Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 3

Drawing
File:Illustration of Kim Jong-un.jpg Someone has made a drawing of Kim Jong-un. Is this permitted, or is the illustration a derivative work of some copyrighted photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not a derivative work (I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen that pose before), that's a poor substitute for a photo. Again, we've had cases where people have proposed artist-drawn works where a free photo has yet to exist but is possible (Susan Boyle) and consensus is not to use artist-based works, as they are poor substitutes. --M ASEM  (t) 15:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. There was a similar debate regarding a drawing of Colton Harris-Moore. It's gone too. It's hard to be certain, but I'd wager this image is a derivative of this, which we know from prior deletions is not a free-license image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The creator of the image says is a "rendition, referenced to several photographs". See Portal_talk:Korea. Curious that he should be asking there whether to put the artwork on this article rather than here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oof. I just did a mash up of this image and that image I referenced earlier. Once you scale them, and provide a transparency to one of them, the overlay is blatantly close enough to conclude this is a derivative work. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that a photo is much better than a drawing, but I also wanted to find out whether the drawing was a copyright violation. Thanks for finding the source! --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The above linked image/drawing has now been deleted from Commons as a derivative of a copyrighted work. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un's Age Is No Longer a Mystery
See The Atlantic "Kim Jong Un's Age Is No Longer a Mystery" it should say 8 January 1983, not 8 January 1983 or 1984


 * I agree. This should be updated.
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/kim-jong-uns-age-is-no-longer-a-mystery/265983/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdogproductions (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree. If you search for "how old is kim jong un" on Google, you will see a large bold font with "30 years" and his birth date (1983). DrAndrewWinters (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The only thing that makes me question the 1983 birthdate is the fact that experts estimated that his birth was in "1983 or early 1984." The only way I could think of that one would come to this conclusion is with a source that lists an age, but not a specific date of birth, similar to what you see in census records. For example, (and keep in mind that this is totally hypothetical) but, if there was a leaked document that said he was 10 years old in March of 1994, you'd be able to come to the same conclusion (that he was born in 1983 or early 1984). Now that we know his birthday is January 8, it's reasonable to infer that he was born in 1984. The cook's a reliable source, and I'll still support the change so long as the section highlighting uncertainty about his age is left in; there's still a part of me that's unsure about this though. Rockhead126 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any conceivable invocation of Fair Use?
I realize this has been extensively discussed, but it's something that's really just bugging me (and, I'm sure, a lot of other people). I've gone through the talk page archives, and it seems like no one can find a free-license picture of Kim Jong-un. Is it safe to assume at this point that "no free alternative (to a copyrighted picture) exists"? Does anyone think that we could upload a low-res photo of Kim and use it under the Fair Use policy?

Again, I know the idea of a picture has been extensively discussed. I'm not asking "why is there no picture?". I'm asking if there is any way we could get a picture under the Fair Use Doctrine at this point. What are your thoughts? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of politicians and government-people lists politicians without photo. What is so special about this one? Sure, some of the people in that category are dead, but many of them are still alive. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's because he's a head of state.

Dear associated press, can you spare a picture of Kim Jong-un for our little encyclopedia? Thank you. How hard is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.70.89 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

'Human Rights Violations'
What an outrageous double standard from Wikipedia! There's no word of criticism permitted on U.S. President Barack Obama's biography, nor Presidency of Barack Obama page; yet Kim gets an entire section DEDICATED to it.Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
 * That would seem to be an issue for those articles, not this one. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily; for congruency's sake, we could sanitize articles such as this, on the same specious grounds as those found it the aforementioned Talk pages. I ask in the hope of finding more reasonable people here, than the fanclub of stonewalling zealots that guard those pages round the clock.Beingsshepherd (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd


 * I don't plead guilty. I am supportive of North Korea and wish them well, but, frankly, imprisonment for life at hard labor of entire families for political disagreement is wrong, and notable. However, it is quite possible that Kim Jong-un may not be fully informed, despite his formal position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As to Barack Obama, take it there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure it's notable, but lopsided when looking at the big picture. Should we start an aggressively biased, zero tolerance censorship here; as is evidently permissible, for many sugar-coated, U.S. establishment Wiki articles; free from all negativity? I’m willing.Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd


 * No we shall not. Wikipedia policy is neutral point of view, not sympathetic point of view; softballing Obama is a violation of our policies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North Korea is a outlier. What they could or ought to do with political dissidents is not clear, but nobody, ever, has done what they are doing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture?
Why no picture? He's probably the most photographed world leader besides Obama.75.224.4.116 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a free (as in speech) image to comply with Foundation policy on non-free photos of living persons (read: we don't allow them). He may be well photographed, but those are all press pictures and unusable here.  See the above sections for more details. --M ASEM  (t) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a case of so ronery syndrome, seeing as this is a case of "So Ronery: The Next Generation". LOL 198.151.130.40 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Threat by Kim Jong Un is Unsubstantiated
There is no citation for the claim that Kim Jong Un threatened to use nuclear weapons against the USA. There is nothing in any record anywhere attributing this claim to Kim Jong Un, in other words, there is no record of this on video, audio, or in writing, or even by multiple witnesses, to support the western press claims that Kim Jong Un threatened to use nuclear weapons against the USA. If there is such a threat as this, surely it should be properly cited and reported. The UN resolution on this question is not in any way a citation related to a nuclear threat against the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.171.193 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts and post new discussions at the bottom, not at the top. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

picture
You should add a picture of him (kim jong un). Pictures of him do exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14zach.zoo (talk • contribs)
 * Sure. If you can find a free license image of him, then by all means please upload it. Quite a number of people have thought they had such an image and have uploaded it only to find out it is in fact not free license. We've been having lots of discussion about this very point on this talk page. See below and also the archives of this talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there much more to talk about here than some superficial obsession with a picture of Kim Jong Un? Who cares. Stop kidding yourselves, just because you have a comfortably heated room, a cup of coffee, and an internet connection. Start thinking about how to help starving, cold North Koreans, in spite of Kim Jong Un. Obviously Un, the U.S. and the U.N. are completely devoid of humanitarian ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.171.193 (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not supposed to reply to this, but for the sake of wasting my own time, I'll bite. Having a read of your little rant that was later removed by another editor per policy (Wikipedia is not a forum), I'm quite certain that you're ranting in the wrong place. Your words will fall on deaf ears, because people are here to write an encyclopedia, and not to do anything else. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia written by contributors, not some kind of philanthropist humanitarian organisation. During your little rant, you went on and on about cold and starvation and all that nonsense - bluntly put, I frankly don't give a shit about all of that noise. I'm just an obnoxious faggot that's here to write an encyclopedia. Editors here discussing a photo of Kim Jong-un is superficial? Well, it's funny how almost 80% of reader feedback is confused why we don't have a picture of him. Of course we're here talking about how to improve the article, this is what Wikipedia article talk pages are for. We're not supposed to be here bawwing about how poor and miserable some people might be. If you want to make some kind of difference, go volunteer with the International Red Cross or something. Here, you're just talking to a bunch of nerds writing encyclopedia articles. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 12:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

An odd juxtaposition of statements?
On February 26, 2013, he met ex-NBA star Dennis Rodman,[97] leading many reporters to speculate that Rodman was the first American that Kim had met.[98] On March 7, 2013, North Korea threatened the United States with a 'pre-emptive nuclear attack',[99] and Kim Jong-Un issued a detailed threat to "wipe out" Baengnyeong Island, the scene of previous naval clashes.[100]

As amusing as the implication that Kim Jong-un is targeting the United States with nuclear missiles because he met Dennis Rodman is, I doubt that was the intent of either editor. Having these two statements with close dates juxtaposed like this implies a cause and effect relationship that is probably not intended. I'd fix it myself but I'm not sure how.

Insidious611 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013
Please add a picture. Maybe this one: http://www.enational.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kim-Jong-un.jpg

I should have read the other requests first...

