Talk:Supreme Leader (North Korean title)

Update table
Choe Yong-rim as been Premier since 2010. (I'd update the table myself but couldn't figure out how.)

Blanking of Pre-1948 Leaders and Only Sourced Material
There has been a consistent effort to remove all references to North Korean leadership before 1948, and the only material on the page that is sourced. This page should reflect the historical consensus, not the claims of North Korean state media. It is inappropriate, violating the standards of WP:BRD, WP:ROWN, and especially WP:NPOV. Plumber (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe its because North Korean leadership didn't exist before 1948, because North Korean state wasn't founded before that year... Its a historical fact, not the claims of North Korean state media. What's your next proposal? Maybe the inclusion of heads of the United States Army Military Government in Korea to the List of Presidents of South Korea? If anyone is interested, see more comprehensive discussion at Talk:Kim Il-sung. --Sundostund (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The provisional government of North Korea was founded in 1946. Rewriting Shtykov in particular, and the Soviets in general, out of North Korean leadership is exactly what Kim Il-sung did. Yes, I do think the encyclopedia would benefit from the USAMGK being included on the South Korean page. It is misleading to leave the SCA and USAMGK out. Plumber (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * North Korea was founded in 1948, and this article is intended to list heads of institutions of that country. Shtykov and other Soviets simply don't belong here, they weren't North Korean politicians, just representatives of the Soviet Union as the (temporary) occupying power. Having in mind what you proposed here, I'm not at all surprised by your opinion about inclusion of the USAMGK on the South Korean page. One ludicrous proposal after another... What's next, inclusion of commanders of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany to Leadership of East Germany? Or maybe inclusion of the SCAP (more precisely, Douglas MacArthur) to List of Emperors of Japan and / or List of Prime Ministers of Japan? That would be "logical". As I said before, you will not include anything without having consensus to do that. --Sundostund (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the Soviet occupation could be mentioned, but Kim Il Sung was the head of the provisional government anyway. Listing Shtykov here is just wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can mention the Soviet occupation in the lead section of the article, as part of text. There is already a lot of text in the article, and a few lines about the Soviet occupation could be addition to it, but without any inclusion of the Soviets to the lists of officeholders. As you said, Jack - Listing Shtykov here is just wrong. --Sundostund (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

edit the title?
Maybe it would be more clear to have it say the full name of the country : the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?Peachywink (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who knows, maybe it would be helpful... --Sundostund (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could edit the title and use "Also known as" or "Referred to as" or "Commonly called" or something to that effect Timlempicki (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Suryong
Suryong is a standard Korean word meaning leader, head, chief, or boss. As far as I can see it is not used untranslated by North Korea (as Juche is). KCNA does not seem to use it in its English language articles, based on a search using nknews.net. The leaders of North Korea are in fact known by several titles, or forms of address, such as Eternal President, Marshal, General etc. Some observers have adopted "suryong" to describe the personality cult in North Korea, but this isn't standard. I think it is misleading to use the term here. I also can't see in the Constitution where the title is bestowed on Kim Jong Il and his successors.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My idea was to replace "Supreme Leader" with "Suryong" in order to eliminate any need for inclusion of Shtykov. He definitely never held the title of "Suryong"... I can agree to change it in some way, but definitely not to include Soviets in this article. --Sundostund (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was ever called "supreme leader" either. I dispute that "suryong" has ever been a title.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, Jack. We'll fix it somehow. The section in question was named "Supreme leaders", now its "Suryong". How would you like it to be named? Any suggestion would be appreciated. --Sundostund (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "supreme leader" would be better, but we should make it clear that this is not an official title or government post that they all shared.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds fine to me, Jack. Just be bold and implement your idea in the article, then I'll have a better picture about it (and edit it somehow myself, if needed). --Sundostund (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks OK, as far as I'm concerned. I see no particular need to change something in your edits, Jack. --Sundostund (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a question, Jack - do you think that "Suryong" should be removed from other relevant articles as well? I'm talking about:


 * Template:NKSupremeLeaders (I've removed it already, but you are free to modify it somehow if you think its needed)
 * Kim Il-sung
 * Kim Jong-il
 * Kim Jong-un


 * If you think that "Suryong" should be removed from those articles too, as well, be bold and do it. In any case, please tell your opinion here. --Sundostund (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think so, for the reasons mentioned above, so I will do so.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WPK
The following text was added:
 * As in all Communist regimes, the WPK is de facto the only legal party in the country. Two other parties nominally exist, but are completely subservient to the WPK. The government largely serves as a transmission belt for the party.

