Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 4

No photo. Why???
As others have asked, why is there no photo of Jong-un? If there's no free photo alternative to be found, then why not use a non-free image, citing fair use, temporarily until a free alternative is found and can be replaced? King Kim the III is a politically significant figure, and yet no picture? Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought it was internet etiquette and common sense to have a look around before asking questions. Read the above, and read the talk page archives, this has been brought up multiple times. This might not be something you may understand, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (free as in freedom, not free beer), and use of non-free content limits the freedoms of Wikipedia, and therefore non-free content is to be used sparingly. Hence, we have WP:NFCC, and non-free images of Kim Jong-un do not meet the NFCC criteria, as he is alive, not incarcerated, and living in a country with freedom of panorama. -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you're claiming that Kim is infact a 3D sculpture, then Freedom of Panorama has absolutely nothing to do with this. I've read all of the above and some of the archives, and I have to agree with the side that thinks the objections to using a non-free image are utterly nonsensical - to a man they all seem to be variants of reductio ad absurdum. It is as plain as day that nobody in the Wikimedia Foundation ever intended that their policy's single use of the word "could" should lead to the absurd lines of argument people have posted here. Anyone with half a brain can see that the practical/financial/security barriers to an ordinary private photographer obtaining an image of Kim in a manner that they are certain is legal under NK law, are far far beyond what is intended by those three short words, "could be created". And anyone with half a brain can see that the language/legal/ethical/commercial barriers to sourcing an image from a foreign press agency in a manner that you can be sure is 100% legal and fully compliant with the terms of the CC license, also goes far beyond what is intended by those three short words, "could be created". Honestly, some of the stupidest things I've have ever read on the internet, are the arguments made on this page against using a non-free image. Shame on you. This is definitely not what Wikipedia, or indeed the Free Content movement in general, was ever supposed to be about. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The free content mission is about making free content available, not resorting to non-free content because free might be "hard to get". --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You will not find a single instance where any leading light of the Free Content movement has ever made the sort of absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical arguments that are on display here. This is why none of the objections are ever backed up by any actual links - the opinions offered up here about the free content movement are just that - the warped and distorted opinions of randoms on the internet. The Free Content movement has always accepted that there are realistic and practical limitations to their goal. The Free Content movement has never supported anyone who creates situations like this - where the movement is presented in such a poor light, through the use of such patently illogical arguments, that people would rather simply create non-free content, than engage with projects like Wikipedia. You only pour more shame on yourself by contiuning to claim the task of obtaining a free image of Kim is just "hard". Kim Jong No (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with what the Free Software/Content Movement has to say; although much of what Wikipedia revolves around is based on the movement, the main points here have to do with policies that specifically deal with Wikipedia. These policies were created here, exclusively for use here. The Free Content Movement may not create these limitations, but WP:NFCC does. If you have doubts or concerns regarding these policies, you could always start a new discussion at WP:VP. -- benlisquare T•C•E 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. It has everything to do with the Free Content movement - as your own comment showed - "This might not be something you may understand, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (free as in freedom, not free beer), and use of non-free content limits the freedoms of Wikipedia, and therefore non-free content is to be used sparingly.". The whole point of these objections are supposedly, in the name of free content. It's just a shame they're never backed up by any links that come from the free content movement, or indeed the Foundation, who want to follow its goals. Yes, Wikipedia has a specific policy allowing non-free content, and it gets linked to a lot, but it might as well not be there when, as can be seen here, there is no apparent limit to how far people will stretch the simple phrase "could be created" in the name of free content. My horror at reading the utter nonsense spouted on this page in the name of free content goes well beyond the realm of mere concerns, but I'm not convinced the venue is the problem - it's the people here who clearly have no shame, and would clearly argue till the heat death of the universe that black is white as long as it maintains the farcical position that this article doesn't use a non-free image because a free one "could be created". Obviously, if I were to complain about this in any other venue, it would just lead to 100 more instances of the same people talking the same nonsense about the availability of press photos and the fact you can actually travel to NK etc, etc, essentially spouting as much bollocks as they can in the hope it obscures the fact that not one of them is providing a single plausible counter-argument to the main objection every sane person has - that Kim is, for all practical purposes in terms of private photography, a recluse, and therefore, by any reasonable reading of the Wikipedia policy, he is a legitimate subject for a non-free image. Which of course would be emoved the second anyone provides a free image, not that any sane person thinks that is remotely a possibility. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The freedoms of Wikipedia", referring to the restrictions put into place on top of Wikipedia due to the use of non-free content. You're putting my words out of context for your own benefit and convenience here. Part of the reason why Wikipedia discourages non-free content is that it restricts the freedoms of Wikipedia itself. A few years ago there was a request for comment where many people were in support of allowing MP3 as a media format here on Wikipedia for audio; the idea was scrapped because it was argued that we should avoid anything which would eventually make Wikipedia obligated to pay royalties. Wikipedia is already doing enough of a favour by allowing non-free content in a restricted category of cases; although this already places the project at risk, the more this laxity becomes toyed around, the worse the situation would become. Hence, NFCC is upholded throughout the project, and we generally avoid becoming more and more lenient towards non-free content in cases where such content is avoidable. Non-free content on Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, so to speak; readers are not entitled to see non-free images hosted here, small and restricted amounts of non-free images are here out of the good faith of the community. You're lucky that the people that run the Japanese Wikipedia aren't running this one - non-free media is not permitted over there at all, based on the community consensus and site-wide policies over there. You should consider the current state of the English Wikipedia as a blessing, because shit's worse at the other side of the meadow. Finally, when you say "Obviously, if I were to complain about this in any other venue, it would just lead to 100 more instances of the same people talking the same nonsense about the availability of press photos", I guess that means for you that it's the system you should be raging against then. If you're certain that you will meet such replies if you head over to the Village Pump, don't you think that means that you're the odd one out here? When in Rome, do as the Romans do; if you're going to fight for a justice against a problem with the system that you don't agree with, that's your journey to undertake. Hell, you might even be able to convince 100 Wikipedians towards your viewpoint if you try and try again. I'd like to point out that I'm not acting as an individual who is intentionally trying to be a party pooper here; we have had numerous request for comments before, and the existing consensus is that adding a non-free image of Kim Jong-un is at odds with NFCC. Wikipedia works with community consensus, so in essence, you're swimming against the flow here. Again, if you try, you might be able to reverse consensus, after all consensus is not permanent and is definitely subject to change. -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This comment is a perfect example of the nonsense that has occured on this page. Even though it was pretty obvious that I already know the principles involved - specifically why Wikipedia restricts non-free media to limited cases - you chose to waffle on about it all again, meandering into the realms of MP3 no less, while ignoring the specifics of what I actually said. In the same way everyone else complaining on this page is treated to the same irrelevant drivel. The problem is not the system - it's you and people like you. And you will spout the same garbage anywhere, here or the Village Pump. That doesn't mean I have to accept it. I'm just pointing out my objections here to make sure that other readers of this page are not conned into thinking the garbage spouted here is in any way representative of the actual Free Content Movement. I'm not fighting for justice so much as fighting against stupidity. And stupid is as stupid does - it doesn't prove anything to point out that you've made the same stupid points over and over, it just shows how stupid you can be. Not once, not in any of those archives, have I ever seen anyone face up to and defeat what the counter-argument actually is. It's just the same nonsense, repeated over and over and over, in the face of outsiders repeatedly coming here and telling you you're all stupid. That's a pretty good sign that there's been no consensus reached. Maybe if those past discussions included comments from anyone in any position to actually speak with authority on the subject, maybe you might have a point, but no, it's all just internet randoms talking bollocks (infact, it's mostly just the same couple of randoms, again and again). And by referring to Japanese Wikipedia - you're only highlighting what the issue is here - a complete bar on non-free media is an example of a sensible and logical way to approach Free Content - I believe German Wikipedia does that too. An example of an illogical and utterly stupid way to do it, is to only allow non-free media where no free media could be created, then allow people to talk endless unproven bollocks about how that obviously includes cases like Kim, even though no reasonable person would ever agree that it is even a remote possibility that free media could be created. I am quite sure if the Fundation realised that this sort of bollocks is the result of allowing limited amounts of non-free iamgery on English Wikipedia, then they would simply turn it into an outright ban too - but then perhaps that is the true motive of the people who have dedicated so much of their lives to talking utter bollocks on this page about traval agents and press photographs? Kim Jong No (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You sound pretty darn upset. So, you're not going to bother to take the discussion to a higher venue, where a larger number of people are able to criticize our current Wikipedia policy on non-free fair use content, and potentially be able to change the current policy. After all, it's much easier and convenient for you to take blows against me, rather than the community at whole. You're not going to move out of your comfort zone, because you find it much easier to jump on me, instead of bothering to actually make a change towards the situation; talking to me won't make any change. Furthermore, a difference in opinion is hardly "stupidity". Let's explore the concept of "opinions" for a moment with an example: I support the second amendment of the United States because it ensures that the people can defend themselves from tyranny, domestic and abroad, however that does not make people who support gun control "stupid", it just means that they have a different viewpoint. Your attitude of branding anything that doesn't fit your personal world view as stupidity is hardly constructive. You seem like the type of person who shouts soundbites at other people because it's much more convenient. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not playing. If the stupidity of this article not having an image cannot be fixed in this venue, then sorry, Wikipedia is just going to have to live with that shame. And let's be clear here - you don't have an opinion on this subject at all - you have a bunch of illogical, irrelevant and downright moronic views that you think are relevant, but don't justify the exclusion of a non-frree image on this article in any way, shape or form. In the real world, and the Free Content Movement, we call that stupidity. That probably explains why you don't accept the very many good reasons why the vast majority of the world has rejected the 2nd amendment as probably one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation ever created. It is of course no surprise to me that you don't recognise that the 2nd amendment actually kills more people than it protects, this matches very well with the brand of stupid you need to posess to believe that the Free Content Movement is all about mooching off commercial agencies, or putting your own persoanl safety at risk, or mocking the people of NK by claiming they have freedoms and rights that any sane person knows they don't. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above, signed by yours truly, the officially appointed expert and representative of the FCM. Wow, absolutely marvelous. Great argument mate, you sure convinced me with those hot opinions. -- benlisquare T•C•E 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course, saying nothing at all is always the best way to prove someone is wrong. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively it just means that I'm tired of your fucking shit already. If you don't write like a huge cockgargler with all your annoying passive-aggressive shit, then perhaps I'd be more inclined to have a decent and civil discussion with you. From the very beginning, you've been acting like a huge dickhead. If you're not going to chat decently, then you may as well piss off, I don't want anything to do with you. -- benlisquare T•C•E 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of a photo in the name of free content - evidence based objections only please
From what I know and have read about this, here is a list of things that I am confident that the Free Content Movement, and indeed the Wikimedia Foundation, would have never intended to be an inherent assumption in the 'could be created' clause:


 * Obtaining an image by leeching off of commercial agencies (noting that respect for commercial opportunities is actually part of very same Wikipedia policy)
 * Travelling to NK and putting your own personal safety at risk by taking a photograph which may or may not be authorised and may or may not be legal (and which in all likelihood, since it was taken from "several hundred feet" away as Masem suggests, would be no use anyway)
 * Becoming enough of an expert on NK law/custom/governance to be able to properly weigh the risk/legality of obtaining an authorised image in the capacity of a private individual getting close enough to Kim at a pre-arranged venue and time
 * Being stupid enough to spend the time and money it would take to travel to NK and just hang around on the off chance he comes within 50 feet of your camera lens, and simply not worrying about whether it would be legal or even advisable to take that image
 * Becoming a personal friend of Denis Rodman, in the hope he takes you on his next goodwill trip, and in the hope that no NK security official asks you to submit your camera for examination before you leave the country

Clearly nobody in the Foundation or the movement would sign up to any of that as reasonable or sensible or ethical or part of any mission. If anyone disagrees with that conclusion, instead of the usual bollocks as seen above, how about you actually get off your asses and provide some hard evidence that either the Foundation or the Free Content Movement sign up to your particular brand of crazy? If you find yourself unable to complete that simple task in the name of the free content movement (a task which is after all 100 times easier than obtaining a free phtoograph in any of the ways you advise), then the time for you shamefully claiming that anyone in either of those organisations would ever aagree with any of this garbage is surely coming to an end. Kim Jong No (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And just to remind everyone, here is what Benlisquare said above about effort in the name of free content - "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". It takes absolutely no effort to claim that someone in the Foundation intends 'could be created' to mean all the things it has been claimed on this page. It takes some effort to convince people with evidence that this is precisely the sort of case they had in mind - let's see which way he goes, or anyone else for that matter. I predict either complete silence, or just more of the same nonsense. Kim Jong No (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to comment while looking for other convos to support our point, the "could be created" language that the Foundation uses is, very likely, pulled from en.wiki's original "Fair Use Policy" (which predates the Foundation's resolution), as can be seen here: . This likely means that Jimmy Wales had input on the idea (I know he was involved in carving this out to start) and had the Foundation act similarly to justify that, but I want to see if I can find those discussions. --M ASEM (t) 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And here's the relevant statement from Jimmy Wales: : "My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo." (2006). So our policy is following this principle that Jimmy points out way back then. --M ASEM  (t) 18:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of the bullshit that has been served up as justification on this page, since day one it appears. You found a quote from Jimmy Wales that says he would support non-free for images of unique historical importance, but not random celebrities. In your twisted mind, for some bizarre reason, that equates to support for not having an image of Kim. You must be off your head if you think there is anyone in the world who thinks an image of Kim is closer to random celebrity than unique historical importance. All the evidence supports the conclusion that a non-free image is the only sensible way to illustrate this article - a reason which Jimmy Wales thinks is entirely reasonable to justify using non-free imagery for albums - all 50 billion of them - yet somehow, in your twisted mind, that equates to Jimmy Wales not being happy to use a non-free image to illustrate this article. It's crazy. This is why people think you're trolling with this crap, including me. It's frankly beyond belief that you think that anyone would be fine with treating album covers as "a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance", yet world leaders are not. If, as it seems, "could be created" does indeed come from Jimmy Wales, then the solution to this situation, in which people keep coming here calling you stupid, and you keep claiming that you're right using the same nonsense points, is to actually ask him. So why don't you ask him? $100 says you have completely and totally misread his intentions, and have been taking an even more "extreme" position than his (which still allowed for the use of thousands of non-free images, just for albums!). Kim Jong No (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales would reject a non-free image of Kim - true or false?
I'm just creating a section here to keep track of the fact that I asked Masem to ask if Jimmy Wales really believes the things he is claiming he does just above. If, in the unlikely event, he ever asks Jimmy Wales to actually give his opinion, we can record it here, for posterity. That's not going to happen of course, because as anyone can see, Jimmy Wales obviously didn't intend anything close to the sort of nonsense Masem is attributing to him directly above when he was coming up with the "could be created" clause. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter now, as this is now coming from the Foundation, and not Wales. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating the complete dishonesty that underpins all the objections - the phrase "could be created" has been referenced a billion times in opposition here - when trying to explain what it means in this context, you yourself said it came from Jimmy Wales - a reasonable next step would be to simply ask him for clarification. But no, funnily enough, that's not relevant now. What a surprise. If you have any actual evidence that the Foundation has changed its mind - that their opinion of what "could be created" has changed and they now disagree with Jimmy Wales - feel free to provide it here - although I suspect this is another lie. It's unbelievable, the lengths to which you are prepared to dishonour yourself over this. I hope if anyone from the Foundation is reading this, they are disgusted as I am at your blatant misrepresentations. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Within your bullet point list, you've managed to miss a few obvious cases where a free image "could be created". Here goes:


 * There are probably many more instances that I haven't even thought of yet. The options are out there. In time, we will obtain a free-license image. That already is enough justification against non-free fair use. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

More bullshit.


 * 1. The question is more accurately phrased thusly - when do you estimate that Kim will visit the Kremlin? The answer of course it that you can't - the fact is you don't have a goddam clue if he will ever visit the Kremlin in his entire natural life, so quite obviously it's not even relevant to a discussion about why a non-free image is being excluded. This is the sort of crap that leads people to wonder what you would say if for example, there were no free govt. sources of the moon's surface - after all, if you can make YouTube videos in your spare time on the ISS, you can surely find time to take a few snaps using your personal SLR?
 * 2. It takes a real special kind of stupid to claim a portrait is an acceptable encyclopedic subsititue for a photograph. There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin. Do you seriously think it's the role of an encyclopedia to portray the likeness of real life people using paintings? Do you seriously believe it's appropriate for the likeness of Kim to be controlled by the propoganda ministry of NK? I mean jesus christ, I thought the level of stupid here couldn't get any higher, but it just did.
 * 3. This just sounds like a variant of the stupidity involved in No. 1. It's interesting to note that you couldn't come up with any examples of Agência Brasil gaining access to Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il - picking and choosing when you will cite a precedent shows that you have no coherent argument to make at all, you're only interested in grasping at straws - which is nowhere near the sort of balanced judgement that the "could be created" clause implies
 * 4. And pigs might fly out of my butt. Can we at least deal with realistic scenarios? Maybe had you been able to provide a single example of a photo actually sources from Rodman or his entourage that way, of anything, but as we're seeing, the relevance of your examples varies wildly, because you're just grasping at any ridiculous straw you can find
 * 5. And unsurprisingly, you're unwilling to expend any intellectual effort to quantify how realistic it is that that chance photograph will be taken. It takes a special brand of stupid to make these claims without giving even a second's thought to what it actually involves. You were frankly on stronger ground by simply crossing your fingers and hoping he visits Russia one day. It's pathetic, it really is

And obviously, I don't think there aren't any other instances that you haven't thought of yet - I think this is it, I think you've thought long and hard about this subject, and this pathetic list of completely unrealistic or entirely improbable scenarios is the best you could come up with. If these are the supposed 'options', then it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that, based on actual facts, where people deal with the real world, a free image will never become available, unless a bunch of entirely unrealistic happenstances occur. In your brain, you somehow think that adds up to justification. But once you realise that, apparently, Jimmy Wales classified every single album cover as historically signigifanct when he was drafting the policy, and he considered his stance to be at the "extreme" and, you don't have to be a genius see that this is nowhere near the line he would have expected "could be taken" to be drawn. By endlessly repeating this utter bollocks as if it was remotely convincing (because I looked, and funnily enough, it has all appeared before in past discussions in various forms), you are simply making a mockery of Wikipedia, of the Free Content Movement, and of simple logic. It's shameful. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if you think I'm shaming Wikipedia, how about crying me a river, Hotrod? As for point number two, Jimbo himself has stated that he would prefer a shitty image that is free, to a high quality image that is non-free. If an artwork unfairly portrays the subject, then so be it. Currently the artwork of Shen Kuo makes him look too handsome - maybe you should make a time masheen and take a photographic picture of him. -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales would prefer a low quality image that is free, to a high quality one that's not. Good. But how is that relevant to anything I've said? There is currently no free image, poor or otherwise. Poor or otherwise, obviously a free image will replace a non-free one (assuming it meets the baic criteria of actually showing his likeness). And obviously, when he said image, he meant photo of the actual subject, not a photo of a mural/statue. As for "so be it", well, you might be happy for Wikipedia to protray things in a false or innaccurate manner, but I'm sure that's never ever been his philosophy. Like I said, you're shaming Wikipedia. That doesn't appear to be an issue for you though. Which says everything anyone ever needed to know about you and your opinions about this issue. As well as being a 2nd amendment lunatic of course, that's always a sign you're talking to someone with a well-centred outlook on life. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there an absolute possible moment when you don't behave like a complete shitter? To date, you have not once made a comment that doesn't reek of a passive-aggressive fagtron. If you're intentionally testing my patience, you're doing a fucking good job at it, and I don't see the need to take you seriously if you're incapable of writing a sentence without attacking someone as a moron, an idiot, or a lunatic. You're a damn expert at shoehorning in ad hominem attacks within the smallest space possible. Listen up, nerdlord, if you're going to keep this shit up, then I don't give a fuck about your opinion. -- benlisquare T•C•E 18:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick question. How do you know North Korea is a country with freedom of panorama? It isn't listed on any source I could find. Going by the arguments against a fair-use KJU photo, should we assume that if there without explicit proof of, North Korea does not have freedom of panorama? Especially considering 110.174.77.95 's link saying you can't photograph a soldier? Schvass (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per COmmons,, NK does (while SK does not). --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Regarding FOP, Commons notes at commons:Commons:FOP that article 32 of DPRK Copyright Law guarantees freedom of panorama, and such images may be tagged with commons:Template:FoP-North Korea. File:Kim Il Sung Portrait-2.jpg is an example of an image which is freely licensed and hosted on Wikimedia Commons due to freedom of panorama in North Korea - this image is cropped from a photograph of a permanently fixed mural in a public place in North Korea, which means that it cannot be subject to copyright restrictions. Given that Kim Jong-un is the present leader of North Korea, it would be unthinkable to believe that there would not be murals throughout Pyongyang that depict him, and that a tour group would not take you around to see at least one of them. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama is completely irrelevant. By acting as if Wikipedia or the Free Content movement was set up to encourage people to use pictures of paintings/sculptures as alternative to actual free images of actual real people, you are only making yourselves look even more stupider than you already are, which takes some doing. And that's before we even get to the stupidity it takes to be talking as if NK is the sort of place where the average citizen or a tourist is going to be able to have a conversation with a policemen or security official about their photographic rights under Freedom of Panorama, should they be stupid enough to tell them that they intend to release their photograph for free use around the world, to be modified and reused in any way imaginable. While that probably appeals to the propoganda ministry to a point - being able to control how the likeness of the supreme leader appears on the most popular encyclopedia in the world - they're probably also smart enough to realise what the downsides of that are too. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this talk page is to improve this article. It is not a place for endless debate about Wikipedia policy. There are policy talk pages where some of these questions could be raised, but I think this conversation here should close. It's not going to improve this article. Jonathunder (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pay attention - the discussion (as a matter of fact, nearly everything on this page, since he became leader) is about why certain people are refusing to allow a non-free image on this article, even though their objections range from the sublime to the ridiculous. In anyone's language, providing a proper illustration is within the bounds of article improvement. In anyone's mind, the place to debate the specific policy reasons some people are claiming support the view that a non-free image cannot be added to the Kim Jong-un article, is the Kim Jong-un article's talk page. Given the fact nearly every single stupid reason to oppose relates specifically to Kim - such as this ridiculous notion that we can't because he might (or might not someday visit the Kremlin) - moving this to a forum where generic policy issues are debated, seems a really dumb idea to me. But then again, it does appear to be one of the established patterns which people use here use to try and avoid giving some actual meaningfull answers to the hordes of people who keep coming here pointing out the obvious - that the Free Content Movement never has and never will be about supporting the sort of cut your nose off to spite your face bullshit that is continually spouted here. Kim Jong No (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the examples raised by benlisquare provide ample evidence that we don't even need to wait for Jong-un to leave the country - as NK has shown in the past, images of Jong-un will (if not already) been as art on fixed works, falling within the freedom of panorama, and would certainly not be any more difficult in getting a photo of Jong-un directly (if not even less difficult). So clearly the "could be created" is well met. The only times that we allow non free of living persons is if they are established to be recluse and never appear in public, if they are on the run from the law, or if they are incarcerated and serving jail terms. Jong-un fits none of these. If you want to argue for something different, that is a case for a larger discussion on policy overall. --M ASEM (t) 15:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are only demonstrating how stupid you are by continuing to pretend that anyone in the Foundation or the Free Content Movement ever intended artworks to replace real pictures. There are a hundred reasons why a sane person would never countenance the use of an official NK portrait in place of an actual photograph, but unsurprisingly in your desperation to bullshit your way through this entire issue, none of those even register in your brain. It's shameful. And yet again, we see you talking about taking pictures in NK as if it was no big deal at all, again, showing you're not serious about giving any real argument against the use of a non-free image. It's disgusting that you mock the people of NK so readily - I bet they're ever so pleased to know that according to you they live in a land where they have ready access to cameras, the internet, and can go where they please and photograph what they please, for whatever egalitarian western motives they like. You really are pond-life if you think this sort of utter thoughtless crap comes even close to meeting any policy drawn up by a rational, right minded individual. "The only times that we allow non free of living persons is if they are established to be recluse and never appear in public, if they are on the run from the law, or if they are incarcerated and serving jail terms." - in my research I've seen you make this claimn a hundred times on this page (so it's no surprise to see you repeating it for the 101st as if I had ever seen it) - and funnily enough, not once, not ever, have you ever accompanied that statement with any kind of proof that this is official policy. People are not all as stupid as you are - they can see as well as me that the policy contains nothing, not even remotely close, to that sentence. All it refers to, is "could be created". And as you said, that came from Jimmy Wales, and he clearly never intended it to refer only to prisoners, recluses or people on the run. The policy is the word of the Foundation, and it doesn't contain it either. So you are fresh out of excuses if you want to continue to make this claim as if it was in any way, official policy. It might be practice, I don't know, and obviously proving such a claim is even true is not high on your bullshit priority list. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if you were just bullshitting, yet again. And of course, it also conveniently ignores the many many real world facts that show that, for the purposes of private photography, Kim is a recluse. You ignore this, because you're a deceitful, shameful, human being, for carrying on this farce for so long. It's a simple task - you can either demonstrate with a real world argument that the realistic chances a free photo of Kim will be obtained fall within the intended scope of the "could be created" phrase, or you can prove that someone in any authority has ever said at any point that if someone is not a recluse, a prisoner or a fugitive, then they cannot be illustrated with non-free content, under any circumnstances. The sad truth is, you are never going to even come close to doing either of those things, you are just going to keep going on this endless bullshit train. It's shamefull. You are an embarassment to Wikipedia. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "And that's before we even get to the stupidity it takes to be talking as if NK is the sort of place where the average citizen or a tourist is going to be able to have a conversation with a policemen or security official about their photographic rights" - Did the person who make File:Kim Il Sung Portrait-2.jpg, File:North Korean General.jpg and File:Pyongyang city scape.jpg die? R.I.P. commons:User:Gilad.rom, murdered for taking a picture of a mural. -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet, you haven't even bothered to ask Gilad.rom any questions. Do you have the first clue about what he had to do in order to get those photos? Or is it the sad reality that in your sick mind, as long as you don't get murdered, then everything else you might have to do or risk in order to get a free photo, is what the Free Content Movement/Wikimedia Foundation had in mind when they drafted the phrase "could be created"? And again, before you get ahead of yourself - let's remind ourselves that it appears, to me anyway, that whatever he had to go through, this would only result in a free picture of a mural or a statue, which as stated many times, is not, and never will be, considered by any rational person or anyone in the movement/foundation as an accpetable alternative to a free image (which is, whether you people on bullshit mountain like it or not, what the "could be created" phrase refers to). Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also R.I.P. this guy. Taking sneak shots of female army recruits like that should be worth 17 gulags! This guy, this guy, this guy and this guy are also naughty foreign capitalist spies, but since they weren't preying on proud proletarian women like capitalist hawks, they only get 5 gulags and a session in "the chair room". -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Any time you have a point to make, please make it. At no point have I ever said free photography was not possible in NK, I merely said that pretending as if the freedoms/rights are the same as in any average country is clearly a deliberately deceptive falsehood. I happen to recognise the name of one of those Flickr users as a pilot/air crew, so it's highly likely that he took that photo form inside the airport. Another looks to be of a border post. Those two facts alone show you're not really putting any thought into selecting any of these examples at all. And again, if you want to show that you've asked any of these photographers what lengths they had to go to take these pictures, go ahead. I know nothing about their circumnstances/connections/status, so I am not going to start guessing whether or not these prove other people can photograph Kim - if you have any explanation of how these random shots of soldiers translates to a tourist or ordinary citizen being able to photograph Kim, let's hear it. If anything, this approach shows very clearly that you're not prepared to engage in this subject properly at all - random shots of soldiers is proof tourists can captrue Kim, photos by Agencie Brazil of the Ayatolla in Iran is proof we can source images of Kim when they visit NK, shots of Kim's dad/grandad in the Kremlin is proof Kim will inevitably be photographed there too. It's just so lazy, so thoughtless, so contemptible. Kim Jong No (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick scan of that Category:Soldiers of North Korea shows that the vast majority were taken from neutral soil, so of course, claims that this means anything as far as the measures and risks the average tourist, never mind ordinary NK citizen, would have to go through to obtain a usable image of Kim, who for understandable reasons never goes within rifle range of the border, are of course total bullshit. If an when someone comes here with an example of a tourist or average citizen getting into a position where a usable photograph of Kim would be a realistic possibility, and we can hear from them precisely what that invovled for them - what expense they had to occur, whether they needed any special permissions or otherwise, whether they were subjected to any searches or asked any questions about their pictures, then maybe we can talk. That won't happen of course, we'll somehow just end up talking about murals or mooching off commercial agencies again no doubt. Anything to keep the discussion away from anything that remotely addresses the real world barriers to the prospect of getting a usable free photograph of the actual, living breathing Kim, that any encyclopedia worth it's salt would provide (as opposed to saying sorry, because we think that it's not 100% impossible to get this image, you will need to go elsewhere for your encyclopedic needs) - as if anyone in the free content movement has ever said anything remotely like that in their lives, especially when discussing a website that has no problem at all in classifying every single album ever made as historically important enough to justify a non-free image. Kim Jong No (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are barriers, yes, but they are not criminal barriers (that is, it is possible to get legal access into NK by members of the public) or physical ones. As long as the barriers are only ones of process - in this case, spending the time and money to get the visa and travel rights and travel itself - then this doesn't enter into the question of "could be possible". We've had this situation before when it comes to species of animals deep in some parts of the world like the Amazon rain forest. It's been determined that as long as one is not trespassing and putting their life at risk, we expect free photos of these species. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014
Please add any of these pictures, since there aren't any

Chard8990 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Before you upload these, please instead link to external URLs and sources for these images - we cannot use any image of Jong-un (as extensively discussed above) unless it is free, and given that no one yet has found an image of him that is free, I doubt these are free as well. --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014
Is it alright if I post an image of Kim Jong Un, a imagine oif him and not a satirical one, because his dad and grand dad has and why won't he? http://www.drumeuropean.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kimjongun_vert-17656b658f19f87081f7480c13e6decc827decdc-s6-c30.jpg will this be visible?

188.24.217.178 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We have pictures of his father and grandfather due to the fact those images are under a free license. Because Jong-un is a living person and not recluse or incarcerated, we cannot allow a non-free of a living person. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

His Religion?
Renewed talk from Archives: 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 | —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 | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)'' CJ:  Fair enough; I think there's a talk section on this article which explores that further.

''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)''

It's false that "religion is...unimportant to others." This comment presupposes that Christianity is false. It's not a neutral comment. According to Christianity, unbelievers know God but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Ro 1.18)

I don't know how one could not see that belief in or denial of an Infinite, Personal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-controlling, self-contained, self-revelatory Creator God conditions everything he or she believes about anything else.

Again, "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?"

Cj3061 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)cj3061 4-25-2014
 * Please give us a reliable source that gives his religion, in line with BLP. Without that we can't do a thing. --M ASEM  (t) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Without a third-party source, all talk page discussion on what his religion is would be merely speculative and fall within the realms of original research, so your suggestion that we discuss his religion on this talk page because we don't have a source doesn't make sense. Wikipedia doesn't call the shots as to what is true, it merely parrots what third-party reliable sources say, this is firmly grounded in policy and is non-negotiable. Furthermore, doing so would also venture towards WP:NOTFORUM as well. Talking about what you think might be is religion based on personal speculation, and explaining your speculations with bible quotations, isn't going to make any changes to this article as it would not meet any of Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. -- benlisquare T•C•E 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for Cj3061's last comment, think of it this way: If I was the leader of my nation, and over 90% of my subjects were living below international standards of living, the majority of countries have sanctions against me, and my fridge is out of imported French cognac, the last thing I would be concerned about would be whether I believe in the scriptures of Abraham, the scriptures of Paul, or the scriptures of Mohammed. Your opinion that someone's "ultimate commitments" is one of the most utmost important points of a person is merely your own opinion, and not everyone necessarily shares that opinion. -- benlisquare T•C•E 01:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

CC licensed image
This can be uploaded to Commons and used here. Go for it Nope...don't. It is not CC as indicated as another person has pointed out it was an image lifted from a newspaper.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, that appears to be a release of the Xinhua News Agency, so it wouldn't work. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According the annotations on the page, the file comes from China’s Xinhua News Agency and has uncertain licensing. I'm as eager as any editor to have an image up on this page; I've participated several times in the voluminous discussions on the matter and I strongly believe it qualifies under non-free image use exceptions if any case of BLP does, and ultimately I think consensus will catch up with the reasoning that has been applied to that end, but, all of that said, if North Korean news agency photos haven't been accepted by the editors opposing that perspective, this one certainly won't. Snow (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the copyright status on these photos from the barbershop that put up a poster of KJU? Since the UK is a country with freedom of panorama, wouldn't this technically fall under the same rationale for using a cropped photo of a public portrait on Kim Il Sung's page? Do we know about the copyright of whoever made the Kim Il Sung portrait? No, but it's apparently irrelevant under freedom of panorama. Schvass (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference here is the Kim Il-sung picture is derivative of a work that was posted by the government of North Korea in North Korea, where there is freedom of panorama. It was a choice of the copyright holder to do so. In the case here, of Kim Jong-un, the copyright holder did not make such a choice. Simply taking someone's copyrighted work, making a poster of it, and placing it in public view in a freedom of panorama country does not strip the copyright holder of their rights. So no, the barbershop image is not usable. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What about this image on Commons? thumb Ocaasit &#124; c 23:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Commons
 * Found the image used with cited to AFP/Getty. So I've already nominated that for speedy deletion on Commons as no way that's the user's own work. --M ASEM  (t) 23:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2014
if you could put Kim Jong Un picture on his politician page, i would appreciate it. thanks so much for your consideration! Josh Brannon

107.220.148.162 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

❌ - As explained above we can find no copyright free picture to use. - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
Swagginddgjdigj (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) he was the biggest loser winner of 20000123456789x on earthbound and he also won how babies are made on the planet 3042894982 and he died in 3920192382048120=48=12842=
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 20:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reports from South Korea that Kim Jung-Un owns a 55 Chevy
This report has been verified by several South Korean reporters. Kim Jung-Un reportedly purchased and had this restored 1955 Chevy imported thru various countries to finally get it into North Korea. One South Korean reporter said other North Korean high ranking official was very unhappy about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.217.179 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Have a link? WikiWinters (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Health
Although there has been feverish international media attention on this issue, I don't think it needs much expansion based on what we know (as opposed to what is speculated). I trimmed the information significantly now that Kim has re-emerged. However, this has immediately been expanded. I don't think this is very notable, and unless health problems reoccur, I think the incident will become less significant over time. Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be trimmed,but it could turn out to be a permanent issue such as Gout, and that would be very notable. I believe that it should be at least mentioned in the article as he is now using a walking stick which denotes a moderate disability, temporary or no. Until such confirmation, I think it should be trimmed and a wait and see attitude adopted. 75.130.155.203 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if it turns out he has chronic health problems, the first time they came to light won't be that notable, but it's OK as it is for now.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that KJU disappearing from view is a much cheaper method of attracting international attention than missile launches or nuclear tests, but of course we will never know what the real reasons or motivations may be. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the most bizarre theory about this whole episode!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt
I don't think we should have this section. There are many speculative reports and rumours about North Korea, and this is just one of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This one is well sourced though, with strong secondary sourcing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so was the execution of Hyon Song-wol.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014
Dennmann57 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) The difference between North and South Korea? In South Korea the people are fat and the leaders skinny.....
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014
I discovered an error on this page. In the first paragraph on this page, the text states: "He is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il and his consort Ko Young-hee." Citation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5428300/Kim-Jong-un-a-profile-of-North-Koreas-next-leader.html

However, at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled "Early Life and Education," the following sentence contradicts the earlier statement: "Kim Jong-Un was the second of three children Ko Yong-hui borne to Kim Jong-Il, his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong is believed to have been born in 1987." Citations: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2957573 https://nkleadershipwatch.wordpress.com/kji-2/kim-yo-jong/

New comment from DrJulieSunny on 12/3/14 I'm new to this stuff (sorry). Thank you for asking for clarification. My specific question is: Is Kim Jong-un the third and youngest son (1st citation/1st reference to his biological family) of his parents or the 2nd of 3 children (with an older brother and younger sister - see 2nd citation link/2nd reference)? I requested an amendment to this conflicting information because I'm not very informed on this topic and I don't have the answer myself. I'm wondering if any other readers have observed this inconsistency. Thank you!

Drjuliesunny (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Drjuliesunny (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The change would be, I think, to pick one correct description of his mother's name and his place in the family. Does anyone know the truth of this?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * according to the family tree, he was the third son of his father, but the second by his father's mistress Ko Yong-hui. This information can be straightened out in the test.  While you're at it, the name of his mother can be corrected in the lede Ko Yung-hui from Ko Young-hee  Richardson mcphillips (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But either transliteration is correct.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014
Please change the picture....hes not a portrait....

2601:9:8500:1503:646C:D97B:5A11:3803 (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 09:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * He's not a photograph either.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

His apparent total and utter lack of a sense of humour
As demonstrated aptly by the recent NK government hacking of Sony to prevent the release of a film mocking him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.163 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please offer a reliable source that discusses his lack of a sense of humor. That would be the basis for a conversation. Even then, biographies usually discuss the attributes of their subjects, not which attributes they lack. Perhaps he has a great sense of humor in the context of North Korean culture. Perhaps not. But why is his sense of humor worthy of discussion in this biography? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe this link sites several instances related to his lack of sense of humour, including a reference to an expert on North Korea

http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/where-is-n-koreas-sense-of-humor. I agree with this user concerning his sense of humour, it should be mentioned if it is a significant part of his personality (to be humourless) or causes irrational statements/actions.


 * I think Wikipedians are projecting their own personality onto Kimbo.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Addiction to Swiss Cheese
Why is there no mention of the widely publicised addiction to Swiss cheese? Often cited as a cause of his numerous health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.72 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, Swiss cheese is not addictive. And if he really likes Swiss cheese, then that is a trivial factoid that has no place in a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And all these alleged people who pretend to care about "human rights" are happy to defame another human because of his alleged consumption of dairy products. They are the secret and unconscious propagandists of the DPRK. And I would rather deal with genuine North Koreans any day before these pathetic poseurs.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no accident that Kim Jong-un is so big (in the forests of North Korea). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Jack Upland' - yeah right! Hu Flung Dung more like it! No doubt one of the Un's fanatical defenders! Actually defending this fat, stupid, psycopathic, genocidal maniac is a crime against humanity. You sir are an asshat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.62 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What you need to understand, angry IP editor, is that our BLP policy applies to every living person without exception. Charlie Manson, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whoever the senior commander of ISIS is today, the child raping axe murderer who committed his crimes in your home town. All of them. We write about them here on Wikipedia neutrally, summarizing only what the reliable sources say. Feel free to rant and rave elsewhere. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Kim Jong Un was my personal hero, or that I was Asian, but what would I know? I do admit the dude has flaws. Committing genocide is one thing, but consuming Swiss cheese...??? If this is proven, I will burn my Kim Jong Un picture and switch my allegiance to Kim Kardashian...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ... beware. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess consuming Swiss cheese as such is not a flaw but it's a flaw if you eat so much of it that you grow obese and develope diabetes and related diseases... and that's what this is all about. It is indeed publicised widely, so why not mention it? --Maxl (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is publicized widely,, but not in reliable sources. The Swiss cheese talk seems to have started out in sensationalistic British newspapers with poor reputations for fact checking and then spread to similar New York tabloids. It's all speculative rumor mongering. We need impeccably reliable sources to discuss a living person's health conditions. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds credible, though. Just look at him! --Maxl (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly has spread. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appear to be from the same IP range as Mr Angry above however I am not him/her. In terms of sources for the 'Cheese addiction' many national and international news agencies have published stories detailing his alleged health problems caused by excess cheese consumption, are they not suitable trusted sources? Some of the stories quote unnamed sources alegedly inside North Korea. I personally think that adding the excess cheese consumption to this article should be done, Kim Jong Un's health is an issue which is affected by the cheese consumption and I therefore think it's important to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBW 777 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose including speculation about medical conditions referenced to articles that cite unnamed North Korean sources. These sources do not meet our standards for biographies of living people. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose it too. Even when it is carried by recognised news agencies, much of this speculation turns out to be utterly false. See, for example, the death rumours about Hyon Song-wol. Only Kim's closest friends and family, his personal assistants, or medical staff could possibly have this information. Cogitate, don't agitate.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose it too because I know first hand that Swiss Cheese Addiction can ruin lives and that it is best handled without the scrutiny of the public. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There were rumours about Sting using cheese to induce strange dreams and inspire his songwriting. This could explain Synchronicity II. Not sure if it was Swiss, though, or green, or good old Coon. Suffice it to say, the sources are full of holes.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walking on the Moon"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, but the evidence doesn't cut it. Tough cheddar.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop being so cheesy! 213.100.108.117 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that's not how WP:V operates; we don't get to speculate on the likelihood that a given source to one of our sources is likely to be trustworthy or not. That's the job of the WP:RS itself, whose conclusions we merely report -- without the bias of our own interpretation of those claims, as in any other case on Wikipedia.  We know very little about the ultimate source of the information -- they could be amongst the Supreme Leader's personal kitchen staff, a dissident passing along a rumor, or anywhere in-between, but we are not empowered by policy to make assumptions one way or another about the internal editorial, sourcin, and fact-checking processes of a given source on a given story -- provided that source meets the minimal conditions as a reliable source to begin with.  If this swiss cheese factoid is reported by some such source, as indeed seems to be the case, then there's really no policy argument which outright forbids its mention.   Therefore, the real question seems rather to be whether its an important enough detail about the man to warrant mention while still keeping to WP:Summary style.  My thinking is that presently it's hard to credit that little tidbit with being terribly relevant to a basic understanding of the man.  However, if in the future there are reports of serious health concerns for the man that could in any significant way be affected by such consumption, it might prove worthwhile to mention this supposed affectation in that context.  But it would be pure WP:Crystalball to assume that such relevance is inevitable just because our subject here happens to be a little on the heavy side.   S n o w  talk 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a report like that is not a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not clear on the meaning of your comment. Are you meaning to give an assessment of a particular source? If so, which one?; I haven't seen a specific source cited in this thread.  If by "report" you mean reference to the fact itself, and are therefore saying that said fact can be judged to be automatically nonviable for inclusion because you or I, or any given editor, judges it to be untrue or unlikely to be true, then I think you might be a little confused as to what is meant, under Wikipedia policy, when we talk about what a source and reliable source are and how the principle of verification operates.   We don't judge the conclusions of our sources for consistency with what we think to be likely; that would be original research.  Rather we faithfully report what the sources themselves say, even if it, at times, the claims made therein conflict with our understanding or interpretation of the subject -- even if we have an intuitive distrust of the fact being stated and suspect it is erroneous.  Those suspicions are irrelevant under Wikipedia process, unless they can be represented by a source themselves.  To say "I just doubt that this source is correct in this case, because that claim sounds unlikely" is really no different, in terms of policy weight, than saying just "I just don't believe that fact." without referencing sources at all; both are equally original research.  Remember, content inclusion on Wikipedia is based on Verifiability and not truth.  Many mainstream sources have reported this information, which makes it entirely viable for inclusion, even if we decided to frame it in such a way as to make it clear that our sources did not divulge their sources.  Now, as I said above, there is the question of whether or not the fact is too trivial to warrant a mention, but that is very much a distinctly different question.  The claim in question easily clears our sourcing requirements by a considerable margin.  Perhaps I've misinterpreted your meaning though.  S n o w  talk 09:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're just wikilawyering.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, again - can you be more specific? I referenced specific policies, including pillar and otherwise core guidelines, which collectively represent longstanding and overwhelmingly broad community consensus on how verifiability and admissibility of content are assessed for our purposes on this project, and my representation of those policies is not in any way controversial or in conflict with the manner in which they are applied all across Wikipedia; you're going to have to do a lot better than a blanket accusation of "Wikilawyering" and an argument that amounts basically to "nu-uh!" if you want your position to have any policy traction...  S n o w  talk 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I rest my case.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't made any case that I can see -- at least that's relevant to how we evaluate content on Wikipedia. But at present it seems to be a non-issue.  If someone finds context for the inclusion of the supposed swiss cheese habit and presses the matter, we can re-examine it then.   S n o w  talk 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Birth Year
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/asia/kim-jong-un-birthday/index.html very clearly says "There is a lot of debate about the year he was born," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute, a Korean think tank. "Some say it is 1984 while others say is '83 or '82." Unusually I propose that the ambiguity be put in the article - both the text and infobox. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro should mention human rights violations
I am not informed about wikipedia's biographical standards but I think the UN report discussed in the article (and at greater length here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea) should be mentioned in the introduction. Specifically, it should be noted that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights warned Kim that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/world/asia/north-korea-un-report/) based on hundreds of first-hand interviews documenting "unspeakable atrocities" committed by his government and that an estimated 150,000-200,000 political prisoners are being held in concentration camps under his regime.