Carpkitty (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As you see, we have to find a free image - not just any random image around the web to use here. --M ASEM (t) 06:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As if you and Hammersoft weren't doing anything to derogate ANY proposed image as not being free - without, of course, offering any proof for your allegations. I'M afraid, given the attitude of the two aforementioned people we'll never have an image in this article. --Krawunsel (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to. This is a requirement the Foundation has put on all its projects ,including Wikipedia, to use free images of living persons. And you have to prove an image is clearly free to be able to use it that way. --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've found a picture that has the CC-BY-SA license
The following picture of Kim Jong-un is available on Flickr and has the CC-BY-SA license, which is acceptable. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54050720@N05/6549444309 --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Commons:Flickrwashing. The Flickr user isn't the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then who is? --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to picture 5 in this gallery from the Washington Post, a Yao Dawei and the Associated Press. Someone tried to put to Commons and use this earlier, but a Tineye.com search confirmed it was a Flickrwashing. --M ASEM (t) 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the caption for the photo in this article (http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/12/kim-jong-ils-son-called-military-supreme-leader), the photo is from Creative Commons. It's the same picture that is on that Flickr page in the link I posted above. --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that that flickr user has zero other images on their flickr account from North Korea (or any other country outside the US), it seems extremely fishy that that is a legitimate original photo. The fact that a reliable source gives AP and photo credits, I'm much more incline to consider it a press photo than a random CC-BY photo that happened to end up on Flickr. --M ASEM (t) 22:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the only picture I could find that at least claimed to have a free license. Other than that, I guess we're doomed. --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a free image?
There's a video by the Voice of America over here. Its by a reporter working for the official external broadcasting network of the United States, so its probably not copyrighted. (There's even a download button just below the video). And if you fast forward to 0:53 it briefly shows a video sequence of Kim Jong-Un for a second or so, and I doubt this is from N.K. state media because there will be a logo displayed at the top left, which isn't the case here. -A1candidate (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless we know where that original footage originated from (its fair to state that we can't expect it to be from VOA or the US gov't), VOA is probably using the media under fair use pretenses, which means they are free to include it but doesn't make it PD. In fact, their copyright statement is clear this often is the case, particularly with AP footage. Now, it is bad form they don't credit the sources, but again, we can be reasonably confident that VOA didn't make it and thus we can't assume PD. --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that parts of the video contains the logo for Chosŏn Chung'ang Pangsong. The logo is not there when Kim Jong-un appears in the video, but it still tells us that VOA got some parts of the video from other sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Real date of birth?
I've come across an article stating that Kim Jong-un's date of birth (Jan 8) is actually a part of the North Korean governments obsession with numerology. In Asian cultures numerology is a rather important aspect of spirituality etc and the number 9 itself is regarded as "lucky" (for lack of a better term) thus Jan 8 equals 1+8=9. Here is the article referring to his date of birth & numerology and another one from The Guardian which copies it, though with some changes. Should we make some mention that there is doubt over the month & day (let alone year) of his birth? Coinmanj (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the confusion over his age was due to Korean age reckoning. Guess I might be wrong. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not trust any date of birth indicated by North Korean sources. For example, Kim Jong-il's date of birth was moved one year so that it would be possible to claim that he was born at a holy mountain. I would not be surprised at all if it turns out that Kim Jong-un's official date of birth also is wrong. If you want an accurate date, I'd assume that you would have to check whether old issues of Rodong Sinmun or Chinese or Soviet sources report that the Dear Leader has got a son, or you could check the size of Ko Yong-hui's stomach on old photos, as people were doing with photos of Ri Sol-ju last year. However, now we are close to the area of WP:OR, so we'd better leave this problem to researchers instead. I don't know if the article would warrant a section about the date of birth uncertainty. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use image
Considering the circumstances surrounding this person, wouldn't a fair use image be usable? Consider that he is the leader of a highly restrictive regime, and where photos of this person are highly controlled by its government. It would be similar to military projects that are restricted. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See the talk above. It's been mentioned n times already. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 11:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be very easy for the North Korean government, or its news agency, to make a nice picture available. Until they do, or someone gets a chance to photograph him, I see no reason to bend the rules. He is a living person eager to make a good impression; that fact should determine our response. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Three times, I contacted the UN Mission of the DPRK and explained the search of public-domain photographs of Kim Jong-un and Ri Sol-ju for the purpose of posting on Wikipedia. The officer, that answered, referred me to www.kpna.kp. (so, no more calling the United Nations Mission of the DPRK; we do not want to WP:Hound).


 * After contacting various organizations in Washington, DC, for digital photographs, I could not find a copyright free open source.


