images have been speedy deleted already as replaceable fair use, and quite a bit more have been deleted as blatant copyright violations. But, if putting the blatantly obvious to FFD helps shut down this sort of round-and-round-the-mulberry-bush stuff, it's cool. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you got a list of the deleting administrator(s)? The numbers alone completely contradict your description of this as being blatantly obvious; based on just the one past discussion you linked to above, and this one, in addition to me there's also King of Hearts, Will Beback, SaltyBoatr, Vale of Glamorgan and Krawunsel, who all disagree with you; and that's not even counting all the uploaders themselves if they're not one and the same. If we ever see any of these other previous discussions you've claimed exist, I'm sure their numbers would be similar too. The only people I've seen side with you was Mercurywoodrose in that last debate, and Masem and Stefan2 in here. Mercurywoodrose was the person who suggested that it's reasonable to just email the Supreme Leader and ask him to upload a pic. Masem made one comment but has never returned to address why his bold assertion of what the Foundation expects/policy demands contains a basic error of fact, not even to clarify that he would deny he's made such an error. Stefan2 to his credit has made the best attempt at explaining his position out of the three of you, but I have my doubts over his arguments given the speculation they rest on. Krolar62 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft: This is apparently a disputed issue. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been long discussions on this talk page. If something is disputed, I typically try to take the matter to FFD in order to end the dispute even if I think that the outcome is obvious. If we have a discussion on the matter at FFD, we would hopefully have no further long discussions on this talk page, and so all of us could spend more time on other matters instead.
 * Krolar62: Files tagged with "DI" tags, such as di-replaceable fair use, di-no fair use rationale, di-disputed fair use rationale and di-fails NFCC, typically seem to be deleted by User:Explicit, and in the past they were typically deleted by User:Fastily. I would guess that both of those two users have deleted photos of Kim Chŏng-ŭn. I don't know whether any images have been deleted for any other reason. Images from image agencies (such as Getty Images) or press agencies (such as the Associated Press) would normally be assumed to fail WP:NFCC and may thus be deleted immediately. I'm not sure if images originating from North Korean media (such as Nodong Sinmun) would be seen as WP:NFCC violations as I'm not sure if North Korean media provide photos to other media. If any WP:NFCC failures have been uploaded, it is possible that other users have deleted them. Above this discussion, I see a notice about a speedy deletion on Commons. However, Commons doesn't allow any fair use at all, so it is to be expected that any non-free images uploaded to Commons are deleted. Commons decisions should be assumed to have no value here, so there is no point in trying to list Commons administrators. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but without specific filenames/deleting admin names, I can't really do anything. I had anticipated the Commons images would have been simple 'not free' housekeeping deletions, so they weren't included in this request. I think I'm simply going to have to address Hammersoft's behaviour first, before this debate will ever move forward, either at FFD or here. Krolar62 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic, then we can no longer call Wikipedia a free encyclopedia ("free" as in libre, not gratis). It would become "the free encyclopedia, when we feel like it", or "the free encyclopedia, 80% of the time". Richard Stallman would probably be foaming at the mouth at the thought of it, if Wikipedia really turned out like that. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, since North Korea doesn't even recognize private property, the image of Kim Jong Un belongs to the proletariat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.86.97 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone sent an email to any news organizations asking that an image be released for Wikipedia's use? I'm sure if we try a scattershot approach someone will give consent. This article really does need an image of the subject (and seeing as how a cursory Google image search turns up many, albeit non-free, images, this is kind of making us look bad. The casual reader may not know about WP:NFCC and wonder why we don't have a picture...) Zaldax (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking about doing that a couple of weeks ago. It really is worth a try. If you're willing to send the e-mail, go for it. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Human rights violations
What information do we have regarding Kim Jong-un's knowledge of, participation in, or approval of North Korean violations of human rights? Silence is consent, and the silence is very evident, but actual sources? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I saw an article earlier; I'll run a few searches and see what I can turn up. In any case, the mention of the ROKS Cheonan sinking and the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong should unquestionably remain, as his involvement is, as said, assumed by virtually all those following North Korea. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kimsuit.jpg
I removed the article's image again. Sorry, but if you look at the copyright tags for this image it is clearly invalid. The uploader claims own work when it is known to be copyright KCNA. Would love to have a real free image, but this one isn't it. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Additions
Well, I've asked for this to be taken to the talk page before they were added, but so far nothing.

The proposed changes by Kaileonard are below:

"In August 2012 Kim Jong Un announced economics reforms similar to the People's Republic of China "

"Kim Jong il's personal chef Kenji Fujimoto stated "Stores in Pyongyang were brimming with products and people in the streets looked cheerful, North Korea has changed a lot since Kim Jong-un assumed power. All of this is because of leader Kim Jong-un." "

Anyone have any comments? I think the latter quote might need a bit more context, personally. The proposed economic reforms should probably be elaborated on, as well. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It remains to be seen if and how the economic policy announced June 28 will be implemented, to say nothing of how it will work out. The report by the chef is one person's opinion and not particularly notable, although there is a Japanese documentary of his visit in the works. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Opening, Reform & Media Frenzies" is the most perceptive commentary on these matters I know of; well, that I, and most of you, have access to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The “June 28 Directive” and July 26 “Let us Effect Kim Jong Il’s Patriotism…”: Not Yet Time to Break out the Soju" User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey yeah i edited this. Just google economic reforms it will come up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaileonard (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess a "wait and see" approach will be most appropriate for the economic reforms. As for the statement by the chef, I still feel like it might need a sentence extra for context, but I'm not sure what that should be. Thoughts? Zaldax (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to have been a personal guest of Kim Jong-un; however, despite friendly surface relations, I think the main message to him was to shut up about the Kim family. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent commentary: "Flaming Ice Cream on a Rainy Night" User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sushi chef news
Latest suchi chef revelations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The question
Should this article include a non-free imageN to illustrate the true likeness of the subject, yes or no? 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

N - a non-free image is one that is not released on one of the Wikipedia/Commons compatible free use licenses (e.g. public domain or creative commons), and as such, any such image would still be copyrighted and used on Wikipedia under a fair use rationale.

Documentation and past discussions
This RFC follows at least two known previous discussions on the subject, and here.

The relevant policies and guidelines are:
 * The Wikimedia Foundation resolution on licensing policy
 * "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License....In addition....each project communityC may develop and adopt an EDP (A project-specific policyE....that recognizes the limitations of copyright law...and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status)...Such EDPs must be minimal....An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose....Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationaleR"
 * C - The community in question is the English Wikipedia.
 * E - The EDP for English Wikipedia is the policy page Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC), which is itself incorporated into the Non-free content (WP:NFC) guideline.
 * R - The "fair use rationale" mentioned in "The question"
 * The Non-free content criteria policy (WP:NFCC), specifically:
 * NFCC "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense"
 * The Non-free content guideline (WP:NFC), specifically:
 * WP:NFC 1 - "Pictures of people still alive...and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image."

Pre-statmentss
Based on some incidents in the most recent discussion, I feel I first need to make some initial statements before my main argument:
 * 1) Despite what might be claimed, there is no outright ban on Wikipedia using non-free photographs of living people - the wording of the Resolution/NFC/NFCC does not include any statement to this effect - what they allow are uses in rare cases. Such uses already exist in places - including an image on this article would still mean that the use of non-free images of living people was rare (Kim is just one of 200 odd world leaders, and 1 of tens of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia)
 * 2) Despite what might be claimed, I am not seeking to ignore the Resolution/NFC/NFCC, either in whole or in part - the whole point of this RFC is to discuss whether use of a non-free image of Kim Jong-un is compatible with them
 * 3) Despite what might be claimed, I am not about to argue that it's not possible to photograph Kim Jong-un - I am attempting to argue that it's not reasonable to expect one of these images could be made available on a Wikipedia compatible license, and thus a non-free image can be used as per the Resolution/NFC/NFCC
 * 4) Despite what might be claimed, I am not about to seek a modification or exemption to the Resolution/NFC/NFCC to allow non-free images of all living world leaders. This RFC refers to Kim Jong-un alone, the arguments I will make are only relevant to his unique circumstances.
 * 5) It has been claimed in the past that the existence of free images on Wikipedia of Kim Il-sung (Kim Jon-un's grandfather) shows that free images of Kim Jon-un could be made. The truth is that the only free image of Kim Il-sung we have, comes from the copyright expiry of a book published in 1946 - so clearly this is not relevant to this RFC.
 * 6) It has been claimed in the past that the existence of free images on Wikipedia of Kim Jong-il (Kim Jon-un's father), shows that free images of Kim Jon-un could be made. It should be made clear for the purposes of this RFC, that the only free images on that article come from just one source - images taken during visits to Russia and released by the Russian President's office, who use a Wikipedia compliant license for all imagery - so any such claim is reliant on Kim Jong-un visiting Russia, and the Russian President's Office image policy not changing
 * 7) The following questions have been posed to me in the past about Kim Jong-un: "Do you agree that Kim Jong-un is alive? Do you think he is in prison? Do you think he is on the run from the law? Do you think he is a noted recluse?". For the avoidance of doubt, I publicly acknowledge that I consider Kim Jong-un to be alive, is not in prison, is not living the life of a recluse, and is not on the run from the law.

I stand by all of the above statements as incontrovertible facts, so I'd appreciate it if the closer of this RFC consider this position should any of these claims be repeated in here in anyone else's view, or should anyone disagree with their basic truth as presented here.

Argument
So now to my argument for a yes outcome: According to the specific clauses of the Resolution ("reasonably expect" / "almost all"), the NFCC ("could be" / "where possible") and the NFC ("almost always"), it is permissible to use a non-free image of a living person as long as it can be shown that it's not reasonable to expect that a free image could be made. This holds true in the specific case of Kim Jong-un for the following reasons:


 * 1) The prevailing conditions inside North Korea regarding state security, personal freedoms and access to the internet. These make it very unlikely that a private citizen will ever take and release a free image, to do so is not only extremely difficult physically, it also puts the photographer at great personal risk of being considered a threat to the state (who understandably wish to control how their leader is presented), and all that entails. The Resolution/NFCC/NFC refer to what's reasonable and possible - expecting people to endanger their personal safety just for a free photo is not reasonable
 * 2) The isolation of North Korea from the free content realm. It has been claimed that because Kim Jong-un is a world leader, a free image of him could be made, presumably on the basis of world travel or public appearances. In reality, North Korea is one of if not the most isolated countries in the world, his opportunities for foreign travel are extremely limited, and he has thus far not visited any country yet as a world leader. Therefore, unless the reasons for this change, Kim Jong-un will never make a visit or an appearance anywhere outside of North Korea in a place where free images would expected to be taken by someone who follows the ideals of the free content movement (i.e. a Wikipedia Commons contributor). The Resolution/NFCC/NFC refer to what's reasonable and possible - it's not reasonable to expect the free content movement to be able to overcome a record of 60 years of isolation
 * 3) The actual source of pre-existing images of Kim Jong-un. It has been claimed in the past that there are 11 million results for Kim Jong-un on Google Image, and therefore this shows that a free image of him could be made. This is a specious argument - what it actually shows if anything is that, even though there's 11 million images of Kim Jong-un out there, not one of them has ever been released on a free license. This is completely understandable because they are all copyrighted works made by either news agencies, state agencies, or other freelance photographers, none of whom would want to relinquish the creative of commercial rights to images which they put some considerable effort into creating. The Resolution/NFCC/NFC refer to what's reasonable and possible - expecting to beat odds longer than 1 in 11,000,000 is clearly not reasonable.
 * 4) The only known actual theoretical sources of a non-free image. When you look past the vague assertions from opposers that images are possible just because he's a world leader, in the past debates on this issue, only two concrete theoretical sources of free images of Kim Jong-un have emerged - a foreign tourist visiting the country, or King Jong-un visiting Russia (as per the related prestatement above). The tourist option is as far as I'm concerned, unproven - while showing that such visits can occur, the proposer couldn't otherwise give any details as to how a tourist could actually realistically take an image - either physically or as regards getting permission to do so. In addition, the probability of the Russian option cannot be calculated - he either has been to Russia, and thus an image could be found, or he hasn't, and it won't. Speculative claims that he might visit Russia are easily countered by the opposing claim that he may never visit before he is deposed or dies - after all, his father only visited Russia 3 times in a 17 year reign, and relations have arguably worsened since Kim Jong-un became leader. Even if they didn't, the average of 6 years is a long time to wait for the mere statistical possibility of a free image. The Resolution/NFCC/NFC refer to what's reasonable and possible - it's not reasonable to ignore the existence of no non-free images out of a huge existing sample, or to rely on unproven or unsubstantiated theories, to justify the continued expectation that a non-free image will be found or produced

In addition, the Resolution is clear about what happens if any of the above changes, if he ever visits Russia, or the state ever undergoes a reform while Kim Jong-un is still in power, or anything else changes to give actual reasonable cause to assume a free image could be found or produced, then any non-free image that this RFC might allow, can and would be removed. The hosting of a non-free image based on the current conditions, is no threat to the general principles of free content as espoused by the Foundation.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) Krolar62 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (author)
 * 2) Snow - Krolar makes a sufficient case for exemption.  Given the uncommonly insular nature of the subject and the security/propaganda apparatus surrounding him, the assumption that no free-license alternative is likely, especially in the immediate future, seems reasonable, or at least as reasonable as other circumstances which have been judged to be acceptable grounds for exemption as established policy.   Additionally, opposition's argument slightly misconstrues and exaggerates the confines of existing policy where it suggests that exemptions are allowed only under the specific contexts cited and that no free-equivalent can ever conceivably be acquired at any point in the future in order for the image to qualify.  But even if we were to confine ourselves to the three examples cited as precedent, there's no guarantee, for example, that someone won't snap a lucky shot of a recluse either, and yet we allow the exemption on the grounds that it is simply exceedingly unlikely and that it is reasonable to assume that it could never happen.  Argument for exemption meets that bar. (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) This absolutely makes sense. The difficulty for the average Wikipedia user to obtain an image of such a person should also be a factor when considering the use of such an image. North Korea is probably one of the most locked down countries in the world, and the only way we managed to get a photo of Kim Jong-il was through one of the few times he even left the country he had such a tight grip over, as was noted here.  ViperSnake151   Talk  17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

View of Hammersoft
Short version: Quite simply; no.

Long version: The Foundation's policy states we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." It also states "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." Our local policy states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Further, our guideline states that "Pictures of people still alive" is unacceptable. We make exceptions to this policy for people who are incarcerated for life (example), on the run from the law, or a noted recluse. Kim Jong-un is none of these things. Putting "Kim Jong-un" into Google images returned nearly 3 million hits. If even only 1% of those are actually him, and only 1% of those are not duplicates, there's still ~300 images of him out there. He's less than 30 years old, and has only just entered office. To speculate that no free image of him will ever be available is just that, pure speculation. He is a national leader. He's not a recluse, not on the run from the law, and not imprisoned for life.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Regardless of how important a person is, Wikipedia strives to be free as in freedom, not free beer, whenever possible. Only in the most extreme of circumstances (e.g. incarcerated people) do we make exceptions, as mentioned by Hammersoft. There is no solid justification that a free image of Kim Jong-un won't appear in the future, and we shouldn't recklessly make exceptions, otherwise we'd be neglecting one of the main WP:PILLARs of Wikipedia. Freedom comes before completeness of information here. --  李博杰   &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Clearly not. As mentioned above, whilst not the easiest person to source a free image of, he is certainly not someone who it is impossible or near impossible to photograph.  He's a world leader.  Incidentally, before wasting a large amount of time here, has anyone tried asking the news agencies whose photos appear in a Google search if they'll release one on a CC licence?  There is precedent for this.  Furthermore, if you are going to use a non-free image, it'll almost certainly come from a news agency ... which means you're then breaking WP:NFCC.Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) --M ASEM  (t) 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Clearly. I also note that there are several potential sources for a free image; for instance, I note that his father appears in free Kremlin images, which is certainly a possibility here, and I've no doubt that we will soon see statues and the like erected. These will become part of the tourist trail, and, I suspect, be heavily photographed. As there is a freedom of panorama in North Korea, these would potentially be suitable free images. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question, though, is about including in the article a photograph of himself, in person ("a non-free image of the subject"), and not of a likeness of the subject, e.g. a statue. So, panorama copyright laws are no help.-The Gnome (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The policy analysis here is quite sound. I also wouldn't be surprised if a moderately obsequious request to the DPK's UN Mission produced a usable image (although I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, or if they asked for hard currency in return). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) People are able to take photos of him all of the time. This implies that free images also can be taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is simply incorrect. It's North Korea. In general, no one takes pictures freely the way "freely" is understood in the most of the rest of the world, and especially in the western world. And, in particular, no one takes pictures of the leader of North Korea without explicit official permission. -The Gnome (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) ww2censor (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No non-free images of living people, with very, very few exceptions - this is certainly not one of them.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not enough work done. I believe that having a photograph of Kim Jong-un  taken in public by a member of the general public is extremely difficult and unlikely. However, not enough work has been done by Wikipedia contributors on this matter. The potential sources for a free image have not been exploited in full. Black Kite provides some hints ("ask news agencies"), above, as does Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ("ask the DPK's UN mission"). So, for the moment, my vote is No. -The Gnome (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

View of Masem
To extend on Hammersoft's point, I do agree that, in attempting to have any illustration of a living person that we sometimes have to turn to non-free images. When we should do that is based on the difficulty of all other sources in obtaining such a photo (whether we can use that photo or not). If a notable person is pretty much impossible for the press to photograph (who have the resources and capabilities to do this moreso than most WP editors), this is likely a good sign that a WP editor or other person will be unable to obtain a free image of that person. This is probably the case if the person is purposely recluse or imprisoned. But when the press can easily get some images on a regular basis, that's probably a sign that we ourselves can get a free image, and ergo, through NFCC#1 we can't use a non-free image in the interim. Given that we've got a world leader here with numerous images from press agencies, there's no question of the ability of us getting a free image at some point, and thus the non-free image is not appropriate.

ETA: The number of different press images should be considered a factor. If hundreds of news articles all use the same single image of a person (eg the mug shot, the only Getty image of the person), that's probably a mark against the ability of getting a free image; but if there are tens of different images of the same person, that means a free image is very likely.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) --M ASEM  (t) 14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Interesting test, and a strongly valid point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Sounds very reasonable. A quick look at http://www.rodong.rep.kp/ shows that plenty of photos of him have been taken recently. If someone (such as the press) is able to take photos of him so easily, it should be possible for other people to take photos of him too. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) ww2censor (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree with your point, Masem. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

View of Stefan2
Just take a quick look at Commons:COM:FOP. Korea has freedom of panorama. Korea is also famous for having propaganda posters, statues and photos of its leaders hanging everywhere in the country. Although the country might not have had time to produce any statues yet, it is unlikely that you won't find any propaganda photos or portrait photos hanging somewhere. If you look at the article about his grandfather, you might notice that the infobox photo comes from such a source. Korea is open to tourists: virtually all people (except possibly United States citizens or people from south Korea) who apply for a tourist visa will get one. It is thus perfectly possible for someone to travel to Korea and take a photo of one of those propaganda posters or statues. Thus, getting a free photo is easy.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) ww2censor (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