I think this is problematic. What does de facto legal mean? If parties only nominally exist, how can they be subservient - or anything? "Transmission belt" echoes a comment by Lenin, but I'm not sure what it means. If it means that the party totally controls the government, I think that is disputed. People often comment on the power of the military. In any case, this needs citations, and probably belongs at the Government of North Korea, not here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Those two other parties are Korean Social Democratic Party and the Chondoist Chongu Party. They are members of the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, together with the WPK... I do agree that existing text can lead to misunderstandings, etc but it shouldn't be just removed from the article. It should be reworded in a way. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it - please share your thoughts, Jack. As for myself, I need to think a bit about it. I'm sure that we'll find some good solution for this. --Sundostund (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that what’s going on with the party system in the DPRK and in mainland China is that there is only one party that is legally allowed to govern. Other parties can exist but they must accept that legal requirement – in practice, this means that they are required to not seek a leadership role for themselves, which makes them different from the typical political party in other countries’ systems. Of course, it need hardly be said that, for a non-leadership party to exist in North Korea or China, it is not sufficient for the party’s leaders to state that they don’t want to take control of the government; rather the authorities must believe that that party’s goal is to support rather than undermining the ruling party’s position. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First, the source (Library of Congress Country Study from 1993) doesn't verify what's said. Second, there is no reason not to use the more up-to-date Library of Congress Country Study from 2009, p. 214 (PDF). Based on that source I'd say something like:
 * you are correct in the sense that DPRK is a single-party state because the WPK's position as the ruling party is established in the Constitution. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Leader
I have removed this:
 * The post of "supreme leader" was unofficially applied to Kim Jong-il from 1994 onward, and retroactively applied to his father, Kim Il-sung. It became an official title in 2009 when the NDC chairman was declared to be "the supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea."

I don't think the first sentence has any meaning, except to imply that Kim Il Sung was not supreme leader in his lifetime, which is false. With regard to the second sentence, declaring the NDC chairman the "supreme leader" (uncapitalised) does not make it an official title.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I took this from Article 100 of the North Korean constitution, which states: "The First Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea." Methinks on that basis you can argue that it was an official title from 2009 onward.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 01:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added that info, with sources. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it describes the chairman as the supreme leader (uncapitalised). "Supreme Leader" is not an official title because of that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, "supreme leader" is a de facto title used by both Western scholarship and NK. I'm certain that the former knows that it's not an official title but unfortunately I haven't found discussions that contemplate this. The term is usually taken at face value. The article needs rewording per what you've said, but I'd like to find sources that explicitly discuss this matter. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 16:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notably, the Constitution's Korean text says "ch’oego ryo’ngdoja" (supreme leader), not "suryong" as in the discussion above. There are several sources that discuss the range of titles given to the leaders: --Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Head of state in 94-98.
It is dubious whether the position of "President of Korea" did not exist in 1994-98, and that the position "President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly" was head of state. Wasn't "President of Korea" simply vacant, but existing? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23) (cropped).jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Choe Ryong-hae.jpg (discussion)
 * Kim Jae-ryong.jpg (discussion)
 * Kim Tok-hun.jpg (discussion)
 * Pak Pong-ju.jpg (discussion)

Image of Kim Jong-Un isn't him
The title, image, signature but not the link of Kim Jong-Un are all wrong. The title & 2 images are of the singer Meghan Trainor (All about that Bass). LOL