 * Still undeterred, I went to Dandong in PR of China, which is across the Yalu River from Sinŭiju, North Korea and, at a museum dedicated to the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, all I got was a picture of a picture of his grandfather. See Talk:Ri Sol-ju Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Modified by Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Such effort is to be applauded! Nicely done Geraldshields11! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he went above and beyond on this one. Impressive effort on behalf of the project, GS!   Snow (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So are we going to have an image or not? In the history of notable people not having any images of them on Wikipedia, this is the most ridiculous, and the reasons are obvious.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that he is a living person and a public figure, a non-free image is inappropriate since it can be replaced by a free image. We just have to wait for that free image to be made and published. --M ASEM  (t) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that North Korea is a non-free country a free image is very hard to come by. Therefore the fair use image is the best solution, even if some people here are slow to realize that. Kim Jong-un has been in office for a year now and there still isn't a free image and that clearly shows that a non-free image is NOT inappropriate even though some people here want to stubbornly make us believe otherways. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * People can get into NK, it's highly regulated but its not closed borders. And we have plenty of free imagery from the country, so that's not an issue. --M ASEM  (t) 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So then where IS the free image of him? It's still a difference if it's a building or Kim Jong-un. Obviously it IS an issue, however many times you repeat it isn't. And, by the way, maybe you missed the comments above, from people who tried to obtain free images of Kim Jong-un and failed. I don't see how you could stick with your opinion if you had read those comments. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we are building a free content encyclopedia and a free image of Kim Jong-un is completely in the realm of reasonably possibility. We just don't have one now but our policy and the Foundation resolution don't allow us to include a non-free image just because a possible free one isn't presently available. --M ASEM  (t) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is "completely in the realm of reasonably possibility!" where IS the image? And our policy absolutely allows us to use an image under the fair use rationale when there's no free one available. That's what the fair use rationale has been created for! By the way, you have once again disregarded the comments above, from people who tried to obtain a free image and failed. I think that should prove even to you that there is ample reason to use an image under the fair use rationale for the time being. It could still be removed if a free image shows up, unlikely as it is. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Our non-free content doesn't care that we currently don't have a free image that otherwise should be possible to get; it is replaceable (just not at the immediate time) and ergo its use would be a violation of that policy. I do see the comments of people that tried to contact gov't and press agencies for getting a free image but that's not the only way a free image can be obtained. As noted in early convos, the one for his father actually came from Russia due to a state visit, and thus the image was free due to the release by the Russian gov't. That's one way. Someone visiting NK may be able to get a picture (he is not a recluse person). Etc.  This is a textbook case of how we apply our non-free content policy with the Foundation's requirements to living persons - we just have to be patient for the image to come about. --M ASEM  (t) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We just had an RfC on this subject. By far the dominant view was no, we are not going to permit a non-free image to be used on this article to depict him. Wikipedia works on consensus. Consensus was strongly against the use of a non-free image. You are welcome to start another RfC if you like. However, given the recent RfC and that nothing has changed since that RfC, it is unlikely to come to a different conclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a site that posts things from the Korean Central News Agency, and I believe it's legitimate. On it, there's a link to a large photo gallery; nothing is in English, so I can't read it, but maybe it mentions something about image use. On the main site, there's also an e-mail option. This was released by the KCNA a couple of months ago, and I've seen it used by a number of different sources, so does anyone wanna try asking for permission? It's worth a try. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If the gallery you're referring to is the one reached by following the "KNS Photo Service" link, then unfortunately it's not an option; it's a commercial site and, as best I can translate it, it's dubious they have ownership of the content in any event. As to the second option, it can never hurt to ask but bear in mind that any image donated would have to released completely for free use by the owner and I just have a hard time imagining that the KCNA is going to do that, especially given how little control they have over how the man is portrayed here as compared to their general mode of operation. Snow (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This here is a link to the original article from the online version of Rodong Sinmun. I'd say that contacting the newspaper about it would be our best bet, but I don't see any way to do so, unfortunately. :I Rockhead126 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that some people don't want to accept ANY option, they suggest options which don't work (even if you travel to North Korea, photographing is extremely restricted, and you are rather unlikely to meet Kim Jong-un walking alon the street and being happy to smile into your camera) and they debunk all other options. I've got a feeling that because North Korea is such a ferocious dictatorship, some people don't want to see the image of the head of that state in the Wikipedia at all. I'm afraid we'll never have an image of him in here. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The image used for previous leader Kim Il-sung happens to be an illustrated portrait, not a picture of Kim. Since there are, in fact, a fair number of pictures of Kim Jong-un in existence, I could take on of those pictures, and make an illustration of that picture, and we could use that. There's no problem with copyrights, ownership, etc. --Spartan7W (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you can't do that. Your version would be a derivative work of any work you are starting from and therefore burdened by copyright.  The trick with the Il-sung portrait is that, if you follow back to the original commons work, it is a photograph of a portrait of the leader displayed in a public location, and per the Freedom of Panorama laws then "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied."  Thus, if there is an illustration of Jong-un displayed in a public location in N. Korea, we can start from there to make a free image. --M ASEM  (t) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Spartan, if you so wish, you can make your own unique caricature/illustration of Kim Jong-un. As long as it is not based off any specific work, and is your own original rendition then there should be no copyright issues. Eventually it will be replaced with a real image when he inevitably meets with a UN or US delegation. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 22:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll finish it up. (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. We've had this situation before on Susan Boyle before we could get a free photo of her; the first attempts were portraits painted by someone that released them for free, which were soundly rejected as both being derivative works and poor replacements. --M ASEM (t) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How can something be considered a derivative if it is the authors own caricature and is not based off another work? If the illustration is deemed misleading, "poor" or whatever else by the community then it can be easily removed. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 03:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going back to the Susan Boyle case, there were two painting attempts made. One was based on a screenshot from her infamous appearance on television, and that was flat out considered an original work. Another attempt was made to not directly look like any known screenshots or photographs, but even then that was determined to be a derivative work problem (since it was a amalgamation of some of these) and thus not used. Here, Spartan's pic does seem to be an amalgamation of pics of Jong-un, so we still have the potential of it being a derivative work.  (And as an aside, no offense to Spartan, but it was also a rather poor picture that would reflect negatively on WP, but that's a secondary issue). --M ASEM  (t) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a link to an article about Kim Jong-Un that contains a very good image, I believe. Also note that the image was obtained by Reuters from the KCNA, then Reuters subsiquently released it to The Globe and Mail, plus other news agencies. I think then someone should contact Reuters via this page and see if Wikipedia could use it. 167.7.9.163 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would not be Reuter's copyright, it would be the KCNA. --M ASEM (t) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps we should ask Reuters who they contacted with the KCNA to get permission to use the photo. 167.7.9.163 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about living people which don't have photos. What's so special about this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Masem seems to want to talk everything dead. Whatever suggestion is made, he claims it's no good. I think the suggestion of Marcusmax is a very good one if we don't still decide on a picture used by way of the fair use rationale. I still think that's the best solution, whatever Masem thinks he must put against it. We should, however, remember that what Masem thinks is just one opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's right with the things he says here. Let's just take action! And @ Stefan2, it's the only article on a contemporary head of state without an image in it. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually required by the Foundation; we are not allowed to use non-free images of living persons unless its known to be pretty much impossible to get a free image. It is not shown that this is the case for Kim Jong-un, since he's made several public showings. --M ASEM  (t) 15:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Krawunsel; a number of people have "take[n] action" on this article and uploaded a purportedly free image, only to have the image deleted because it's not free. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Masem: The fact that there still isn't any image of Kim Jong-un shows very clearly that it isn't as easy to obtain one as you'd like to make believe. I've said that before but you prefer to answer with stereotype sentences that have not much in common with reality. That Kim Jong-un makes public appearances is one thing but it looks like there are only a very few select photographers who are allowed to take pictures at those events. @ Hammersoft: You're of the same brand. The images were not deleted because they WERE not free but because someone simply claimed they were without providing proper evidence to prove his claims. As long as claims mean more here than proof we've got a problem here. And I stand with it - THIS is a case for the fair use rationale as long as we don't have a free image. And as long as all images that appear are destructively claimed by someone not to bee free (without any proof for the claim, as I've said before) we won't have a "free" image for this article, at least not an uncontested one, since it seems to me that some people here are ready to contest ANY image that shows up. No, not just to contest them but to fight them with claws, and teeth. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of NFC and free images, we don't care how long it takes for a free image to become available, just that it can be made. As long as he makes public appearances, a free image is possible, even if we have to wait a year or two for that to happen. Again, this is exactly a situation that the Foundation has specifically stated that we don't use non-free media in. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Krawunsel; you appear to be of the belief that we have to prove an image isn't free before we remove it. That isn't the case. We have to prove it is free before we can use it. This most emphatically applies in the case of living people who are not (a) incarcerated, (b) a well-known (and can be shown with citations) recluse, or on the run from the law. The leader of a country is none of those things. We have free images of the two prior leaders of North Korea. Getting a free image of the current leader is simply a matter of time. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you have to prove that an image is not free, Masem! If you make a claim, you gotta prove it. Otherwise it's just an allegation and might be a lie. We can't base Wikipedia decisions on allegations and lies! --Krawunsel (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the reverse, actually. We assume any image or media is non-free unless proven otherwise. This is due to present copyright law that says copyright is implicit on publication -thus making any work non-free by default. We need proof of free-ness - whether explicitly licensed as such, age (as to fall into the public domain) or other facets that would negate copyright issues. --M ASEM (t) 15:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Emailing the KCNA
Okay, guys. I've decided to send an e-mail to the address listed on the KCNA website, asking permission to use this, Kim Jong-un's official portrait. As I've mentioned before on here, I'm not entirely literate in the area of image copyright. I assume I need to ask for a letter of authorization like, but I'm not entirely sure how to word this beyond "To whom it may concern." Can someone help me out? Rockhead126 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some instructions on how to proceed at WP:CONSENT, WP:BRP and Commons:COM:OTRS. KCNA might find Commons:COM:OTRS/ko and Commons:Commons:메일 양식 useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using one of the examples at WP:BRP as a template. No idea what Commons:COM:OTRS/ko and Commons:Commons:메일 양식 are about. Should I say, "For more information, you can refer to..." and then include links? Rockhead126 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts, people? Any changes? Recommendations? Obviously, this is a long shot, so I'd like to maximize our chances. Input is greatly appreciated.

To whom it may concern,

I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the top 5 visited sites on the Internet, and its sister site Wikinews (en.wikinews.com) is a well-viewed news source.

Since 2006, our site has featured an article about the son of General Kim Jong-il and current leader of the DPRK, Kim Jong-un. . Unfortunately, the article lacks is an image of the subject, a problem unique among articles about current world leaders. Although many images of Kim exist online, these are all copyrighted and therefore our in-house policies forbid us including them with any article or news report we may produce.

The article would definitely benefit from a usable good quality image of Kim Jong-un, which is why I am requesting permission to use the photograph attached below, an official portrait, which was released by the KCNA in April of 2012.

Since Wikipedia aims to be a repository of images and information that anyone can use, even in nations where generous United States "fair use" provisions are inapplicable, we can only use images that are released under a so-called "free license", which permits anyone else to use, modify, or deal commercially with the image concerned if they wish, provided there is appropriate attribution and that any modifications are released under an identical license. (Exceptions may be made if there is no possibility of such an image being available by other means, but that is not practical here - we don't have the capability to take good quality publicity photographs of Kim Jong-un ourselves.)

Example licenses that would permit us to use a better-quality image would be: the GNU Free Documentation License  or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license . Be assured if you do not grant permission or provide such an image, we will not use one without permission. You are under no obligation to release any material under such licenses, but for public-relations purposes, you might want to consider it given Wikipedia's great popularity.

With your permission, we would then credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, with a permanent link back to your website for any reader of the articles in which it appears.

You can read more at , and a range of "frequently asked questions" can be found at . A simple form of consent can be found at .