View of FormerIP
I confess upfront to not having read the whole of the discussion. Article 12 of the North Korean copyright code apparently makes government works public domain:. Is there no image of the subject produced by the North Korean government? I have uploaded this from the North Korean state newspaper, which I believe would qualify: Formerip (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This was discussed in above. It was determined that the language of that code only applies to laws and mandates, and not all published documents including photos, so its not appropriate to use. --M ASEM  (t) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Regarding Hammersoft's view, the direct quotes aside, it's full of contradictions. How can it be true that the NFC states that "Pictures of people still alive" is unacceptable, when he follows that with an example of an article that uses a non-free picture of a living person? The answer is of course that it's not true - he ommitted the part of the guideline that explains this apparent contradiction - we allow such images where taking a free picture as a replacement is not considered possible. He tries to explain this away by claiming the only uses are a defined set of exceptions, yet this is also contradicted - the only actual exception listed on the page is for retired people whose appearance has changed, yet he claims that they only exist for lifers, fugitives or recluses. The explanation for this apparent contradiction of course is that the exceptions for recluses etc were developed in the wild - by applying the guideline to a specific situation. That's what this RFC is for - to establish whether Kim Jong-un is a valid exception to the general rule. There's no need to list the exceptions on the guideline, because they don't control the decision - you cannot use the fact that something is not one of the exceptions, as the reason why something else can't be an exception. Pointing out the obvious like Kim Jong-un is not in prison, is irrelevant. The purpose of the RFC is to examine the specific case of Kim Jong-un with respect to the guideline, not the existing exceptions. So where has he even tried to do that in his view? With a vague reference to being a world leader? Really? Is he really trying to claim that Kim Jong-un is just like say Barack Obama, in terms of where he goes and who gets access to him? His only other attempts at framing his view to the actual subject, is to point to the 3 million Google Images (a significant change from his previous claim of 11 million), and a reference to his short time in office. But this is again another contradiction - he cannot argue simultaneously that there's a glut of images already so one of them must be free, while arguing that his time in office has been so short we just have to wait. The explanation for this apparent contradiction of course, is that none of those 3 million images were or ever will be released on a free license. Just like the next 3 million, and the next 3 million. Krolar62 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you going to get round the problem that any non-free image you use will have almost certainly come from a news agency and is therefore disbarred by WP:NFCC? Or are you intending to trample through that as well? Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC ("Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media")? I can't see as how this is germane; Wikipedia is not in any way in market competition with news agencies.   Also, perhaps tone down the hyperbole as he hasn't really trampled on anything.  Quite the opposite -- he's solicited a community decision, made his argument in a straightforward fashion and hasn't taken any actions in advance of a consensus view.  He's acted in good faith here from what I've seen (albeit a bit stridently at times). He shouldn't be called out for employing a community tool which every Wikipedia policy concerned with contentious issues encourages him to use. Snow (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might need to read the policy again. We don't use commercial photographers' images for the very reason that the policy states; since most any non-free image of this person would (currently) be from that source, we can't use them. An RfC on a talkpage can't ever change Wikipedia policy, especially those related to WP:5P, however strident people are. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the defence Snow, but in my experience this sort of low-level snide remark is part and parcel of Black Kite's communication style when he encounters opinions different to his own. Don't waste any time on it, I did once and got nowhere.
 * As to his NFCC#2 point, I agree with you to a point - in certain cases images on Wikipedia can co-opt the purpose of using them on news sites, but in this case I just don't see how it's relevant. If we use an old image, with no background or context other than being a true likeness, how does this replace the market role of a news organisation's image of Kim Jong-un? Since his succession is now long ago in news cycle terms, the simple fact of what he looks like is surely not marketable news any more? Black Kite certainly gives no further explanation.
 * I also find it hard to reconcile his view that Kim Jong-un isn't impossible to photograph, but he offers no explanation for how a free image will come about, other than asking a news agency for one? I thought his whole point was that news agency images have commercial value worth protecting, something they would be giving up by donating it on a Wikipedia compatible license. This is more of a commercial threat to them (because it's then free to use by anyone for any purpose) than a fair-use image would be (because that remains copyrighted). Krolar62 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, it's unfortunate that Krolar62 defines any opinion that differs from his as "low-level snide remarks", but it's telling that he completely scuppers his own argument regarding WP:NFCC by referring to "old images"; Jong-un has only been a leader for a short time, which means that (utterly obviously) the vast majority of images are recent, and hence are included in that policy. He needs to understand; this is a Free (libre) Encyclopedia, which means we don't use non-free images unless there is no alternative whatsoever - which there clearly isn't. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "Krolar62 defines any opinion that differs from his as low-level snide remarks" goes beyond snide remarks, and is simply a bare faced lie. And I of course didn't scupper my own argument at all, I made it clear that my reference to "old" images was in the context of news cycles, which are many times shorter than the period he has been in office. The final part is just yet more snide. Krolar62 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion; if you accuse someone of something, and then when called out on it claim you didn't do that, when the evidence is obvious from a few lines above on the page, you're probably not going to be taken seriously. Or any more seriously, more accurately. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot decipher which specific accusation/counter-claim/evidence this post was supposed to refer to, so I'm not really in any position to respond until I do. Krolar62 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@ J Milburn, the request for a non-free image is to provide the reader with a true likeness, which only a photograph can deliver. It's unrealistic to think that any North Korean artist or sculptor would ever be allowed the freedom to make the work as true to life as they can manage, you can see that yourself with the portrait we've used to illustrate the article for Kim Jong-il. Krolar62 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Replaced by section below. Krolar62 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Masem's view, considering it uses the phrase "no question", it contains no explanation at all as to why the ease with which news agencies can get photos of Kim Jong-un, translates into an argument that it's easy for anyone else to get one too. I'd expect to see a specific theoretical methodology being advanced here - is he arguing for instance that private individuals like Commons contributors could be allowed on press visits to North Korea? I want to know what underpins this logic, which uses one truism to make another also true, inspite of the real world results so far showing it's false (by a factor of 3 million to none apparently). I also think he's overstating the case for how regular or easy this actually is for news agencies - while they can get them (never disputed, per my prestatement #3), if you examine the Google image results, many of them are from the same set set piece appearances (but just different angles). This is what happens when in this specific case, imagery only comes via either state channels or the few times outside reporters are invited. Compare the results for Kim Jong-un to the results for someone like Obama - the difference in the apparent variety and abundence of opportunity for news organisations between the two is clear - which is why simply stating "he's a world leader" is not really a convincing argument. Krolar62 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * About WP:NFCC: Non-free images are normally not used if copies of the image, and the image alone, is sold to people by the copyright holder. As an example, Getty sells photos to newspapers and other places. The newspaper pays for the photo (and only for the photo), so the image alone is Getty's source of income. On the other hand, a music company might sell a CD with a photo of a music artist on the cover. In this case, people generally buy the CD because they are interested in the music. Thus, people are not paying for the CD because they want to get a picture of the artist; they are paying for the CD because they want to list to his music. In the first case, the image is central to the company's source of income (and the company might lose money if the photo is distributed free of charge via Wikipedia) whereas in the second case it is not very important to the company's source of income. In the case of a CD, it might even be favourable for the music company if people distribute copies of the CD cover as this makes potential buyers aware of the product. I would assume that all photos found in newspapers (such as those here, here and here) fail WP:NFCC. Non-free images from commercial sources are only allowed in very special cases, such as articles directly referring to the images — see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.
 * About Russia: I agree that it may not be appropriate to rule out non-free images due to a potential visit to Russia. Although the Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un might go to Russia at some point, the focus of WP:NFCC seems to be whether a free photo can be created for the moment, not whether a photo can be created in several years. In the latter case, every photo would fail WP:NFCC as it is possible to get a free photo of any currently living person in 200 years when the present unfree photos have become PD-old. However, I do not feel that the Russian option is the only way to obtain free images of him, as I have expressed in the sections above. I thus think that an unfree image of him is replaceable by a free image of him. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Past AfDs on non-free images of living people have pretty much consistently held that future possibilities are taken into account, not just at the moment. For example, Colton Harris-Moore, who is incarcerated and probably will not be released until 2016. This tracks with NFCC #1 "or can be created". --Hammersoft (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stefan, I think you've misunderstood how Getty works and/or how Wikipedia licenses non-free images. Any image we would use from a newspaper that was sourced from the likes of Getty, is already paid for - so we're not depriving Getty of revenue in that way. And anyone who uses our non-free copy rather than buying it themselves, is in violation of its original copyright, so we're not a competitor to Getty in that way either (and the separate NFCC#3 reduces that possibility even further by insisting that our usage be low resolution, making it less desirable to thieves). The market role referred to in NFCC#2 is that of the newspaper itself, namely the timely & detailed illustration of news stores (or just photo essays even). We can accommodate that by using an old photo cropped to show no other details but his likeness. Krolar62 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * point that Getty licenses appear to be based on limited reusers, and it would read that if we were to reuse a Getty image that was once "paid for" by a newspaper would require relicensing for our redistribution. This is generally how commercial works like Getty works. So this argument is invalid and NFCC#2 is still critical. --M ASEM (t) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the whole point of the EDP is to justify Wikipedia not being a licensee in the limited cases of it using non-free images - it doesn't pay for or license EDP compliant images from newspapers, in the same way it doesn't pay for or license the image on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. If you want to claim that NFCC#2 is critical because the proposed usage somehow fails it and is thus not a valid use under the EDP, you actually have to demonstrate how our unlicensed usage replaces the original market role - simply pointing out we would be using it without a license doesn't do that. Krolar62 (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The NFC is focused on the issue of free content for redistribution (hence while licensing like "for education purposes only" do not make an image "free" enough for WP. When a newspaper pays for the Getty image license, they are paying to allow it to be printed in their paper, and for them, that's the extent of any distribution they have to worry about, but that license gives them the ability to disseminate that image to others. We don't have said license so even by using it in an article could be a technical problem. But the bigger issue is that WP is designed to be shareable and redistributable. Using and redistributing a Getty image to as wide an audience that we serve, without any type of written person (the Iwo Jima picture specifically has this) is bypassing the commercial aspect of Getty, and thus there is intent to harm (we know these are are images that should come with a price tag but we're using them for free) and the harm itself (Getty is losing business) if we used such images.  Both are major strikes on fair use law. --M ASEM  (t) 15:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing up a whole bunch of different concepts and it's hard for me to see what your argument is. The only way I can think of edvancing this is separating the response into bullet points to see which part(s) you actually disagree with, so here goes:
 * The EDP/NFCC/NFC/non-free rationale is there to justify our redistribution of images uploaded without Wikipedia compatible licenses - this includes both education only images as well as images you would otherwise need to pay royalties for - agree or disagree?
 * The permission note on the Iwo Jima image is not a license to disseminate the image, it is simply a restatement of what is already inherent in non-free usage - this is why it still requires a non-free rationale - agree or disagree?
 * NFCC#2 does not state that commercial images are disallowed, period, it requires demonstration that Wikipedia's use replaces the original market role - agree or disagree?
 * Wikipedia's non-free use would not deprive Getty of revenue by simply being viewed - the EDP was drawn up in full recognition of Wikipedia's intended role as a online encyclopedia - agree or disagree?
 * Wikipedia's non-free use would not replace Getty's role as a distributor - the EDP only covers our display of the image on our article - anyone who copies it without their own non-free rationale, is violating copyright - agree or disagree?
 * Krolar62 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * EDP as redistribution rationale: disagree because that's wrong. Users who reuse NFC content must take it upon themselves to understand that WP does not have the rights to redistribution those images so must be aware of any legal problems with using those images themselves.
 * Iwo Jima, disagree not because it is still non-free, but disagree on the point of being a restatement of the non-free. The AP permission specifically was to say "WP, you can use this image for royalty/payment free under this specific term", justifying using an otherwise commercial image.
 * NFCC#2, disagree because using the image without an agreement like Iwo Jima's image is replacing the original role and harming the commercial image house directly.
 * Depriving Getty of revenue, strongly disagree. I would have to find an old copy of Encarta or something but the published commercial encyclopedia would include such images but after paying for their inclusion, so they aren't denying Getty of revenue. By publishing without permission, we are.
 * Replacing Getty as publisher, strongly disagree again. There's a reason those sites watermark their image catalogs.  Remember, those image houses' sole reason of revenue is the royality fees, so that is direct harm to them (compared to, say, a newspaper with its own press photographer, and using one of there photos as non-free; it has much much less harm to the newspaper's main business.) --M ASEM  (t) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said the EDP gives other users the rights to redistribute the image, I said that the EDP is Wikipedia's justification for distributing the image via its own articles. As soon as someone takes it off of Wikipedia, they violate the copyright
 * If the AP permission was removed, there would still be zero legal issue in Wikipedia using this commercial image. If AP think that we would have to take down that image if they revoked that permission, they're mistaken
 * Same as the last point, the permission is irrlevant. NFCC#2 does not bar all commercial images otherwise it would just say so, rather than applying a harm test
 * It's not the same market - unlike Encarta etc, we only use non-free images where it can be justified under the EDP, which results in non-free images being used sparingly here. In addition, Britannica Online has images of both the Iwo Jima flag raising and of Kim Jong-un - if they paid for both then by your framing of NFCC#2, we cannot use the flag image either - yet we clearly are
 * You've ignored NFCC#3 - any image we would use would not be equivalent to simply removing the watermark from a Getty image
 * Krolar62 (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your rebuttals, but I will point out one additional factor: we work on more rigorous requirements than just fair use because our mission is to make a freely distribute-able encyclopedia. We don't work at the level "where we wouldn't face a lawsuit" but to a level that minimizes non-free use and avoids non-free use where free replacement is possible, period.  We have demonstrated free replacement is possible, so irregardless of all the legalities of the Getty image, we cannot use that with the possibly of obtaining a free image. If it were the case that the person was dead, and only Getty images had images of that person, that might be reason to contact Getty to get a similar Iwo Jima allowance, but that's not this case. --M ASEM  (t) 02:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can disagree, but so can I, so we shall have to let it rest at our competing explanations - we won't otherwise settle issues like the significance of the AP permission without a lawyer's input. But on your additional point, I am well aware that NFC goes beyond fair use, I covered that with the list of background documentation and have avoided making the argument based simply on fair use precisely because I know that's not sufficient. My comments on legality were made solely in response to you raising the issue of legal problems, that's all. Nobody has demonstrated free replacement is possible yet, not in a way that takes into account the detailed reasons put forward in the RFC as to why it's not possible. Krolar62 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned any legal issues. Furthermore, its been clearly shown that a free image is possible - ableit requiring patient and effort. That doesn't change the core of NFCC#1 and the non-allowance of non-free images of living persons. --M ASEM  (t) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You mentioned "legal problems", although I concede it was in reference to reusers not Wikipedia specifically. Even so, I've never argued this on the basis of fair use alone, so don't attribute that to me. And if there's one thing that's marked the claims of a free replacement being possible, it's a distinct lack of clarity. You won't expand on your statistical claim that ties news images in with free ones in spite of the contrary evidence, Black Kite won't reconcile his donation/valued image model, and doesn't see the irony in his wink at the Foundation funded visit proposal, the Russian option is pure speculation, the portrait option is not a replacement and the direct contact proposal lacks any real conviction or detailing as to why we would expect success. The vague insistences based on the fact that he's a world leader and he's been photographed before, were a) never contested in the first place, and b) are questioned as to their logic in the original RFC argument. Krolar62 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Kim Jong-un is not the first case of where a free image seemingly couldn't be obtained of a person that otherwise wasn't a convict or recluse. Susan Boyle is a case I distinctly remember: a housewife that appears on one of those talent reality shows that became an instant hit overnight, as soon as that hit, she avoided public appearances but clearly was still a public figure. A non-free image wasn't allowed there and so the editors waited patiently until one of her public appearances and got the free image we have now.  Every time, non-free images were disallowed even though a free image hadn't yet appeared and we had no idea in time how long that image would take to appear.  The exact same logic for Kim Jong-un can be applied. --M ASEM  (t) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm not sure the situation is really analogous. Boyle was a private citizen who was still making public appearances in a nation where people would generally be free to snap a photo of her under any of those occasion (I'd have voted that the exemption didn't apply in that context too).  Kim Jong-un is a man who lives within the context of being surrounded by a massive amount of security while the subject of one of the most developed propaganda machines in history, which tightly controls his image (in both the literal and figurative sense) for state purposes, in a nation where citizens are not free (either practically or legally), to take and use a photo of him at their discretion.  Actually vastly different situations if you ask me.   You know, I'm not sure exceptions should ever be made to non-free images of living persons, but it seems to me that the barrier to securing an image of this man is at least as high as that for a recluse or a convict (there's no guarantee that a recluse won't appear in public at any time, despite established behaviour, for example), and should be allowed if the reasoning behind the policy (of exemption) is to stay consistent.Snow (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from them both being alive, there's nothing logical in comparing the ability to take a photo of Susan Boyle to Kim Jong-un - not the personal freedoms or risks, not the opportunity for proximal access, not the internet situation, nothing. And if anything, Susan Boyle's life after she became a public figure shows the opposition arguments to be fallacies - she's travelled around the world to numerous democratic nations where many Free Content adherents live, she generates 17.5 million Google Image results, she's been in the public eye for years, she's got hundreds of fans willing to request, badger or search, and yet despite all this, there's still just 1 free photo. And that's clearly a privately created image, rather than a news agency donation or the result of a direct approach. So why, when you apply all the differences in Kim Jong-un's situation to that extremely favourable one, should anyone come to the conclusion that it's reasonable to believe a free image could be made? Krolar62 (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What has to be remembered is that at the end of the day, WP is trying to be a free content work. Whenever we can avoid the use of non-free over potential free media, we must take it, otherwise we're failing the Foundation's mission. It has yet to be proven that it is impossible for a free image of Kim Jong-un to be take. Difficult, yes, but not physically or legally impossible.  If we could prove that with extremely high assurety that a free image of Kim Jong-un could not ever be taken, then yes, we probably would consider allowing a non-free to be used. But just because the prospect is either daunting (traveling to NK) or requires patience (waiting for him to travel to Russia or some other allied country) does not prove the prospect impossible.  This is counter to the examples of known people on the lam, people incarcerated in prison, or people that have specifically recused themselves from society, all cases that we can reasonably assure that it is impossible to overcome the difficulties of getting such a photo.
 * Most importantly, we have to watch for slippery slopes. When people call out for exceptions to NFCC, other editors will take that as illicit allowance to use non-frees when they are otherwise not appropriate; I've this over and over again when editors call to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to defend their use of non-free. This is a prime case that I can see slippery-sloping into other living people that just happen to be hard to see publicly getting images from non-free sources.
 * The other thing to remember: illustrations of people that are otherwise not in a "visual" business (like actors, models, etc.) generally do not contribute towards understanding of the article. This article is presently fully comprehensive without seeing what Kim Jong-un looks like, meaning that adding a non-free image of him would fail NFCC#8 (as the article is comprehensive without the image). When the image is free, great, we can show it as there's no similar requirement for free media use. But the non-free has to be justified, and to display who a person is via non-free, where their visual appearance makes no effect on their impact and importance. is not appropriate either.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why you keep attempting to lecture me about what Wikipedia is and what role non-free imagery plays in it, it's perfectly clear from the RFC opening statement that I was already well aware of this (since this isn't the first time this has occurred, I'm wondering at what point it's fair to say that maybe you never even read it?). And whether you will accept it or not, the idea that it has to be shown to be impossible is entirely your invention - this is not what the resolution/NFCC/NFC say. There is equally no requirement for a "extremely high assurety" that it cannot be done either. All that is required is to show that it's not reasonable to expect a free image could be made/obtained - and despite your insistence that it has been (while declining to show where), imho nobody has even come close to proving that's an incorrect statement in the case of Kim Jong-un. Being a staunch opposer, it's perhaps understandable for you to try and claim that travelling to NK is merely "difficult", but most people will surely think this is a total downplaying of reality. And it doesn't require patience to simply wait for a trip to Russia - it requires you actually demonstrating that believing he will go there is reasonable - and I've given perfectly good reasons why it isn't, that you've not even bothered to address. Other allies are irrelevant unless it's demonstrated that they release their images on compatible licenses (again, something nobody here has done). As regards slippery slopes, I really don't care - if that's what's behind your opposition, then this RFC has indeed been pointless as you're not prepared to debate the issue at hand. Your final point about whether the article even needs an image is undermined by your own insistence that the policy is defined by the hard and fast list of (completely undocumented) exceptions, rather than what it says - what impact or importance does a non-free image of a recluse/prisoner/fugitive have on their article? None I'd say, or at least not any more than it would to Kim Jong-un. Wikipedia is not a wanted poster after all. And the true likeness of Kim Jong-un is certainly going to be significant to any reader who comes across commentary like this. Krolar62 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So fine, the point that you've been trying to make is that travel to NK is near impossible. That's a fact I've learned today is not true. The latest Dancing Matt video (a US Citizen) includes visiting NK within the last year, and before that another video game journalist traveled freely (unrestricted) there ; at least one Chinese-based tour company arranges such tours for English-speaking travelers .  Thus, the pretense that it's difficult/impossible to travel there is a non-starting point.  Yes, now the issue is if that someone is there and can take a photo of Kim Jong-un at the same time is a question, but now even moreso that this isn't a barrier to getting a free image; yes its a matter of chance, but so is the same for any politian on US soil. --M ASEM  (t) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with your last statement, politicians in the U.S. make themselves available for photo ops, and with the exception of the president/state governors who are on the move a lot more, are very accessible to the public. Even with the "protection" surrounding high ranking politicians in the U.S., it is fairly easy to take pictures of them, I doubt that there is even a remote chance of an everyday person, let alone a foreigner, getting a chance to photograph Kim Jong-eun. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the access for tourists issue is a minor point at best, since even if the nation was completely closed off, one could still make an argument for a North Korean securing the photo. However, the likelihood of anyone not working directly for the government being allowed to take a photo of the man (in public or in private) is still pretty open question.  I personally view that prospect as dubious, but what we could really benefit from here are some actual Korean opinions on the prospect -- or, even better, some kind of substantive proof about how tightly the current government is or is not controlling his image.  None of which would be decisive to this issue but which might bring some clarity to the issue. Snow (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the number of distinct Google Image hits of him outside or at non-government facilities suggests that he doesn't stay in his office indefinitely. More importantly, he doesn't appear to avoid or is legally unable to make public appearances, which is the critical factor when we're talking the exceptions for photos of living persons. Yes, the chance of someone that ultimately wants to get a free image of Kim Jong-un for commons being right there, with a camera, when Jong-un is out in public, is easily betting odds, but it is odds that we discount via NFCC#1, because the image is still possible. --M ASEM  (t) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to actually contact North Korea? There are e-mails listed on the Korean Friendship Association website, or you could try perhaps the second of the two e-mails listed on the bottom of the Uriminzokkiri website. If anything, it would be interesting to see what would happen&mdash;if anything&mdash;if someone emailed them for a free image.  Maxim (talk)  22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Statues/Portraits
I'm breaking out a section on this issue as this has been raised twice. I do not believe that either a statue or a portrait gives a true likeness of the subject, so I wasn't thinking of using one instead of a non-free image when I wrote this RFC. The inability to create a true likeness is going to be a trait of any artist/sculptor to a lesser or greater degree depending on talent, nobody is that good, but it will be doubly so for an artist working in/for North Korea - a state not known for its objective views on subjects such as the "Supreme Leader", or for allowing its citizens basic freedoms like the freedom to paint/sculpt how you might like to. As lifelike as the portrait on Kim Jong-il appears, it's clearly an enhanced and idealised verson of any actual photo of him out there, so as well as just misleading the reader as to his true likeness, I can even see the possibility of Wikipedia being accused of bias if the only images we presented of Kim Jong-un were state sanctioned ones in the form of statues/portraits. Krolar62 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible picture?
Someone just uploaded and put up File:Rodong-sinmun-kim-jong-un-official-portrait.jpg under the claim as a free picture (public domain) as work of the North Korean government (based on the fact that Rodong Sinmun appears to be the state's official newspaper under the Gov't control.) Can we please review this if the PD claim is correct? I don't believe it is: checking commons, there is no similar thing as, say, US Gov't works being in the PD, the only PD from North Korea being works out of copyright. --M ASEM (t) 16:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of the websites for Rodong Sinmun and Korean Central News Agency contain copyright notices on the bottom of their sites. I think it's pretty clear that whatever we think their copyright status is, they think they're copyrighted, all rights reserved. That precludes our use of their images under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is this: Commons:Template:PD-North Korea. But, it would not apply to such images. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This was my question, Masem, and forgive me, Hammersoft, but I find your response insufficient. There are countless examples of images that have been verifiably produced and released to the media by the North Korean state. What is the copyright status of such images? Hammersoft, you raise a specific template which makes reference to the notion that materials created in North Korea are considered to be in the public domain by virtue of that country's domestic law, but then assert that those provisions do not apply to images. Can you explain your dismissal of this line of argument, please? In any case, the Kim Jong Il article contains an "official portrait" of the man, whose licence conditions state the following:
 * Commons:Template:PD-DPRKGov.
 * This states specifically that, under the law of North Korea, photographs released by its state news organisations (or to put it another way, its media organisations) are not subject to copyright. So what's the problem: how, specifically, is it possible to argue in view of this that images of Kim Jong Un released by its media are not allowable under Wikimedia policy, when we have an accepted template stating the exact opposite? Lordrosemount (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The commons template says: "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright." I don't read that as including news reports as that one as it doesn't apply to "State management". (More truthfully, it's basically saying documents relating to laws and constitution of NK are in the PD). I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but it would be helpful to get clarity, likely from commons, on this. --M ASEM  (t) 23:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Countless"? I see lots of photographs produced by the news agencies. I wouldn't mind seeing one that was produced by the government and given to the news agencies. Regardless, the template you cite does not cover images as Masem points out. Yes, we could be wrong. For the template, I see it correctly applied to various military ribbons. In all but two other uses, the files are up for deletion. The other two are suspect. I've placed File:Portrait of Kim Jong Il released by state media.jpg for speedy deletion there. Commons has deleted quite a number of photos of Kim Jong-un from KCNA for this reason, and this is no different. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted the question over at Village pump and the initial response is in agreement with my assessment; what the paper puts out has nothing to do with state management and thus is eligible for copyright. --M ASEM (t) 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was doubtful that template would prove applicable. For the record though, he's right about the state handing out photos to the foreign press; I've seen a few examples of photos in news articles thus-accredited while searching for a public domain photo the last couple of days.  I almost made a note of it myself, but I knew it was unlikely they qualified for free use. Snow (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now I'm thoroughly confused. First of all, by way of context, the full text of the relevant DPRK law is here []. It does state that photographs are generally subject to copyright, but the relevant Article 12 limits the applicability of that section in the case of all copyrighted works, and does not make any special exemption in the case of photographs. Moreover, whilst the term "documents of state management" is not defined, one of the examples it does specify is "current news and bulletins". When the news is that Kim Jong Un is the head of the state and he looks as portrayed in this photograph, that would indicate to me that a photograph released by the state owned- and run-media constitutes current news covered by the exemption.
 * But the claim that the picture that was just deleted of Kim Jong Il does not constitute a document of state management puzzles me still further. As is stated here [] - on a page that also contains two examples of images of Kim Jong Un released as official portraits by the DPRK, and thus I would argue per the above could be candidates for inclusion under the template I linked - it is a legal requirement that all DPRK citizens display and venerate that very portrait in their own homes. If it's a fundamental law of the DPRK state that a certain image must be displayed and venerated by its own citizens, how can it be argued that that image is not a document of state management? Lordrosemount (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is probably better to ask said questions at Commons at the thread I started as there's better experts there on such world copyright issues. But the one thing to consider, just because something is free (no cost) even if required by law does not make it free (as in speech) that we can use as a free image. --M ASEM (t) 13:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I didn't want to take it over there lest I be accused of forum-shopping - even though I have absolutely no dog in this fight at all, and only came here on account of noticing the RfC - but I'll post a version of my remarks over there. Lordrosemount (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues at question (whether this source is free) is far different from the core issue of using a non-free on the article, so don't worry about the forum shopping aspects. If that does turn out to be free, it nullifies the issues above. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this might not be a viable approach even if our commons counterparts decide it's theoretically permissible. According to the link you supplied only portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are required to be displayed by law at present.  In fact, the entire point of the blog post is to detail the fact that there is virtually no demand for Kim Jong Un portraits and peddlers who invested in them are unable to even recoup losses.   Of course, viewing the page and the gallery of (clearly politically charged) "alternatives" that the author suggests doesn't lead me to believe this is the most ideal source for clarity on these issues. Snow (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Krolar62 is a sockpuppet
Of note, the initiator of this RfC has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:FerrerFour. See Sockpuppet investigations/FerrerFour/Archive for more information. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
김정은 is "Kim Jong-eun" or "Kim Jeong-eun". Some news outlets might be using incorrect romanization due to the initial confusion about his name in hangeul. Some news outlets might even be relying on this Wikipedia article to know the spelling. We need to move the article to Kim Jong-eun. (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  02:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The premiere source for North Korean news, NKNews, uses "Kim Jong-un". The North Korean Central News Agency, uses Kim Jong Un. We might consider using that. I don't know if he writes in English, but his personal preference, if we could determine it, should prevail. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is wrong. Relevant policies (WP:TITLE and so on and so on) state that we should use the common term already in use in the language of the article. I'm afraid KJU's personal preference is quite irrelevant in this case. In the English media it is most often written "Jong-un", which is why this article uses and will continue to use that. T. trichiura Infect me 13:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Koreans don't use any specific transcription system for personal names, but use a different system for each person. Using two common transcription systems (which are usually not used for personal names), the name becomes either "Kim Chông-ûn" or "Gim Jeong-eun", but you never see those variants anywhere. In either case, the vast majority of all English-language sources use the variant "Kim Jong-un". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you intend this to be one level of quote back? You seem to be echoing my point. T. trichiura Infect me 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Should executions/purges by Kim Jong-un be added under human rights?
I ran across this article and wondering if it's sufficient reliable as a source. The article is from Japan claiming "South Korean media" is the source. The last paragraph is better in that is quotes a specific person and we could do the same here on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph is definetly a reputable source.  Provided there's proper attribution and wording that is careful to preserve the claims being made and their ultimate sources faithfully, there's no reason the info should not be included in the article. Snow (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Fellow Editors, It is my sad duty to announce the purge/death of Kim Chol, Vice Minister of the Army, by mortar bombardment.  The article was very explicit in saying mortar bombardment and not by firing squad.   This is a breach of military protocol. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In the article, there is a discussing on the purges going on to consolidate power Also, this makes the sudden disappearance of Ri Sol-ju, his spouse, more noteworthy because of the speculation of "breach of discipline" or "pregnancy". Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can not write the insert to article because of the breach of military protocal is very upsetting to me. i need time to get over that. Marc Kupper or Snow, please would you carry out the editing, if you are avaiable? Geraldshields11 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 October 2012‎ (UTC)


 * For sure, I'll draft something today, after going over the articles and looking for some more. Those are all good sources, but aside from Ri Sol-ju's absence from public events, the events in question are as yet unsubstantiated and are strong claims, so attribution from as many sources as possible will be useful.  Unfortunately we have a bottleneck in terms of the ultimate source (South Korean intelligence/news media and we may never get an official stance on what occurred from the DPRK, so in that regard we'll just have to make do with what we have and word it cautiously.   I'll try to work back to the original sources and do my best to translate them and see just how prevalent and reliable this story is held to be.  Snow Rise (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 November 2012‎ (UTC)

"Sexiest Man Alive"

 * The online version of China's Communist Party newspaper has hailed a report by The Onion naming North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un as the "Sexiest Man Alive" — not realizing it is satire.
 * The People's Daily on Tuesday ran a 55-page photo spread on its website in a tribute to the round-faced leader, under the headline "North Korea's top leader named The Onion's Sexiest Man Alive for 2012." (AP)
 * http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/11/the_onion_names_kim_jong_un_se.html

—WWoods (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Romanising North Korean names
I've brought this up before, but no-one seems to have rectified it: can we PLEASE change the names of all North Koreans listed on Wikipedia to reflect the correct romanisation of North Korean names?


 * 1) No, I do not mean 'make the names of the Dear Leaders slightly larger or in bold' - don't be ridiculous.
 * 2) The argument last time was that South Korean convention should be used like this: Kim Jong-il.
 * 3) Even under the South Korean Revised Romanisation system, names are exceptions (all the Kims in Korea aren't going to be happy about being called 'Gim' from 'Gorea' are they?). You can effectively romanise your name as you please. Syngman Rhee, for example, follows his own convention.
 * 4) No excuses about 'we don't know how they want their names to be spelled in North Korea'. We know perfectly well. It doesn't take long to read North Korean texts to understand that names spelled out in three parts as follows: Kim Jong Il, and NOT Kim Jong-il.
 * 5) The body of the text, and indeed the title of the article, should therefore reflect this.
 * 6) Again, to emphasise, this is not a politically motivated statement. If anything, using South Korean convention to cite North Korean names is far more politically sensitive.
 * 7) The Economist Style Guide says: "South Koreans have changed their convention from Kim Dae Jung to Kim Dae-jung. But North Koreans, at least pending unification, have stuck to Kim Jong Il. Kim is the family name." We're not using mainlang pinyin to romanise the names of Taiwanese people are we? Why should Korea be any different?
 * 8) NK News, which describes itself as the 'nets premier site on North Korean news' uses North Korean convention for North Korean names, and South Korean convention for South Korean names.
 * 9) Why can't Wikipedia follow suit?

Indigoloki (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The name of the article reflects the most common English language formatting of the name. That's why we have Chiang Kai-shek instead of Jiang Jieshi and Mao Zedong instead of Mao Tse-tung. Format used in the native country is irrelevant on this wiki. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...as far as the naming of the article is concerned, at least. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, but English formatting where exactly? On the internet? What about the millions of references within North Korea itself? Or the archives across the rest of the world that used the non-hyphenated version for decades? Why do you think Chiang Kai-shek is more common than Jiang Jieshi? And Mao Zedong more so than Mao Tse-tung? It's also self perpetuating – given the minimal amount of information people have on North Korea, if Wikipedia was to start using the correct format, then the 'most common English language formatting of the name' would therefore change too, wouldn't it? It's frustrating to see an incredible amount of pedantry regarding a suitable photo of Kim Jong Un, yet something as simple as correctly formatting the guy's name is completely brushed aside. Indigoloki (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the intention is to use the variant most consistent with current usage amongst sources treating the subject. This is consistent with the community's broader consensus for using language within the project which reflects consistency with the context and expectations of those who are most likely to be users of a given article; for example, why we use U.K. English spelling conventions in our articles on Britain, American English conventions on those concerning the U.S., and so-forth.   Kim Jong-un is certainly the current default format for media in the west at present.  But honestly, it seems a minor point to me, so long as all variations redirect to the right article and there is discussion of the variation therein. Snow (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)