Much of the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the current introduction should be moved lower in the article. His university degrees, his ranking on Forbes lists, and potential involvement in the Sony hacking are all less 1st order than the above human rights violations.

If someone comes to this article and reads only the introduction it is more important that they be made aware of these human rights violations than that he has a physics degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.167.197 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell, he has not been formally accused and/or found guilty of human rights violations. There's strong evidence, no doubt, but per BLP, to put this in the lead would be a problem. --M ASEM (t) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, he is not necessarily guilty for the crimes of the regime. Criminal guilt is a personal thing. Saddam Hussein's Deputy Tariq Aziz was acquitted on some charges. Japan's Hirohito wasn't tried at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who might be more responsible for the human rights abuses then the third generation leader of a totalitarian state? Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview movie in lead
Is there any reason The Interview has an entire paragraph in the lead, but nothing in the body of the article? Although the movie is in the news currently and Kim is the subject of the film, I feel like there could be a section like "Media portrayal" that mentions this movie and other portrayals of him in films, news media, etc. It could also link to the article about the Sony hack and mention that North Korea was accused of perpetrating the attack. I feel like the article as a whole could use some reorganization as far as its section structure goes, but this would be a start. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly doesn't belong in the lede, as it has little directly to do with the person. A section, maybe, but even then, I'd argue it's really not appropriate here. I've gone ahead and removed it. --M ASEM (t) 06:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong in the lead. Putting it under a "In popular culture" section would be more fitting. Illegitimate Barrister 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Less powerful than Ban Ki-moon?
In terms of power, Kim was ranked "the third highest among Koreans after Ban Ki-moon and Lee Kun-hee," according to the lead. Isn't this a silly claim? Neither Ban nor Lee command an army or a country, nor can they execute inconvenient family members. NotUnusual (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess "power" here doesn't mean military might, but rather, influence. Illegitimate Barrister 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

American or British English?
I noticed in the latest edit that there was a change to American English, but there are still instances of words like 'favoured' and 'honour' used in the article. If you have a preference for one or the other, please indicate below with any arguments for your position and we can include the appropriate tag at the top of this talk page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this rule as artificial here because North Korea is not a native English-speaking country. If it were, I would support North Korean English in this article. Georgia guy (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to switch from British to American English. It should remain the way it was. Jonathunder (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a trivial matter in any event. I guess a little consistency in the spelling conventions is desirable, but I can't see one option being more desirable over the other in this instance, so whosoever wishes to be bold and make the spelling consistent can set the tone to their liking; I can't see it being an issue, even on this moderately controversy-prone talk page.  S n o w  talk 03:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I use British English myself, but I think American would be more appropriate as the Americans have been heavily involved in Korea since WW2.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing myself; there's also the matter that a good portion of the instructors who teach English in South Korea tend to be American and, to the limited extent that it is used, the English tends to be Americanized, or so I've been told -- but, take that unsourced appraisal with a grain of salt. Of course, that's South, not North, Korea, but even the North's interests in English presumably focuses on their relationship with the U.S., even antagonistic as that relationship may be.  Anyway, that association is tenuous enough that I can't view American or British (or any other form) of English as having much primacy here.  Whoever wants to make the spelling consistent could easily choose either set of conventions without issue (at least, I should think and hope).   S n o w  talk 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Manual of style says to stick with whatever variant of English was used first (British in this case) unless there's overwhelming reason not to. I see no such reason here. Kim may make the news a bit more here in the U.S. as the result of American foreign policy, but I still think reverting back to British English would be appropriate, unless there are a substantial number who disagree. Rockhead126 (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, but since I can't see anyone edit warring over this, the ultimate deciding factor is going to be who decides it's worth their while to proof the article along these lines first. ;)  S n o w  talk 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think American English would be more appropriate, for, as the British user said, the U.S. tends to have more ties to Korea than does the U.K. Illegitimate Barrister 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to American English and added a tag at the top of this talk page. That way it'll be consistent per WP:ARTCON. There were some users taking both sides above, but as user Snow Rise said, this isn't a particularly contentious point even for an article of this sort. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015

 * image       =

Zjw333 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015
This is not the place to show someone's ugly sketch, please revert back to Kim's real portrait.

2601:9:8500:1503:154E:2596:E387:CCFF (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If you can come up with a free or fair use image and upload it to Commons:Special:Upload or through WP:FFU, then I'm sure someone would be happy to update it. The last portrait was removed due to being a copyright violation. —   02:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been tried to add real photos but they have always been vetoed. So, right now, your request can't be answered positively. Sorry. :( --Maxl (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion is atheism?
Is there any source that he is an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:562:5A01:450B:1684:19B0:2648 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. Kim Il Sung was brought up a Presbyterian and apparently said Buddhist prayers. The DPRK regime frequently draws on Korean shamanism.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Was Kim Jong-il a confirmed atheist? I can't recall ever hearing his personal religious beliefs addressed either.   S n o w  talk 00:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, "atheism" is not a religion. In the absence of any citations, it'd be best to leave that section blank. Illegitimate Barrister 09:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think atheism seems reasonable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Does This Article Have No Picture Of Kim Jong Un?
It shouldn't be hard to find one that isn't copyrighted. However, the page's "locked down" condition makes it impossible for most Wikipedeans to simply add a pic ourselves. RobertLovesPi (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Every image of Kim Jong Un that has been found is copyrighted, and would be non-free under WP's policy. As the Foundation requires us to not use non-free where free content can be made (as is the case of the living leader of a major country of the world), we can't use copyrighted images and thus have no image until a free one comes about. --M ASEM (t) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's one on Commons right now: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Jong-un_-_Thierry_Ehrmann.jpg I think it should be put into this article. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - finally!!!! :-))))) --Krawunsel (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. The same image was placed on this article last year right about this time, and rapidly removed . It was subsequently deleted from Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong Un graffiti.jpg. The graffiti is a derivative work of this image, and as such is encumbered with rights from the original photograph, making it incompatible with Commons licensing requirements, and not free as we define it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's typical - we've finally got a solution but you've got to destroy everything. You proved once and for all that you are unwilling to have ANY image in the article. I could personally travel to North Korea and take a picture of him and you'd still find some flimsy pretext to remove it from the article. This picture was obviously taken from an outdoors wall, therefore we are talking about the freedom of panorama!!! Something which you chose to ignore since it doesn't fit into your plans to keep ANY image from this article. Well, Kim Jong-un is not exactly what I'd call an amiable or sympathetic fella but I can only imagine how you must be hating Kim Jong-Un that you're constantly at keeping ANY image out of the article. --Krawunsel (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments above are completely wrong, . If you go to North Korea and take a photo of Kim Jong-un, and freely license it, then the photo will stay in this article, and you will be showered with barnstars. Just do it, or stop complaining. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Krawunsel, your latest rejoinder here is nothing short of a personal attack. The only sentence that is not so is the 4th sentence. If you persist in personally attacking me or anyone else, you may be blocked from editing. You may consider this a warning.
 * To continue, I'll respond to the 4th sentence: First, Freedom of Panorama does not exist for this artwork, as it is installed in France. Please see Freedom_of_panorama. Therefore, the artist's rights to the artwork are protected by law. The artist can release such rights, and in fact did, as we know from his flickr posting. However, the image is not free because it is a derivative image of the one shown here. Please read Derivative work to gain an understanding of this subject of law. We have a three prong test in this case; the rights of the original photographer on which the artwork is based (owned by Associated Press), the rights of the artist that created the graffiti (Thierry Ehrmann), and the rights of the photographer (Thierry Ehrmann). We must have release of rights under a free license for all three prongs. We do for the second and third, but not the first. Therefore, the image is not free and we can not use it here. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Then what if someone just drew a sketch of KJU? Would that be un-professional? Or still non-free because all known photos of KJU are non-free, and it would have to be based on a non-free photo? Schvass (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A drawing, if not a derivative work of an existing non-free image, could be made available under a free license. Thierry Ehrmann's graffiti is effectively a drawing, but it is a derivative work. If he had chosen instead to use imagery of Kim Jong-un as influences in creating an original art piece (but not derivative), then his licensing of his art work would make it available under a license compatible with this project. As to the question of whether a drawing would be permitted to depict him, I don't know. I've seen arguments on other articles where such images were not allowed, but it's not an absolute and such discussions have less grounding in policy than the issue of non-free vs. free. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a photo on flickr here in which has a creative commons license. Would it be possible to upload this photo to Commons?—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Although the license is good, the flickr account does not actually own the copyright of the photo, which belongs to China's Xinhua news agency. BabelStone (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks.—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This needs to be made a priority as this is an important leader and pertinent to current events and therefore the lack of even a drawn picture lowers the respectability, legitimacy, and prestige of Wikipedia. It's disgusting when bureaucratic nanny laws and policies prevent the spread of information in this day and age of supposed freedom. 75.130.155.203 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want this to be a priority,, then make it a priority and start working on your drawing. Alternatively, please feel free to take a plane to Pyongyang, take a photo of this man, and freely license the image. Until then, please feel free to refrain from criticizing other editors for complying with policy, or for not doing the volunteer work that you have not done yourself. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone then ask the copyright holders for permission for use here then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. As far as I know, there have been multiple attempts to contact KCNA, but we haven't heard back from these editors yet, so I'm assuming that the requests haven't been successful. -- benlisquare T•C•E 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, . See No personal attacks on what constitutes a personal attack. In rebuttal, if I had any talent for art, I would draw it and gladly license it. .I am not criticizing other editors. I am criticizing this page as is my right. I am appreciative to all Wikipedia editors who strive to improve this public source of knowledge.75.130.155.203 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is possible to visit North Korea (as I have), but that does not mean you have a chance to photograph Kim Jong Un. Nor did I see any statues or official portraits that could be photographed for these purposes.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland is right. Of course it is possible to travel to North Korea. Unfortunately it is, however, VERY unrealistic to expect to be able to take a picture of Kim, closed as the North Korean society is. Just being able to travel there is not enough to disallow using a image based on the fair use rationale. @ Cullen: Why don't you just do as you said and take a picture of him, thus proving your theory? ;) And, well, as to the much-quoted policy, this is one of the cases which prove that it does not always work, especially as the situation we have here is, obviously, not provided for. We need to be more flexible, that's as much as this debate has proved. Buerocracy and obstinacy doesn't help us here. Anyway, we have at least a sketch now, that's better than nothing. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The cases that prove the policy does not always work are called exceptions. We do have exceptions. Unfortunately, we do not have exceptions for living leaders of countries. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This case has proved that the policy does not always work. So this IS one of the exceptions. If the rules do not provide exceptions for living leaders of countries who are just as unreachable as if they were dead already the rules are faulty. And buerocratically insisting on sticking with rules that do not work may happen in North Korea but it should not happen here. That's not the way a free project like the Wikpedia should and can work. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really - saying that we should just allow a non-free picture of a person is the first step on the path alluded to by WP:VEGAN. Yes, he's not like as easy as walking down the street to get a shot, but we have never including "difficulty" in the consideration of such a shot, as long as any general member of the public can possibly get the photo. --M ASEM (t) 19:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the cases where policy does not have an exception, we have RfCs. We had an RfC on this subject. The dominant view was that a non-free image was not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the cases where policy does not an exception to fit certain cases the policy is obviously faulty and needs to be changed. And you may repeat over and over that "any general menber of the public" could get a picture of Kim Jong-un (you did that many times, like the proverbial tibetan prayer mill). Well, if that were so we'd have a photo by now. But we haven't. So far as to the truth of your statement. It' certainly not got anything to do with veganism. I don't believe Kim is a vegan. --Krawunsel (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Not all members of the public are Wikipedia editors, so a free picture (or someone with a pictre they are willing able to freely license) might be out there, but unless they come to Wikipedia and are aware of the lack of photo, it will remain unknown. We don't require that it has to be WP editors (which, I would suspect, being more American/European, will have a much more difficult, but not impossible, time getting to NK), just any member of the public. --M ASEM  (t) 22:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The irony is that the users so 'respectful' of DPRK law are in fact biased critics of the DPRK. According to previous discussions on the Ri Sol-Ju, DPRK diplomats indicated they were OK with Wikipedia taking a photo from a pro-DPRK website, but this was dismissed on xenophobic grounds. This whole argument showcases Wikipedia at its worst.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Wikipedia has too many rules and many of them are subject to misinterpretation and that's why there are so many unnecessary arguments here. A few people ought to be a bit more lenient and things would go much easier. I mean, people here are just trying to improve things and I can understand their frustration when there's always someone who vetoes everything. Wikipedia rules are NOT the Holy Bible, so take it easy!--Maxl (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me!!! That's POV. The Bible is just a Jewish literary text, but Wikipedia rules have jurisdiction across the Universe and beyond! Dude, get with the pogrom!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice irony! Yes, some people seem to believe that Wikipedia rules are the most important thing in the world. Which they are not. --Maxl (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think that the veto here is being maintained because a tiny clique of wikilawyers can't admit they're wrong. This is what Wikipedia is becoming, unfortunately. This is the most ridiculous example I have seen. However, it is somewhat entertaining as is the discussion regarding the hunt for a picture of Kim's wife, Ri Sol-Ju.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. And that's why I've largely stopped doing edits on Wikipedia, except small ones like correcting typos and the like. It's no use making bigger contributions, you always run into someone who thinks what you did was violating one of the too numerous Wikipedia rules. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Contributing was great once the Wikipedia was young. Today it's simply tedious, for the reasons given above. --Maxl (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New potential Kim Jong-Un sketches
Hey, just letting you know that we have more options for freely-licensed drawings of Kim Jong-Un. They were sketched by members of the Reddit community r/ICanDrawThat. They are hosted on Flickr under Creative Commons here and here, however the latter doesn't allow for commercial-use- an issue that I'm addressing. What do you think of these new options? Note: I'm using a throw-away so I don't link my Reddit account with my Wikipedia account which uses my real name. Thanks, F0064r (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The second image is now properly copyrighted. F0064r (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Could someone please replace the sketch in the infobox with file:Kim Jong-Un Sketch.jpg? Thanks, F0064r (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? How is this preferable over File:Kim Jong-un sketch.jpg? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a more realistic drawing. The old one wasn't bad, but it was shaded with scribbles, the ear isn't very accurate at all, and all the edges of his features are jagged. The new one doesn't have these issues. Thanks, F0064r (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possibly more realistic, but I personally think the original one is artistically better. Moreover, because the new one is oval, you get a distracting white square background against the light blue of the info box. All in all, a sketch is a sketch, and it's just a stand-in until we get a photo, so I don't see any real point in having a sketch war -- let's just stick with the one by the first person who could be bothered to make a sketch, as it's good enough. BabelStone (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When adding an image to a blp we are trying to find the most accurate image possible. The new image is more accurate, even if you think it isn't as "artistic" as the old one. Retaining a less encyclopedic image because it was the first one available is a poor argument, and is at ends with Wikipedia's goal. I think it's worth the change. Cheers, F0064r (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: There does not appear to be clear consensus for the change at this time.  Biblio  worm 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the image is better, why not? Why not vote on it? --Maxl (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let just say that as a casual observer I find you people as we say on the internets, retarded. Common sense should be the guiding principle in all things and I think the majority of readers would agree with me that even taking a copyrighted picture would be acceptable here even if it didn't fall under fair use which it does. Ridicilous. A random dude made a random sketch of a world leader...what an encyclopedia 213.100.108.117 (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, dude, some respect - that sketch is righteous. I'm just pissed they didn't accept my crayon drawing of a nuclear bomb. Inconsistent, dudes!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to then fully support the introduction of such great art. Crayons, my god that implies color. The Democratic Republic of Wikipedia will have made a great step forward! All I ask for you is to not forget "Made by Kim Jong-un" somewhere on the bomb. We wouldn't want Wikipedia getting 9/11 haxed. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Let's not forget that no less than US Secretary of State Colin Powell used pencil sketches in his "slam dunk" WMD address to the United Nations. Photographs are for fools! A drawing never lies.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Using an image from North Korean government
According to the international copyright info page at Wikimedia Commons, material from the NK government should be copyright-free, right? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#North_Korea
 * Article 12: ''The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive,

-P388388 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. "Current news and bulletins" presumably refers to the sort of material found in government gazettes, not portraits of the Dear Inheritor and journalistic coverage his comings and goings. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So "news" doesn't not refer to news? Illegitimate Barrister 13:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look through Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory, you will see that lots of countries have similarly worded statutes. In these the word "news" is normally interpreted as referring to facts, not particular expressions thereof.  (If it weren't, then pretty much every newspaper in these countries would be in the public domain, and therefore unprofitable, which very clearly they aren't.)  As for "bulletins", I'll admit that my previous comment was my own personal interpretation, though I will note that the KCNA (from which almost all North Korean firsthand news is sourced) itself claims copyright on its articles and photos, and that the Commons community has historically deleted KCNA-sourced uploads as copyright violations.  If you want a more authoritative interpretation, you'll have to get in touch with a North Korean lawyer, but until then we'll have to assume that the KCNA copyright notices are valid. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that is frustrating. I do think a modern world leader should be represented with a more photo-like image.