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

(My name)

Volunteer editor, Wikipedia. Rockhead126 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "image of the Kim Jong-un" should read "image of Kim Jong-un". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited. Good catch. Thanks. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions: This is the DPRK we're talking about, and I'm quite sure that an employee of the KCNA might know about things such as The commons and privatised ownership. We might end up dealing with an individual who is extreme pro-socialist, anti-capital, anti-private ownership, and dreams of a worldwide socialist utopia, and I think it's quite likely given the nature of the people we'll be contacting. It might be the possible that by explaining how free (libre) content compares with copyrights in terms of public ownership and capital sales, we'd get more sympathy. I think it might be beneficial for us to change our wording to reflect this, to increase our chances of success. For example, If we can somehow make analogies with Marxist socialist theory or something, we might get a better outcome. Sounds crazy initially, I know, but keep in mind that people look positively towards, may I say, pandering, and saying nice things to them is exactly how CNN reporters get into North Korea in the first place (there's a Vice documentary that describes this). --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which aims to provide information to the masses, free of charge, as noted by our mission/core policy/whatever. We provide content without any restrictions, so that all people can freely access our encyclopedia and learn from it.
 * Our encyclopedia can only accept images that are under a free license. We cannot use images that are under copyright, because the terms of such usage are rather restrictive, and do not conform with our blahblah etc freedoms that our website strives to aim towards. Content that is copyrighted is under the ownership of the private individual, so that they may sell their works for profit, whereas free license content can be freely used by anyone without reprimand.
 * We believe that using an image of the son of the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, General Kim Jong-un, we can significantly improve the quality of our encyclopedia, and provide a better standard to everyone who wishes to learn from our encyclopedia. Currently we are unable to obtain a free license image of General Kim Jong-un, which is why blahblah etc etc
 * Information should belong to the masses, and not be restricted to the individual so that they can use it for their own gain something something (man I dunno, make some kind of analogy that's easy for a far-left wing to understand, and makes them happy too) By providing us with a free image of General Kim Jong-un, we are able to freely provide a service to all etc etc
 * They might not understand what are Alexa rankings and the significance of being within the top 5 highest traffic sites, they might not understand what is Creative Commons (and merely linking the URL might not do; keep in mind that these people have an entirely different mindset, and have grown up in a world detached from everything international), they might not even look positively towards calling anything related to the United States "generous". We have to explain things from the base up, and not assume that they know everything that we, the people of the outside world, know.
 * Again, regarding "United States", it might seem tedious, silly and unnecessary, but it's these little things that count. Little things are quite important for North Koreans; take a picture of any statue of Kim Il-sung from behind, and they'll immediately deport you because to them, it's disrespectful. In my opinion, avoid mentioning things that shouldn't really be mentioned, such as the United States, to which even to this day the DPRK does not even recognise.
 * I know you haven't done this wrong, but just a quick mention in case people come up with future revisions. In some cases, you can avoid saying some undesirable things by using others. Examples of how to put things nicely without actually lying: Don't say Wikipedia is hosted in the US, say that it is an international site with contributors from around the world (that's not a lie, isn't it?). Don't say we can't do things because rules say so, instead say that it's against our goals and visions. It might seem like doublespeak euphemisms, but it's better than going all-out blunt and losing the sympathy of the people we're trying to deal with. Another thing that you've done well, though, is that you should always use "DPRK" and not "North Korea", something they take offense at, and refer to leaders using their titles. Just another note for other people in case someone else wants to make another revision in the future.


 * Having a more detailed read, I have a few points to make. You can choose to take into account some, any, all or none, these are merely my opinions, and could be right or wrong.
 * Quote: "these are all copyrighted and therefore our in-house policies forbid us including them with any article or news report we may produce" - don't make it that we're merely using an excuse that our Wikipedia policies forbid us from using non-free content. Make it sound like we actually strive to provide free content. Something like "these are all copyrighted, and so we cannot use them as such material conflicts with the aims and goals of our free encyclopedia". Restrictions aren't an excuse, they are there to ensure that we create a free encyclopedia. Mentioning this will make someone who has grown up in a socialist setting and have learnt about the virtues of socialism all their life through their education, find our cause more appealing.
 * Quote: "Wikipedia is among the top 5 visited sites on the Internet" - they probably don't understand, or don't care, or both. Most North Koreans don't even have free internet, and I'm sure an employee of the KCNA might know the basics of the internet, but not actually willing to dwelve too much into it.
 * Explain what each of the licenses mean. Don't expect them to click a URL and read 30,000 words of boring drivel that they might not understand. The GNU Free Documentation License is written entirely in legalese, and I sincerely doubt that our poor KCNA employee would want to read this holy scripture from Richard Stallman.
 * Comments are welcome. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you spergs just add a goddamn picture already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.116.230 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a goddamn free license picture, we'd be happy to add it. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone tried asking Dennis Rodman for a picture? He seems to be one of the few people outside N.K. with a very friendly relationship with Kim Jong-un and I heard he's returning to N.K. in a couple of weeks for a 2nd visit -A1candidate (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We seriously need a photo of KJU, pronto. No pics on Flickr under Creative Commons licensing? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some pics here. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of them do not show Kim Jong-un. Many of the look like typical photos put out by the North Korean state propaganda, and some even contain a watermark telling that the images come from Chosŏn Chung'ang T'ongsin. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/josephferris76/6968981520/ might meet Commons:Template:FoP-North Korea (see Commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that someone sticking copies of a Korean newspaper up would constitute KCNA's release of rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture: Reply
Hello

I have included two pictures in my contribution (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Jong_Un.jpg, on horse gazing at the distance and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marshal_Kim_Jong_Un.jpg, portrait). The images have been nominated for deletion which I do not believe complies with the wikimedia commons since according to what I have been able to analyze of the translations of The Copyright Law of DPRK available and wikimedia guidelines I have come to the following conclusions:

1) USA and North Korea (DPRK) have no copyright relations, therefore the copyright law that should prevail would be that of DPRK.

2) The Copyright Law of the DPRK [1] declares it's fundamental intent is "to contribute to the development of literature and the arts and science and technology" (Chapter 1). This declares that contributing to developing literature, arts, science and technology, all of which can be used to describe contributing it to the further development of Wikimedia Commons, is compliant with it's foundation.

3) Article 12, Chapter 1 of the aforementioned law declares that "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright". The image in question corresponds to the informative bulletin on the current North Korean president and as such it should not be regarded as subject to copyright according to the Copyright Law of the DPRK [1]. Therefore this file can be regarded as intended for public domain use and no copyright applies to it.

4) Regarding to copyrighted works, it states that "disseminating them by reproduction, performance, broadcasting, exhibition, distribution, adaptation and compiling" is an important undertaking, highlighting its approval regarding the use of copyrighted works (Chapter 4, Article 26 of DPRK Copyright Law [1]). This conveys that, under DPRK copyright law, even if an image were to be a copyrighted work, it's dissemination by any form of reproduction, performance, broadcasting, exhibition, distribution, adaptation or compilation would, in fact, be encouraged.

5) Furthermore Article 32 on the same chapter states that a copyrighted work may be used without permission of the copyright owner when the copyrighted work is reproduced for depositing, displaying, reading or lending in archives [1]. According to the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary "a repository or collection especially of information" is the definition of an archive [3], as Wikimedia commons considers itself a "media file repository" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome), if it were to include a North Korean image under North Korean copyright, which in any case this image has not proven to be, inclusion of it within Wikimedia Commons is in compliance with DPRK's copyright law.

6) In addition, article 32 goes on to state that a copyrighted work may be used without permission of the copyright owner when the use of such copyrighted work is performed free of charge[1] like it is currently included.

[1] DPRK copyright law, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea (translated and copyright free). [2] News in Korea - Naenara, http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/news/index.php. [3] Archive - Merriam Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archive.