DreaSteu (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to whoever fixed the image! I didn't know how to do it (or if I even could). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreaSteu (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Page protection - changing of dates
An anonymous editor has continually changed the dates with no sources of explanation. I have requested page protection. They need to explain their edits and/or provide sources. The one date I investigated did not make sense so I stopped trying to verify their work. They need to show evidence and rationale for their proposed edits. Their use of "f*k you" in an edit summary suggests they are not sincere. -- Green  C  02:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I unsuccessfully tried to find a reliable source for the tenure dates of Kim Jong Il which seems to have been the most frequent target of recent edits. Reporting around the time of the transition of power in in the early 90s is very vague on details which is not surprising considering the country. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going by whatever is in the main articles so they match up. If someone adds something different without a source I revert it. There are probably arguments for why different dates should be used, but it needs a rationale, some sourcing and consistency across articles. --  Green  C  15:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I found a source for Kim Jong Il and turns out the IP editor was correct, if AP is correct. We may have inconsistent dates elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Green  C  15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Quinlan: I added sources for the dates. Each date (start and finish) required it's own source and they were not easy to find. I think this can serve as the basis for citing the rest of Wikipedia, where these dates are used, because most of the time there are no citations. Recommend removing the block because we now have sources, and it appears the IP6 was acting in good faith. I'd like to what changes they try to make again if any, in case there are problems I missed. -- Green  C  19:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. I also reduced the page protection level from semi-protection to pending changes protection. That is really fantastic work. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Entirely unsourced
This article doesn't have any sources for what "supreme leader" is or how it's used in North Korea.Stix1776 (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Killarnee (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Leader (North Korean title) → Supreme Leader of North Korea – Per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:TITLECON with pages such as Supreme Leader of Iran, Supreme Leader of Afghanistan, Emir of Qatar, King of Malaysia, Ruler of Dubai, President of the United States, Prime minister of the United Kingdom, etc. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 20:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping based on WP:RM/TR discussion. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose This would change the scope of the article from being about a title to about a position. The current article scope only concerns the title itself, not the position, which is General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. Supreme Leader is more of an honorary/propagandist title, not an appointed position. It's not something one automatically gets on assuming office. Two of the three holders were not called this until after they died. It should be about the title itself, not the position which overlaps with existing article(s). -- Green  C  21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The position of General Secretary is not equivalent to leader; Kim Jong Il did not become General Secretary for 3 years after his father's death, nor Kim Jong Un for 4 months, but both succeeded immediately as leader (though not as Supreme Leader). jnestorius(talk) 22:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was saying is Supreme Leader equivalent to General Secretary. Because he was first called Supreme Leader as "part of the official preparations to appoint Kim Jong Un as the General Secretary". (It was not the case with the father and grandfather, who were not called SL until after death.) Anyway there may be no equivalence for the title with a position, as noted it looks more like a honorary title than a functional one. -- Green  C  22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternative Move to List of leaders of North Korea, which currently redirects to Supreme Leader (North Korean title). Reversing the redirection would allow this article and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea to parallel List of leaders of the Soviet Union and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Within the lede of the moved article, WP:BOLDTITLE of "Supreme Leader" / "Great Leader" / "Dear Leader" is appropriate . jnestorius(talk) 01:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support this good idea. List of leaders of the Soviet Union is a FA thus has good structure to copy for this page, and the Soviets and North Korea are fellow travelers anyway.   --  Green  C  02:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:GreenC. This is not about Supreme Leaders of North Korea, this is about the specific title "Supreme Leader of North Korea". J I P  &#124; Talk 09:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On that basis would you advocate deleting the sections "List" and "Timeline", which have nothing to do with the specific title? jnestorius(talk) 11:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say to split them, but the list and timeline are fairly short and will most likely remain that way for some time. I think keeping these items is more helpful than removing them. ASUKITE  16:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would conversely say that the total content that is specifically about the title "Supreme Leader" is small and can easily and helpfully be incorporated into an article with a more general scope and title. jnestorius(talk) 22:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I originally supported this but after reading the replies, I find GreenC's point that the official title is actually entirely different sufficient evidence that we should specify this is about a "different" title, unless we are to re-scope the article as a list as above, which I don't have a strong opinion for or against. ASUKITE 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)