Here's one I drew for you guys, if you want to use it. It's not perfect, but hopefully closer than what's there now. -P388388 (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, that looks amazing! I'll add it to the infobox right away. Illegitimate Barrister 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a good likeness and it certainly has a more photo-realistic feel to it than the previous image, but it's also notably blurry. I'm going to take a crack and doing some (very light) work on it with GIMP to see if it can't be sharpened and see if anyone ( in particular) has an objection to utilizing the result instead.  S n o w  talk 11:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to play with the image and see if you can improve. My goal was to make it as photo-like as possible, but not so photo-like that it could be mistaken for a real photo. I wouldn't feel right about having a "faked" photo on Wikipedia, if that makes sense. In other news, it's possible that Kim may visit Moscow for ceremonies commemorating the end of WWII, so hopefully someone there can get a real photo then. -P388388 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, P388388. I agree with your feeling that we don't want to mislead the reader into thinking this was an actual photo, but as an illustration, it's pretty good. Jonathunder (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution, P388388 -- it's helped to provide a compromise solution to a loooooooong-standing issue. I did tinker around with it a bit to sharpen it an bring the depth out a bit, but with mixed results that included more graininess than I'd hoped for.  When I compared it against the current version as it's scaled on the page, I couldn't say that it was in any sense markedly better, so I'm rather favouring letting it be for the present time, especially as the bluriness isn't so much an issue at that scale.  And I understand your perspective on wanting to avoid it being mistaken for an actual photo.  Good work -- I'll remember you in the event a similar issues arises elsewhere on the project. ;)  S n o w  talk 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So even North Korean law, and explicit permission from North Korean diplomats, is not enough for a few bureaucrats with enormous egos.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Every revolution seemingly turns into a bureaucracy given enough time and too little vigor. When those who see any activity as within their sphere of interest and a source of delight instead of as a means to an end then the spontaneous progressivism of the past is lost. Sadly the spontaneous ones lose their interest and thus their vigor in maintaining projects like this while the bureaucrats thrive. In some cases this may lead to a sort of bland but efficient quality, in others quixotesque arguments that clearly obscure simple common sense and in the worst of cases the silencing of dissent, imagination and creativity. I think in terms of this article we are clearly in the middle ground together with the European Union. Kim himself is over to the right of that scale and corporate America is still clinging to the left.213.100.108.117 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, nobody has "enormous egos" here, everyone is just trying to protect the Holy Rules of Wikipedia... amen! :D --Maxl (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The image by P388388 cannot be used as its copyrighted as he used a copyright image of his father as the blueprint of that image..-- Stemoc 16:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I specifically chose that portrait as a model because it hangs in numerous public places in North Korea, and therefore may be used without permission of the copyright owner, according to DPRK law (4.32). Wikipedia's images of Kim Il-sung (original here) and Kim Jong-il (original here) fall under the same category. -P388388 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible free photos in May
Jong-Un is visiting Russia in May, and from likely state visits with Putin, we'll likely be able to get a free photograph as we had with Jong-Il. --M ASEM (t) 07:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope. The ridiculous fighting over this issue on this page needs to stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can Vice News release a frame of their footage under a free license?
There have been countless suggestions on how to obtain the elusive free license photo of Kim Jong-un that we need.

Attempts at this have ranged from calling the DPRK UN representative and asking them to publish a KCNA photo under a free license, stipulating whether Dennis Rodman might want to publish photos from his private collection under a free license, to the ultimate absurdity: 'why don't you go there and snap a photo of Kim yourself'. I might have found a new way which combines the best, and not the worst, features of these attempts.

What went wrong with the DPRK UN representative's office is that they didn't understand why it's important for us to get a photo with a certain license, rather than just getting a photo. And even if they did, they're not KCNA and they don't own the license so as to change it to a free one. Rodman, in turn is a busy man and his private collection is likely to remain so. Going to DPRK by yourself of course is possible but running into Kim is highly unlikely

Now, if only there was a (Western) media organization that understands licensing, deals with publishing and distributing photos or videos, and has caught Kim on camera (the overwhelming majority of Western news agency published photos are KCNA photos distributed with or without permission). Well, there is one: Vice News. Vice went to DPRK (during the Rodman trip, which explains why Kim showed up) and they have footage of Kim that they shot themselves.

Since Vice is a media organization, safeguarding their intellectual property is what they do for a living. This is important for two reasons. First, they (unlike the DPRK UN representative's office) will know what a free license is and why we want one, and second, they know when it doesn't hurt them to release a tiny fraction of their material under such a license. Vice may be an easier party to contact with inquiries than the DPRK UN mission, KCNA, or Rodman. It's their job to answer inquiries concerning their intellectual property, and there is likely to be no language or cultural barrier.

If someone asked Vice to release a single still frame of their original footage under a free license, we could have our photo. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC), modified by Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC).


 * As long as we are assured that Vice took that footage themselves, and that they would be willing to donate a frame or two under a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license (per WP:CONSENT), and we're talking about footage taken from a public space, then that would be an option. --M ASEM (t) 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we have to be careful with this approach. It seems, at first pass, like a reasonable source if we can obtain release from Vice. But...but...take this for example; in the above linked video, at 25:15 a monologue says "We were bussed across the city, but no one knew where we were going; no one, not even our minders. We were told to leave our cameras behind and brought into this large, marble building" (emphasis mine). This is immediately followed at 25:30 by footage of Kim Jong-un. So, if Vice were told to leave their cameras behind, who took this footage? We don't know. We can not assume. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That bit, as well some as bits of the footage from the basketball court, are labeled as "NORTH KOREAN MEDIA". There is even the characteristic voice-over of KCTV, as well as poor image quality indicating that it's a TV-rip. It's easy to know - and not assume - that the bits labeled as "NORTH KOREAN MEDIA" are from North Korean media, and are not intellectual property of Vice News. However, what I'm interested are the basketball court shots (17:32) that are not labelled as North Korean media. All the cues point to this being Vice's footage, such as the host directly addressing the camera. This, however, is an assumption. But this strong assumption to me seems like enough of a reason to ask them to confirm if it's their footage and see how it goes from there. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely. I didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't ask Vice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Props to Finnusertop for his thinking and initiative, regardless of the result.  S n o w  talk 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a few days to draft an email (with help from good friends) and I've just sent it to HBO who are the copyright holder of Vice on HBO. I'll let you know if I was successful. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any results yet? ;) --Maxl (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * HBO never replied. I was thinking about asking VICE directly, and was encouraged to do so by user Snow Rise. However, I never got around to do that. Do you think I still should attempt this, despite V-E day drawing close and the speculation that Russian state media will publish a free shot then? Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's really down to your call on that, Finn; certainly I'd say you've already gone above and beyond in your efforts. Purely out of curiosity though, where have you been hearing said speculation?  S n o w  let's rap 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this won't be happening either - Kim Jong-un will not be attending the May Day parade. Kim Yong-nam, the head of parliament, will be taking his place. But hey, his article needs a photo as well, right? 121.72.176.137 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image
Please add a new image of Kim Jong-un that will hopefully remain on this site. --Mr. AWA (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been tried many times... read the discussions above and in the archives. Unfortunately all efforts have, so far, been blocked by some, whether they want to hear it or not. --Maxl (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but it's extremely odd that no presentable photo is extant of this internationally known political figure, whose picture appears fairly often in global media.
 * If one absolutely can't be found – and I see other Wikis have the same problem – I suggest the article appear without the subject's image. The current sketch – sorry – looks like a poorly executed cartoon, IMO.Sca (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Found a passable pic. on Ukrainian WP but can't get it to reproduce here. Sca (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That image on the Ukraine WP is clearly a press photo, and is non-free. Because Kim Jong-un is a living person and not recluse, we cannot use a non-free image here. --M ASEM  (t) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That image has been deleted from Commons and here a number of times. We know it to be non-free. The fact that, as you say, his photo appears fairly often in global media proves that photographing him is possible. Therefore, we can expect that someday there will be free media of him available, just as there has been for his father and grandfather. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, I still think the sketch is substandard and shouldn't be presented with a sober profile article. Instead, I suggest a no photo freely available note – for now. Sca (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)