If you agree with my conclusions please state your support. If you don't and have any other available information on the subject of DPRK law that might dispute this please let me know your point of view. Sugar128 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The images are not "free" under US law. There is no claim that the works are either in the public domain or a Creative Commons-compatible license, only that, like US, there is an aspect of fair use with the images - your point 4 - but this doesn't remove the copyright from the original works. That would qualify them as non-free for us at Wikipedia, which means 1) they can't be hosted at Commons (that requires them to be free) and 2) we can't use them to illustrate a living person by non-free content policy. --M ASEM (t) 12:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your point 6 translates as a non-commercial license. We permit the use of Wikipedia content for commercial purposes, including for charge. Therefore, anything licensed as non-commercial is for our purposes non-free, and if we are to use it we must do so under terms of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both images under discussion have now been deleted from Commons as copyright violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, Article 12, Chapter 1 of DPRK copyright law declares that current news and bulletins by the state shall not be the object of copyright. The image in question is from one of such bulletins on current North Korean president and as such it should not be regarded as subject to copyright according to the Copyright Law of the DPRK. At the same time this makes it free to use in the US and this should mean that we should be able to upload it to wikimedia commons and even make mugs, funny t-shirts or target practice dummies with it if we feel so inclined. I don't understand why an image cannot be used if the law of the country of origin says it is not regarded as subject to copyright making it free to use within the US. Sugar128 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As you noted in point 6 above, there's a requirement for non-commercial use only. This is incompatible with our definition of free. Furthermore, the site from which the image of him on horseback was taken clearly has a copyright claim on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said point 6 refers to images or which copyright applies and it does NOT apply to this one since DPRK copyright law clearly says that current news and bulletins by the state shall not be the object of copyrightSugar128 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A picture from a website run by the government is arguably not the same as "news and bulletins". Considering that we've had the same issue with Kim Jong-Il and getting a free photo despite the likely proliferation of images on DPNK's website, I doubt our concerns have changed here. --M ASEM  (t) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The website you're getting the images from certainly seems to think their works are copyrighted. I'd trust their judgment over any of ours. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - early life
It should be added, after recent news something in this style: In the 2013 one of the newspapers published photo of the Kim Jong-un taking part in the school musical "Grease". According to this he was about 11 years old, studying in private Bern school under false name and identify. Despite the quite high cost of this high school - (annual fee about 19000 euro), the official cover was that he is a son of the North Korea embassy driver. Reasons of inserting: Attached photo probably can be inserted in the English Wikipedia, as a "fair-use", low resolution because of the not known material about him.
 * Little is known about his previous life
 * Published info with photo
 * High cost of private education, and it look like "child playing" of North Korea forces - how many drivers can insert they child in the so costly schools?
 * This leads to the fact that other special forces and governments may known(or did a big miss) about his presence.
 * Possible another prove that he may be secluded from friends even in school - mostly children may see him as a strange, because of they "rich parents".
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article already discusses reports that he attended school in Switzerland near Bern under an assumed name. I don't see anything here that would add to that - tabloid articles from Bild and the Sun are not going to lend a great deal of weight to the article. If you think the photo should be uploaded to Wikipedia, you should submit it to WP:Files for upload. -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 04:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We will not be using a non-free image of Kim Jong-Un for depiction purposes. See RfC on the matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

His religion?
How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments, the most important thing about him or any person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that religion is one of the most important things for a person is an  unjustified assumption that only you and like-minded people share alone. Plenty of people don't care whether John Smith likes this imaginary sky daddy, whether Jack Smith likes that imaginary sky daddy, or Jane Smith likes no imaginary sky daddy. The statement you have made is merely your own opinion, and it's one that not everybody shares. Furthermore, we do not have reliable sources regarding his religion. Previous attempts to add "Juche" as a religion to the pages of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were also reverted because there are no reliable sources that state that Juche is a religion. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. As a living, breathing example that religion isn't "the most important thing about[...]any person," I couldn't have said it better myself. Rockhead126 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"...only you and like-minded people share 'alone'"? Whatever beliefs to which one is bound (*religio-*) comprise his or her religion. Everyone has such important beliefs. They are the kind of beliefs which are necessary on the basis of which to argue against others' religious beliefs. The beliefs of Kim Jong-un which are most important to him should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs)
 * Alright then. Find me a reliable source that tells me what he believes in then. We obviously haven't found one yet; why don't you help us figure out what his religion is. I certainly don't know what it is; it's not like I can call his phone and ask him. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 08:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion is important to some people, unimportant to others, and sometimes not present at all. It is more than possible that a supreme leader of a brain-washed country might not admit to a belief in any power higher than himself, so as to allow his subjects to venerate him in lieu of a less tangible deity. Such an attitude might also make it unlikely for him to express a belief that deities do not exist, for similar reasons. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

False statement about China-styled reforms
Kim Jung-un did not "announce China-styled reforms." This is pure speculation from a chef. The phrasing that is plainly false and should be changed.24.238.86.117 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Unicorns
Should someone say something about the unicorn cave Kim Jong-un says he found? As a part of his propaganda, he claims he discovered an ancient lair of unicorns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.195.227 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, they weren't actually unicorns, but some other mythical creature known as the Kirin, but for some reason, it was translated as "unicorn" in the English-language media. Nevertheless, it is quite a strange and quirky thing to announce the discovery of a mythical horse. If you can provide reliable sources, then I don't see why not. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Helen Pidd, 6 December 2012, Unicorn lair 'discovery' blamed partly on mistranslation, Guardian UK. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of young Kim Jong Un
Hello, I'm just asking if the alleged photos of Kim Jong Un in his young years are copyrighted. Check google for pictures. Reepy1 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question has to be asked in reverse for our purposes; is a given picture free of copyright or available under a free license? We presume copyrighted, non-free until we have proof otherwise. To date, no one has found such an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't just "presume" something until you have proof! --Krawunsel (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Now, since anything worthy of copyright that has been made in recent times is automatically copyrighted, we presume it's copyrighted unless we have proof otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding. Anyway, even if I take the context of copyright out, I do not think I should even use them since there's no proof that is Kim Jong Un. 113.255.172.80 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference 105 and referencing the Daily Mirror
You guys do realise the Daily Mirror is more full of s*** than a latrine right? You really shouldn't be citing that utter garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.52.195 (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A tabloid certainly isn't a suitable source for a claim like that. I removed it per WP:BLPSOURCES. January  ( talk ) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Image
Seriously, what's the worst that can happen if we use a so-called copyrighted photo of Kim Jong-Un? What, will KCNA file a copyright claim against Wikipedia? They're a rogue and isolated state, they can't do anything even if they wanted to. And Wikipedia is a pillar of freedom of information, we might as well use their "copyrighted" material as a stand against them. 128.223.223.65 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We honor copyright as a general principal and a matter of settled policy 100% of the time, with no consideration as to whether we like or dislike the copyright holder. Accordingly, I oppose your idea.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The restriction against the image has zero to do with the legal ramifications of copyright law against the Wikimedia foundation - it is more because we have a specific resolution from the Foundation to promote free content creation and minimize non-free content. It's a core principle of the entire set of wikimedia sites. --M ASEM (t) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a case for the fair use rationale, have you ever thought about that? --Maxl (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have thought about that, of course. There has been lengthy discussion here and here, and the conclusion is that fair use images of Kim Jong-un are not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy on non-free content. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And at the RFC on the subject. The proposal to allow a fair use image was, by far, the minority opinion. Consensus can change, but for now the standing consensus is we will not be using a fair use image of Kim Jong-un. The RFC pretty much stands as law, so far as using a fair use image here is concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think opponents are sticking to their guns on not employing fair-use in this article either 1) out of stubborn pride, or 2) to wean wikipedia away from the unsettling gray-area of fair-use. Either way, I think a non-free image will eventually win-out in this case, but not after a fair amount of unnecessary chest pounding. Poshzombie (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Poshzombie. Somehow, a few people here, like Masem and Hammersoft, are trying to keep ANY image out of this article. Anyway, if I remember the cited discussions correctly it was just the two who were against using a picture under the fair use rationale. And two people were hardly the majority in those debates unless you count the thickness of their skins against any sensible arguments... I could go on... but better not... politeness keeps me from continuing... :) --Krawunsel (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Foundation has language that prevents us using a non-free image, irregardless of the rationale (certainly, the picture of a world leader would otherwise not be contested for meeting all other parts of NFCC). But NFCC#1 is based on direct language from the Foundation on what is considered replaceable fair use, and is a non-negotiable point. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacking myself and Masem as having "stubborn pride", "just the two who were against", and our having "thickness of skins" is hardly helpful, much less accurate. As has been pointed out in this very thread before, there was an RFC on this issue. Proponents of using a non-free image were soundly defeated by a 3:1 margin. It wasn't just myself and Masem. Being on the side that did not win an issue is understandably depressing. However, it is not justification for attacking us nor is it justification for using a non-free image. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

