Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 2

message: Adam:
Well, I can just imagine how this is going to go. I'm going to object to this effort to blatantly propagandize this article, and you're undoubtedly going hurl charges of "apologia" and "rationalizations." I find this unfortunate, given the great deal of respect that I have for you and your work.
Refrain from advocacy and work within the confines of NPOV policies. In order to keep this civil, tone down this article. Don't accuse me of supporting this regime. 172 11:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this disingenuous response is a step up from McCarthyite browbeating that I expected. You know very well that your version's slanted and how to work within NPOV constraints, but you chose ideological purity instead. You'd be able to manage just fine without me boring you by going line by line and picking out problems. So rewrite a handful of sentences, salvage some of the old content, and keep the loaded terms and unsubstantiated accusations to a minimum, and it would be far easier on the both of us. This would take 10 minutes at the most, I bet. If you to this, I'll shut up. BTW, I tried to get rid of that cartoon a couple of days ago. At least that's one good thing about your Axis of Evil speech/article. As for the Lukashenko article, it's still on my to-do list. However, I have other matters to address aside from this website. For now, spending any more time on Wiki than I do as it is would be masochistic.  172 13:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the busy side now, with way too many application windows open at once. And for crying out loud, keep my in mind my reputation; I'm not the slightest bit intimated by aggressive posturing (I'm usually the one guilty of this tactic anyway). Despite considerable differences, I do find your perspective thought provoking and insightful. For example, I enjoyed reading your comments on this page a couple of months ago. So please, grudgingly accept the fact that NPOV and moral clarity are conflicting here on your own. You'd probably be able to predict almost all of the comments I'd make verbatim anyway. 172 13:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Foaming at the mouth again? I'm running late as it is. I'm going to go out an water my Kimjongilia and bow to my Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung statues. I'll be back tomorrow, though. 172 13:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The article's already considerably better. Regarding "the debate," frankly, you were getting irrational last time when accusing me - at least least implicitly - of being a Stalinist fellow traveler. Next time, we need to start off with a better understanding of the nature of our diverging views. First, recognize that while I'm coming from a different perspective, it's not one of "an apologist for Stalinist regimes," but a different paradigm of international relations (one stressing the limitations of power and skeptical of moralism). Second, acknowledge that we disagree on how to end this regime, not whether or not this regime has to go. For example, I was optimistic about Kim Dae-jung's Sunshine Policy; I'm sure that you weren't. I like what, e.g., Selig Harrison has to say about the DPRK; you probably believe that, e.g., John Bolton has better ideas. 172 17:52, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Guys, look at the current article.  Take all the excerpts you disagree with, and list them in the spaces below, along with your reason for disagreement and what language you would rather use.  This way, we can reach a compromise. -- Sekicho 15:51, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
===172 wants to change:===
* I'd like to expose months of harassment and intimidation of other users employed by Adam Carr in order to advance a political agenda. 172 16:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can come down from the cross now. There are plenty of righties at WP, but most of them manage to write and behave neutrally enough that most people don't know who they are. I think you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately picking fights - it's rather disingenuous to start one and then complain about McCarthyism when other people defend themselves. Stan 04:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is structured the way it is precisely so that people can yell at each other if they feel it necessary, as in this case we both did. The result is a much better article than the crap that was here before we began. If you don't like to watch editing-by-conflict, you are free not to come to this page. Adam 08:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, that's just the way it is sometimes, and everyone who contributes to Wikipedia on contentious subjects has to get used to it. Anyway, the article is now unlocked so you are free to contribute your wisdom. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I'll refrain from editing the article if he does. 172 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I give no such undertaking. I will edit as I see fit. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's settle this.

message: * I'd like to expose months of harassment and intimidation of other users employed by Adam Carr in order to advance a political agenda. 172 16:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 172 wants to change:

message: As I have said, I am reasonably happy with the article as it stands, which includes nearly all of the edits I originally made. I am also thoroughly sick of this argument, and have other things I would rather be doing. I will make a few points in parting:
*I have not harassed or intimidated other users. This is an outright lie, which if said in the real world would be seriously defamatory. Fortunately no-one much cares what accusations are made here in Wikipedia fantasy land, where people like 172 can hide behind anonymous user-names. 
*I would have thought that calling someone a Nazi and vandalising their User page counts as fairly serious harassment, by the way.
*I have not made personal attacks on 172. I have described him as an apologist for Stalinist regimes, which is a political comment not a personal one, and a correct one on the evidence I have seen. The consistent tendency of his edits both here and at Alexander Lukashenko has been to remove all edits which may reflect badly on Kim or Lukashenko.
*I have not made any real comments on the DPRK-ROK foreign policy issue at all. All 172's stuff about mushroom clouds is just his fantasy. Most of my edits concerned the DPRK's internal politics.
*I have not "taken the US/South Korea line as gospel." I specifically said I don't accept the more bizarre KCIA slanders of Kim. I know that nobody at Wikipedia is allowed to claim to have any expertise about anything for fear of being called an elitist, but I am a professional journalist and historian and I am capable of forming my own assessments, based on 30 years study, reading and discussion. 
*My real offence, here as elsewhere at Wikipedia, has been to break the unspoken rule that the correct "NPOV" position on all political/historical issues must be a left-of-centre, anti-western and specifically anti-American one. This is not a specifically Wikipedia fault, it just reflects the current climate in the western intelligentsia, to which most Wikipedians belong. It is ironic that I am accused of McCarthyism when the only people really subjected to McCarthyism at Wikipedia are people who break this unspoken rule.
Adam 01:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can come down from the cross now. There are plenty of righties at WP, but most of them manage to write and behave neutrally enough that most people don't know who they are. I think you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately picking fights - it's rather disingenuous to start one and then complain about McCarthyism when other people defend themselves. Stan 04:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam wants to change:

message: Damn it.  If I were a judge, I would simply place a restraining order on both of you, and forbid either of you from touching this article.  Too bad we have an egalitarian system here.  If both of you would agree to leave each other alone and refrain from editing this article, I think the rest of us can get back to doing what we want to do (write) rather than what the two of you apparently want to do (yell at each other). -- Sekicho 15:54, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is structured the way it is precisely so that people can yell at each other if they feel it necessary, as in this case we both did. The result is a much better article than the crap that was here before we began. If you don't like to watch editing-by-conflict, you are free not to come to this page. Adam 08:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's just the way it is sometimes, and everyone who contributes to Wikipedia on contentious subjects has to get used to it. Anyway, the article is now unlocked so you are free to contribute your wisdom. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I'll refrain from editing the article if he does. 172 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I give no such undertaking. I will edit as I see fit. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First arbitration attempt

message: Can someone update the link to the Korean alphabet to hangul, please? Kokiri 10:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: After unprotecting this page

message: Is that new picture copyrighted? ugen64 02:51, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if DPRK propaganda is copyright, in fact I doubt the DPRK is a party to the copyright convention. But I have reverted its use anyway since it is a cartoon, not an actual image of Kim. Adam 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't belong.  Since the image in question is probably the most frequently used of Kim, by virtue of being the only sanctioned one in North Korea, don't you think it might as well be in the article?  Stop being so reactionary, please. -- Sekicho 03:31, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
It can go in the article, provided it is captioned as being a propaganda cartoon, but the lead photo needs to be an actual image of Kim. This is a biographical article. Adam 03:35, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Believe it or not, I agree with Adam. But why not scrap that picture all together? I don't know about you two, but I'm getting sick of looking at that asinine cartoon - caption or no caption. So I replaced it with one of the old images. If either of you find this upsetting, go ahead and revert it. 172 06:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture