# Talk:Kim Ju Ae

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Kim Ju-ae.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Kim Ju Ae.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead of the article does not make it clear why we went with 'Ju-ae' variant over one of the other names suggested as plausible, outside of it being possibly the oldest suggestion? If her name is not confirmed, I think the article should be renamed to Kim Jong Un's daughter. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Most reliable English-language sources still use "Kim Ju-ae", as evidenced by the more recent citations in this article. Regardless, a serious discussion on such a move or generally on the topic of this article's title has yet been done. If you do decide to start a move proposal, I'm sure more arguments for and against such a proposal would arise and we would hear more on the matter from the community. Yue🌙 03:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Yue There is a chance recent outside sources are affected by WP:CITOGENESIS :( I.e we may be guilty of spreading fake news... (well, incorrect information, at least) :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen on Korean wiki of "Kim Family" which also lists that Kim Jong Un's eldest son is believed to be Kim Jong Ju (although some sources), maybe we can add this on the page? Also an article called "Kim Jong Ju (2010)" should also be created. TheAmazingPaul (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the 'Morning Star General' claim because the sources cited are reporting an unverified claim from a little over a year ago that died out. The sources given make it clear that it was hearsay and neither Korean government verified it.

From RFA: "'At the lecture ... they said that the future of the space power era will thrive under the female general, the Morning Star of Korea,' a resident of the capital Pyongyang told RFA Korean on condition of anonymity for safety reasons. This is the first time that the child of the highest dignity was officially called the ‘Morning Star of Korea,’ [a title] which was used to promote the early revolutionary activities of [national founder] Kim Il Sung."
So the actual source is a random Pyongyang resident we cannot name.
And from YTN: "아직 북한 공식 매체는 이런 호칭을 사용하진 않고 있고, 정부도 사실 여부를 확인해줄 수 없다는 입장이지만, 4대 세습을 염두에 둔 우상화 작업이라는 평가가 나오고 있습니다."
"North Korea's official media has not used this title yet, and the [South Korean] government has stated that it cannot confirm the facts, but there are assessments that this is an idolization effort with the fourth-generation hereditary succession [of the Kim family] in mind."
A year and a few months later and North Korea has not officially used this title and South Korea has never heard of it in their intelligence reports. This is why both RFA and YTN were careful not to state the claim as fact, unlike the addition to Wikipedia that was done uncritically. Yue🌙 20:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Two South Korean sources claim a birthdate of 19 February 2013 for her (1, 2). Originally, an editor added this birthdate, but did not provide a source for this claim.
Note: This birthdate claim has appeared in the article's some language versions: French, Vietnamese, Korean, Italian,... TCU9999 (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The first source is almost word-for-word plagiarised from the second source despite being written two months after the second. Both sources are from 2018 and do not cite their source(s) for the claim. The articles cited in this Wikipedia article, which touch on evaluations and statements by both Korean governments, were written in 2023–2024.
Again, there is no need to peddle outdated rumours about this topic, especially when two Korean-speaking editors already carefully looked through online sources to bring this article to GA status. Yue🌙 19:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Kim's daughter.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently the lead image is an original illustration of Kim Ju Ae by User:ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. This was added today with the edit at [4]. Should this remain?
I'm inclined to see this as WP:OR since we don't know that she actually looks like this, which the image (which is not from a reliable source) implies. 
Noting for transparency that this was also discussed on the Wikimedia Discord (before I posted this). Groot42 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:IMAGEOR states that Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. The portrait illustration does not make any claims or arguments, so it is not OR. We do know that she actually looks like this since photographs of her exist and I drew her likeness based on existing photographs. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Should be noted that it has already been removed by @Tarkoff (even though I'm pretty sure its not AI). That being said, I don't think an illustration should be used for a BLP as it may be an OR issue and may likely misrepresent the person in question. I would prefer to keep no image until a free photograph becomes available. I am also personally sceptical of the idea of using an illustration of a child in an article. TheBritinator (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
It was not generated by AI, and the claim that was is 100% wrong. I do not use AI to make images. I also think that having an illustration makes sense until we have a free photo available, as this is what was previously done on the Kim Jong Un page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The difference with that is that Kim Jong Un is a national leader and a highly publicized figure. However, I also don't think an illustration should have been used on his article either for the same reasons. An image is not derivate or article quality, as this one became a GA without any. I would much rather have no image that gives the reader no impression of their likeness rather than an illustration that potentially misrepresents them. TheBritinator (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I am not convinced of the applicability of WP:IMAGEOR on this hand-drawn portrait, particularly in terms of sole justification. Nor am I convinced by morality-based arguments, i.e. the subject is a child. I would instead encourage several different questions to be asked:
Is there a particular need for an image? To play devil's advocate, depicting a BLP in an article is beneficial. However, it is still worth questioning whether or not this image is necessary. Wikipedia is not an image repository; it depends almost exclusively on text content. I have written BLPs about political figures who have not even been photographed by news outlets, such as Beau Harrison and Trent Morse. Absent an image, the article's information is still usable. Those interested in Kim Ju Ae's appearance, which is undiscussed in the article, are free to view non-free images online.
Does the image represent the subject? If I am visiting Wikipedia for the first time and I seek to look at the article on George Washington, I would expect to see his portrait included. That image is strongly associated with Washington because it was commissioned in a professional context and with Washington's presence; it is so defining, it has its own article. Artemisia stated on the Wikimedia Discord that they didn't copy their drawing from a non-free image. I question the faithfulness of the replication of Kim's likeness.
What are the implications of accepting this portrait? This itself comprises multiple questions. Who is able to draw a portrait on Wikipedia? How do we ensure that there is a certain degree of quality? There are many portraits, but generally deference has been given to drawings with some significance. Jesus's infobox image is "regarded by historians and scholars among the most important and recognizable works in the study of Byzantine art as well as Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christianity." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@U-Mos: I don't think I quite understand your reasoning for definitively placing her birth year at 2013. None of the sources cited inline, including South Korean intelligence, know when exactly she was born, so how are you so sure that "she almost certainly did not turn 11 anywhere near Feb 2023"? Also, in your first edit summary you said, "source gives approximate age of 10 in Feb 2023, but template takes this as definite and likely rounded up age for much of the year", but then you changed the template from an approximate one with a range to a definitive one that "rounds", so the edit was the complete opposite of your stated intention. Yue🌙 18:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The use of Template:Birth based on age as of date requires her to definitively be ten years old on 16 February 2023, when the source for that date in fact gives an estimate of "10 or 11 years old". A source near to that time also states "around 10 years old". So it's certainly an issue to use a template that gives a definite age for a particular day in the year. The edit I made retained the circa template, so therefore did not assert a definite birth year or age (even though the range was removed), just a best approximation. From the sources in the article it seems likely that she was born in very late 2012/early 2013, though I see the first source linked here expresses a range that would put the birth before that point. So I've now copied the principle of Ri Sol-ju and used a calculation against the current year for the possible ages. That way, it won't hit a point in the year where it expresses certainty that doesn't exist, and currently reads the same as it did prior to my edit. U-Mos (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
@U-Mos: That makes sense; thank you for the explanation. Yue🌙 04:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
FYI @U-Mos Template:Age in years|2013 (age 11–12)
gives the same results with lees server loading 🦧 :GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴⍨talk 15:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That template would have to use 2012 in this instance. Hard to check, but logically wouldn't that give a definite age rather than a range each 31 December? U-Mos (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Photo of Kim Ju Ae in 2025.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)