✅ Added free image, although a graffiti, is based on a photo.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I *think* it might be okay. While it is a photograph of street art in France where there's no Freedom of Panorama, the original flickr account appears to be that of the graffiti artist themselves (thus they can take photos of their own art for free). The image is not based on any obvious copyrighted image, so hard to make an argument it being a derivative work. In other words, as long as we're sure about the flickr photograph being made by the graffiti artist, it should be okay. --M ASEM  (t) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A photograph of graffiti about the subject is not appropriate for the infobox. It may be for another section of the article, if it isn't a derivative work. Jonathunder (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This 'free' graffiti isn't. It's clearly derivative of this image. Lighting angle (shadow under lower lip, shadow under chin) and direction of eyes and cant of head are dead giveaways. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely derivative and thus not okay, regardless of the graffiti/photograph artist. --M ASEM (t) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is free, as all Category:Demeure du Chaos files. Its a discussed issue, (See ), and had been already decided to be kept. And is simply ridiculous to say that a graffiti wich is not difamatory aint suitable for an infobox, if we followed that rule, every infobox about a person that shows a picture, drawing, painting, etc... instead of a photo had to be deleted. Im starting to think that other users who claim that some here dont want to have any image of Kim Jong Un here might be right...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is not free if it derives from an unfree work. There's also a huge difference in appropriateness between using a portrait painting of a historical person and using spraypainted graffiti which copies a news photo of a living man. Jonathunder (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat that a consensus had been made in Commons about the Demeure du Chaos files, see above. And, can you explain that alleged "huge difference" between a portrait, drawing, etc... and a graffiti? Both are simply forms of art, and in this case, as much of the graffitis had been made out from photographs, are much more accurate that several drawings and paintings I've seen in infoboxes, in wich the artist had made his personal interpretation instead of simply depicting the person...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question that, if the graffiti artist's image was an original work that the use of flickr photos from that account would be free images. The problem is that the image the graffiti artist made is obviously based on an AP photo and thus a derivative work, and thus cannot be considered free. If the artist attempted a new composite image from multiple sources, as to remove the derivative work issue, then we'd be reasonably okay with using it in liue of a photograph until such became available. (it certainly was artistically accurate enough to be usable.) --M ASEM  (t) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What about this image from Live Science? According to their website it's "public domain", see here. Coinmanj (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That claim is wrong. The photo is a portion of one on this page: which clearly lists it as an AP Press photo. --M ASEM  (t) 23:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So the two of them are still blocking EVERYTHING. The page from where Hammersoft claimed a graffiti was taken doesn't contain a picture of a graffitti and therefore Hammersoft's claim of July 5 was clearly wrong. --Krawunsel (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to blame two people as if they're the Wikipedia boogeyman. Their position is clear, as is mine - we cannot have unfree images without a decent excuse, and that is that. So far there as been no decent excuse brought forward and accepted by the community with strong consensus. Conversely, forcing the use of non-free images of Kim Jong-un is acting against everyone's freedoms, and freedom is something that Wikipedia is built upon. You might not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but that does not mean that you can ignore people who repeatedly inform you about what Wikipedia is about. We are here to educate, whilst respecting freedom for all, both in regards to freedom of information and freedom to copyright. We respect the freedoms of others, including copyright holders. That way, Wikipedia can remain to be free of legal chains to anybody, meaning that both readers and contributors can enjoy the benefits of an encyclopedia that is, by all definitions, free (libre and gratis). --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 09:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not consider disregarding ANY arguments brought by others but themselves very beneficial for the Wikipedia. Of course we cannot have unfree images in the Wikipedia, with the exception of thus used by the fair use rationale which is another thing they disregard. But they simply claim an image is unfree usually without giving proof, or, with false prove, as mentioned in my above post. Is that really helpful to the Wikipedia or beneficial? I don't think so. And "Bogeyman" is your word, not mine. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, we've explained why the images that have been found fail to be free (the graffiti was a derivative work, and the claimed free photos are really press photos lacking the proper markings and treated inappropriately as free by those other sources). I want to see an image on this page, but we have a requirement that we cannot, period, use non-free images of living persons and will continue to remove and have deleted images that are clearly press photos or based on such. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reports of a child
Dennis Rodman has stated that Kim has a daughter; I don't know if that's enough to put such info in this article. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also a separate article about the daughter: Kim Ju-ae. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A consideration in how reliable a source that Rodman is (the sources that report what Rodman reports are reliable, but this is equivalent to one step-removed without secondary information). It's not that we can't say what Rodman said, but we should not necessarily believe it should be taken as fact at this time since that's exactly one person, period, making that claim. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of things can be sourced to just one person if that person is in a position to know and there aren't any reasons to doubt the claim. This isn't an anonymous source.  The New York Times has said, "Mr. Rodman also revealed that Mr. Kim was 30 years old and that his birthday was Jan. 8."  Note the NYT editor's decision to use the term "revealed" instead of "claimed," etc.  There aren't any contrary claims as to the birthdate aside from perhaps the North Korean government but the government communications are more likely to be subject to propaganda concerns than what Rodman was told by his "friend."  In any case, re the birthdate the NYT adds that "The age and birthday conform with what South Korean intelligence officials have said."  Wikipedia is not infallible such that if it later emerges the information was wrong Wikipedia is not necessarily embarrassed.  Wikipedia often changes with time as more information becomes known.  Hedging bets with "1983 or 1984" has been and should continue to be a rare practice reserved for very poor sourcing.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The murder of his ex girlfriend
South korean media reported he machine-gunned his ex, all her friends, and sent the family to prison camps.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/08/29/2013082901412.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a single report from a South Korean source is sufficient to prove that he really did that. --Krawunsel (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is, as of 17 December 2013, now mutiple reports and the band members have not shown up to perform or say they are alive. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FAQ
Just created Talk:Kim Jong-un/FAQ, it's quite a rough piece of work that gets the general idea across, feel free to brush up some things here and there. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email
 * Thank you very much. I like it because it adds coding in a new way. Good initative. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013
Kim Jong-un has recently been executed for alleged crimes. 12th December 2013

HarryUsagi (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No, his uncle was. Thanks for playing, though. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 22:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can try correcting people without being a pretentious smartass? 68.191.76.81 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * LMAO I love both comments. You were a smartass but it was a really f**king big mistake dude, did you completely misread every article?108.205.131.29 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reply of ElHef was quite arrogant, at least the second part. HarryUsagi could just have been uninformed. The first half of the reply would have sufficed. --Krawunsel (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure that pretentious smartass comment is also needed... I mean to be technically following this line of logic of trimming the fat in comments. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion
This is a request to remove "atheism" as a religion from the bio box on Kim Jong-un. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity and is therefore irreligious in nature. StylumCEO (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with a more specific and accurate: "None" with atheism in parenthesis. StylumCEO (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Atheism is a type of faith - just one that doesn't involve a diety, and thus is an appropriate term for that field if there are RS that meet BLP's requirements that identify that as such. --M ASEM (t) 07:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are different types of atheism. There's anti-theism that believes the absence of divine entities and there are just plain old passive atheists who do not actively believe in any divine entity. But I'd say atheism is cited enough as a religion that it may be okay to give it a pass even though it can be technically incorrect to call it a religion. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that I could not find any citations in the article either way, I think that relgion should either 1) someone needs to find some RS that say he's atheist and that it's a religion, or 2) that it should be left at "none" (which would still benefit from sources), or 3) we simply make no reference to his religion. As it is we are making two factual statements, the first that he is atheist (which needs sources; we can't just say "everyone knows that" because he's North Korean), and secondly that atheism is a religion. Sourcing for the latter would be great, or at least some internal references to similar articles that show this is common posted here on the Talk page. Outside of that, I think we are making statements without sources, and I have to agree that calling atheism a religion (religion and faith are not wholly synonymous) is a stretch. 204.65.34.204 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese media uses Korean now?
"Chinese media had named him as 김정은 (Hanja: 金正恩; lit. righteous grace)." is dubious - the Chinese media would use Chinese, not Korean. They now name him as "金正恩", although there were variations initially. The statement is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.73.197 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This news report verifies the above statement, however. Each Hanja, which can be Chinese or Korean, corresponds to a Korean hangul eum reading. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link in the 'Assassination Attempt' tab.
Why is the link to Kim Yong-chol page does not exist? Thisisnottheusername (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

request to add a picture of Kim Jong-un from wiki-china.org.cn
Add his picture... http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/images/6/64/Kim_Jong_Un_%28%E9%87%91%E6%AD%A3%E6%81%A9%29.jpg

138.162.0.42 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Which means you haven't got any proof at all that there's copyright on that image. Just to allege something is quite insufficient.
 * ❌ There is no information on its copyright status. See WP:COPYVIO. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also here:


 * https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-un
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%AB%D0%BD
 * https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A1_%E0%B8%88%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%87-%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B6%E0%B8%99

At least one of these should be an option to be used. --Krawunsel (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Because copyright law, by default, assumes anything published is automatically copyrighted, we (at en.wiki) need evidence that clearly shows the copyright has been licensed freely or that that copyright no longer exists or expired. --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue here is whether or not a picture of Kim should be included under fair-use provisions. He's been leader of NK for quite some time now, and he has not yet travelled outside the country and he most certainly won't be taking a free photo anytime soon -A1candidate (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is not sufficient to say that no free replacement can be taken. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is using an official North Korean portrait of Kim Il Sung in his article acceptable, but using an official North Korean portrait of Kim Jong Un not acceptable? I'm 100% convinced that you people who are opposing including his official North Korean portrait in this article are TROLLING at this point.68.191.76.81 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kim Il Sung is dead - there is no way that a free image can be made now. --M ASEM (t) 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Who says it isn't? We can still replace the fair use picture by a free one once one shows up. We've been waiting long enough. --Krawunsel (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a non-free image until a free image obtained is not in keeping with our policies. The policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). It does not say it is acceptable to use non-free imagery where no free equivalent is available, and that's it. The bolded portion of the policy is the salient point. The reigning consensus on this article is that we will not be using a non-free image to depict him on this article. I know you disagree with this. You've been disagreeing with this position for a very long time now. Regardless, the position stands and it is the backed by the RfC on the issue. Nothing has changed to fundamentally undermine that RfC. You are welcome to start another RfC, but given that nothing has changed that would undermine the prior RfC's position, there's little hope the outcome would be different. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created." So in this case, you seem to imply that we can not use non-free content because it is somehow possible to Create a free image of Kim Jong Un? --Rezashah4 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) He's alive. 2) He's not reclose or in a position inaccessable to the general public.  Ergo, yes we can expect a free image can be generated. Yes, the elephant in the room is getting someone to the somewhat restricted NK to take said picture for use which is by no means a trivial feat, but this isn't the first type of case like this that has come up. --M ASEM  (t) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But this is like saying we had to wait until 2012 so we could post a photograph of J.D. Salinger on his article (btw, they used a Fair-use provision long before that). They are both people who were alive, but are inaccessible to the general public for the foreseeable future. He may or may not (depending on your definiton, or how you believe Kim Jong-Un lives like) be a recluse, but the only images that are made of him come from KCNA. And he isnt going to be giving selfies to his adoring fans anytime soon, or to anyone for that matter, much less to somebody who is willing to release a content of him for Free-Use or CC. So I dont understand how someone can come to the conclusion that the leader of North Korea is a figure who is not in a position inacessible to the genenral public. Are we supposed to wait until Kim Jong Un dies before we can get a fair-use provision? Or are we making conclusions that because somebody might be able to take a photograph of him in an unspecified future timeframe, fair-use is rendered incompatible with any content depicting him. Im not usually involved in license debates, but I seriously think this is already one of the worst world leader articles ive seen in a while and the lack of image is a huge part of it (he is currently the only world leader who is missing an image). Rezashah4 (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Are we supposed to wait until Kim Jong Un dies before we can get a fair-use provision? Or are we making conclusions that because somebody might be able to take a photograph of him in an unspecified future timeframe, fair-use is rendered incompatible with any content depicting him." Yes, this is a bright line criteria. The Foundation specifically calls out that fair-use of non-free images of living persons is nearly never appropriate to include. --M ASEM  (t) 04:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless they are inaccessible to the public, which Kim Jong-Un dosent seem to qualify in your opinion.... Rezashah4 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He goes out in public; plenty of press corp photos after that execution news a week-some ago. --M ASEM (t) 06:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But none of those are free, are they? So better forget about your above argument. It doesn't apply in this case. How long do we have to wait, in your opinion, until Kim Jong-un would qualify in your opinion to use a picture under the fair use rationale? He's been the ruler of North Korea for well over a year now and there still isn't any "free" image of him. Yes, he appears in public, or whatever is the North Korean perception of "public", but still, only carefully selected people have access to him and are allowed to take pictures of him. I don't even think the average North Korean people own or are allowed to own a camera. The only ones who get to photograph him are press people and they're not very likely to provide an image as free content for the wikipedia since they make a living by taking pictures. Tourists would hardly receive permission for an audience with him. Thus, to the general public Kim Jong-un IS inaccessible even if Masem and Hammersoft maintain the opposite. Kim Jong-un is a special case and we DO need to do something special here. I believe using an image under the fair use rationale (if necessary against the wishes of those two notorious nay-sayers Masem and Hammersoft) is a very good solution, and that picture can still be removed if a free one happens to show up one day. I think this is a model case for using an image under the fair use rationale. --Krawunsel (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, this opinion failed to sway consensus in favor of using a non-free image to depict this person. As I noted before, you are welcome to start a new RfC as consensus can change. However, given that nothing has changed to make circumstances different, it is highly unlikely that consensus would find in favor of using a non-free image, especially when there are literally thousands of images of him that have been taken. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Point of correction: Kim Il Sung may be dead but his body is embalmed and on display, so it is equally theoretically possible to take a free photo of him (or at least, his body -- which for copyright law purposes is no different). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.73.197 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think it would be beneficial to use a photograph of a dead man lying in state for a biographical article? -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this particular dead guy is still considered to be the "Eternal President" of that regime. It's an interesting question. Jonathunder (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Mao Zedong is also lying in state in a mauseleum in Tiananmen, however cameras are forbidden when you visit him, and I honestly doubt that someone can just pop over to Juche land and take a few snaps of Kim Il-sung. Furthermore, there are old public domain images of Mao (and of Kim Il-sung) with expired copyrights, so I don't think the same logic can be applied to Kim Jong-un. The earliest images of Kim Jong-un would have been taken in, what, 1993 or something? We would have to wait decades before they become PD. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I failed to sway, Hammersoft, is not consensus but just, obviously, your personal opinion. And since I'm still of the opinion that an image used by way of the fair use rationale is the best solution here, we have no consensus at all; what we have are radically differing opinions. Anyway, how could there be a consensus as long as you keep opposing all sensible ideas and solutions for this article? Please feel free to stick to your opinion, but be assured that obstinacy or believing that your opinion is tantamount to a consensus isn't helpful to the Wikipedia. --Krawunsel (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have consensus, by way of an RfC on the subject that has been conducted. Your opinion echos the minority opinion in that RfC. The consensus was we are not going to allow a non-free image to depict Kim Jong-un. I'm sorry you feel I'm being obstinate. Regardless, your opinion about my behavior does not change the outcome of that RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo
Hi, I don't really understand why are there no pictures or portraits of Kim Jong-un in the page. Is there some sort of restriction by the NK government or something? Thanks 177.32.57.182 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We are a free content encyclopedia, and the Foundation does not let us use copyrighted images of living people where a free image is likely possible (as in the case of a world leader). --M ASEM (t) 19:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying there are absolutely no free images of Kim Jong un available? Cadiomals (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the case, yes. Jonathunder (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which means that this is a case for using an image under the fair use rationale. Which is the exception, @ Masem, which the Wikipedia allows if no free image is available, and it exists, even if you prefer to ignore it. And we should not wait until he's dead - that could take another 50 years. --Krawunsel (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the all important "or could be created" component of WP:NFCC #1. He is a world leader. He has been photographed many, many times. His image can be found all over the Internet. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why dont you go take a picture of him and upload it on here, since your delusions seems to suggest to you that Free Images can be created from the most reclusive Leader in the world.Rezashah4 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He is not prone from public appearances, ergo a free image is possible. If it was the case that it was well established he completely avoided any public exposure, that might be a starting point, but that's not true; he clearly attends events in the open. --M ASEM  (t) 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He has avoided public exposure. All the areas he goes to are closed off with controlled access, in a country with controlled access. I think you are not only confused, but deluded if you think that these kinds of appearances are public. If it is public, why dont you go and photograph him and post your free image here, so you can solve your own problem of having a censorship fetish of trying to prevent a Fair Use Image of him, and doing nothing to improve this article?Rezashah4 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I could reverse the question. Why are you here complaining about the lack of a free-license image, when you could be taking the effort to travel to North Korea to take a photograph of him during the Arirang Mass Games? Koryo Tours offers travel packages for all people who aren't South Korean citizens. Anything is achievable, provided that people put in some effort. The reason that we do not have a free license image is because no Wikipedia contributor has bothered to put in a bit of their personal energy into solving the problem. No one has emailed the North Korean government asking them to release an image under a Creative Commons license. No one has traveled to North Korea with a DSLR camera. No one has phoned their local DPRK embassy. While Associated Press reporters hardly get access to North Korea, China Central Television and Xinhua News Agency reporters frequently obtain access to the country whenever the government holds press conferences; nobody has bothered to contact either agency, or has gotten hold of an employee working at either agency who may or may not release a few of their unpublished "backup" works under a free license. This isn't a problem of "it can't be done", it's a problem of "the majority of Wikipedia editors are too lazy to do it". Because it's not a case of "it can't be done", NFCC applies. -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you dont actually believe this bullshit you are telling me right now? Besides that, you are talking about the access to the country or representatives to the government, not Kim Jong Un himself. Those are two totally different things (although I could understand your stupidity, since North Koreans think that Kim Jong un is the governement, im just saying). Go Troll somewhere else kid.Rezashah4 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you read nothing. Good job mate. Either that, or you're reinforcing my point, since you can come up with all sorts of excuses to justify not bothering to go out of your way to do something towards creating a free-license image, rain hail or shine. -- benlisquare T•C•E 06:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not bullshit. Dennis Rodman, for example, has met with him recently, non-free photos of their meeting are available, and there were other people in his entourage. Have you asked any of those people to donate a photo, ? Yes, it is difficult to get a free photo. But it is not impossible. Since there are many non-free photos of him available on Google Images, and he is alive, then the possibility of obtaining a free photo in the future is very real. If he dies tomorrow, then we can use a non-free photo. Otherwise, no.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We might hope to be able to use a non-free photo soon, but we can't now, alas. Jonathunder (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rezashah4, Saying we are "delusion[al]", "confused", have a "fetish", speaking "bullshit", suffering "stupidity", and "troll[ing]" does nothing to enhance your argument. This will stop. Read and abide by No personal attacks. I am placing a warning on your user talk page to this effect so there no question about you having been warned about this. This sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy: "Kim Jong-un avoids public exposure"
If Kim Jong-un hides from the public like people claim, explain these then. Surely he's out and about since the KCNA is so keen on telling everyone that he's been inspecting cookies whilst visiting a cookie factory, inspecting eggs at an egg farm, checking hotels and shopping centres, and chatting with children. He has a PR team which organises these visits, which often involve public locations. Furthermore, he attends government meetings and press conferences, all of which are covered by North Korean media, and Chinese media. Kim Jong-un is not a hikikomori, he attends staged events in public, albeit with personal protection. Chinese film crew, photographers and journalists attend these media events in Pyongyang whenever there is a major occasion, and these people have access to the outside world, and the internet. CCTV reporters all have Sina Weibo accounts, go find one who specialises with North Korea, and chat one up. "It can't be done" is a lazy excuse, pure and simple. -- benlisquare T•C•E 06:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It amazes me how full of shit you people are. You censor this page and then you blame me for not going to North Korea? Im glad you think we live in a world where we can walk up to dictators and take selfies with them. Well the next time I go to Iran, Ill keep your deluded idea in mind, and Take Khamenei and Qasem Soleimani to a purikura booth. Its somehow possible right? After all, they are alive and there are plenty of those booths in Northern Tehran, or if they are all broken, I should not be lazy and take them to Akihabara instead. Unrealistic is one thing, but you're a fucking disgrace.Rezashah4 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point you are arguing is actually something set in place by the Foundation in considering that we have a mission of promoting the development of free content and minimizing the use of non-free. One of the clear statements they make is that the Foundation does not allow the non-free images of persons that are living on the premise that a free image can be taken, which is the arguments made here. They do not consider the ease with which getting a non-free can be had (and from our side we don't expect people to break the law or the like to do it), but only if it's within reason. And as Jong-un is not recluse and can be photographed, we expect that a free image can happen at some point. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, we have a free-license image of Ali Khamenei (in fact, we have many), so your little aggressive rant really looks stupid now. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is accentuated by the fact that we also have a free-license image of Qasem Soleimani. So who, exactly, is the "fucking disgrace"?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys completely missed my point. Cullen, I'm not the one sabotaging or censoring this page.Rezashah4 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second. You're the one who's coming out of nowhere and behaving aggressively and obnoxiously, absolutely refusing to acknowledge other people's points, calling legitimate arguments "trolls", and stubbornly shouting "lalala I can't hear you". Nobody is "censoring" this page; what personal or ideological benefit does it make for a bunch of editors here to prevent the addition of a photographic image here? Think with your mind for a second, that sounds really damn silly. The problem here is Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC), and it isn't "sabotage" to uphold the Wikimedia Foundation's line in regards to non-free content. Wikipedia isn't a playground where you can do whatever you want; there are policies which dictate what should and shouldn't be done. In fact, you're the one here who has been the most non-cooperative and belligerent here; all you've done is attacked people and make arguments with no firm substance. You keep droning on about random silly things like purikura in Tehran, essentially making silly linkages that are completely absurd and focus on an appeal to ridicule, instead of directly addressing the issues brought forward to you. -- benlisquare T•C•E 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm nobody important but I'm laughing along with Reza over how ludicrous your demand is, Benli. Taking a picture of Kim Jong-un in North Korea could be enough to land someone in prison (and in NK prison, death is always a possibility) and it is extremely careless to propose that someone do so. This is a country recently accused by the UN of Nazi Germany style atrocities and you are proposing that a Wikipedia user go risk his or her life so that you don't need to stoop to using a Fair Use image? That is so hilarious as to be something out of the novel Catch-22. Do you really believe that a foreigner can actually access a building that Kim is in? Do you really believe that NK would allow a foreign unknown to get close enough to Kim to take a workable photograph? He just recently had his uncle and dozens of others murdered for plotting a coup, but you think he'd have trust in some random Wikipedia user?--110.174.77.95 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have press agency photos of Jong-un, so the claim that taking such photos will get one arrested are patently false. And we don't need a close photo, but something that is clearly distinguishable - today's digital cameras can easily do this from several hundred feet away. --M ASEM  (t) 23:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For a random Wikipedian, a close image of Kim is outside the realm of possibility. Clearly certain trusted press agents will have far more privileges than anyone here. And if you're asking people to take images from several hundred meters away--as in, without authorisation--you are asking them to take unreasonable risks for the sake of a Wikipedia rule. There's every chance NK would arrest someone taking unauthorised photos of their dear leader. --110.174.77.95 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Walking around in public gives no expectation of privacy and unless you can provide a NK rule that says taking a photo of Jong-un is a crime, then the claim on can be arrested is false. And it doesn't have to be a Wikipedian, just someone that is willing to license the photo as free. --M ASEM (t) 02:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because North Korea is so big on the rule of law. Remember that American veteran of the Korean war that they detained just a few weeks ago? He's lucky to have gotten out of the damn place, they detained him only for being a veteran. All foreigners are suspect in NK, and I'd presume foreigners who take photographs of dear leader are doubly so. I can't stress this enough: stop encouraging people to take unauthorised photographs of this unstable tyrant.--110.174.77.95 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet foreigners can visit the country. Sorry, this doesn't fly. If there was a documented case of someone trying to take a photo of Jong-un ended up arrested and thrown in jail, sure, that might change the answer here. But there is no such case that can be document that I'm aware of, and if you can't point to any rule either, then the argument is null. --M ASEM  (t) 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument is based on common sense when one considers that North Korea is a police state that frequently detains foreign visitors for minor transgressions and non-transgressions all together. You should volunteer to go, since you do not recognise any danger in taking an unauthorised photograph of a genocidal dictator in an internationally recognised rogue state that has a long history of Nazi-like human rights violations and imprisoning political dissidents. Perhaps Benli can help fund your trip. Beyond that, I think this discussion has run its course.--110.174.77.95 (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the result of a single Google search: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100803/Taking-Photographs-in-North-Korea.aspx It is illegal to photograph people in North Korea for foreign tourists. (Or perhaps journalists. Though I doubt the rules would differ.)--110.174.77.95 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another document that outlays restrictions on photography: http://www.newkoreatours.com/north_korea_travel_rules.html If you cannot photograph a soldier, surely you cannot photograph the dictator.--110.174.77.95 (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet - there are photos of these. Clearly you need to have permission but that doesn't make it a barrier to photography. And since we have press images of Jong-il, it clearly can be done legally. It may not be the easiest thing in the world, but it falls easily under "can be created" for free images. --M ASEM  (t) 04:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LMAO. You can wind up in North Korean jail if you photograph a soldier, much less Kim Jong-un, without express permission and this only qualifies as "not the easiest thing in the world" for you? What if someone goes and asks and is denied, will Wikipedia consent to use a fair use image then, or will that be insufficient? And I daresay needing permission from the government of North Korea would qualify as a "barrier to photography". I mean, I don't particularly care if Wikipedia publishes Kim's fat face, but I'm always good to have a laugh at bureaucratic nonsense like this.--110.174.77.95 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have press images says that it is possible. If we knew that the press tried and themselves could not get images, that would probably swing in favor of using non-free. But the possibility of obtaining a free one remains - not the simpliest thing in the world but far from impossible, and per the Foundation, we cannot use non-free for them. Of course, there are plenty of other sites that have his photo so it's not like the reader is never going to know what he looked like. --M ASEM (t) 04:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)