Talk:Kim Jong Il/archive 5

message: User:Adam Carr just moved a great deal of discussion to Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 4, including many comments that were only hours old. I don't think this was a good idea, because it might hide the fact that this is a longstanding and involved debate. Would the participants please summarize the debate up to this point? Is 'ruler' vs. 'leader' the only thing that's contested at the moment?
On that Archive 4 page there's a long list of noteworthy publications (with links) which consistently refer to Kim Jong-il as 'leader', and I don't see any sources at all which consistently refer to him as 'ruler' - that's why I believe that Wikipedia should follow convention and use the term 'leader' when referring to him. The only arguments I see in favor of the word 'ruler' are emotional appeals based on semantics and POV shades of meaning (which are backwards, to me - when I see 'ruler' I think of a monarch, and when I see 'leader' I think of Stalin or Castro).
If you believe there is reason to debate the use of the word 'ruler' vs. 'leader', then please cover both sides of the debate in the article itself, and let the reader decide which term is more appropriate. - Brian Kendig 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assigning shades of meaning to the words "rule" and "lead" which I disagree with - in my opinion, he "leads" because he gives orders and they are obeyed; "rulers" have more legitimacy to their rule. Please provide references (dictionary or otherwise) which justify your definition of these words; or, better yet, please show a precedent where Wikipedia or a substantive number of outside sources use the term "ruler" in relation to Kim Jong-il. What it comes down to, regarding which word to use here, is that there are opinions both ways; in this situation the deciding factor will have to be precedent set by other sources, because Wikipedia's aim is to summarize other sources, not do original research on what someone should be called. - Brian Kendig 17:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not an anon, that's one paragraph of my reply. To me, "leader" simply means "one who leads", and does not itself imply leadership qualities nor popular support. - Brian Kendig 17:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A summary up to this point, please? 

message: I keep getting lost in the back-and-forth discussions, so I'd like to take a poll. No debate in this section, please; just put your name under the appropriate heading, along with a brief justification of why you hold this opinion. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Beware of refering to him as a dictator. It is generally  frowned upon around here.--Ezeu 22:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sematics. Despite the masquerade, he is the head of state. --Ezeu 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: #My vote's here because of the preponderance of other sources which use this term to describe him. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as "leader"

message: # SqueakBox 20:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Beware of refering to him as a dictator. It is generally  frowned upon around here.--Ezeu 22:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as "ruler"

message: # Why don't we use chairman and general secretary? The titles are neutral in that all they do is describe his position. They are also official and accurate titles of his positions. They are clear and concise. They lack the propaganda-based bias of "Dear Leader". They also lack the potential connotations of "leader" or "ruler". (Which I am NOT here to discuss) Sentences that begin, "Kim Jong-Il, chairman of North Korea..." or "Secretary Kim Jong-Il..." make perfect sense. For those who can't stand using one word a million times in one article, there are even two to alternate between! Can anyone provide me with a reason why we shouldn't use chairman and secretary?  22:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sematics. Despite the masquerade, he is the head of state. --Ezeu 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article should refer to Kim Jong-il as something other than "leader" or "ruler"

message: # I honestly can't see much difference between "leader" and "ruler".  I understand the policy against the use of the term "dictator" (although that seems a little silly to me, too, in the case of someone like Kim), but is there really anyone who is prepared to argue with a straight face that Kim is not the "leader" and "ruler" of North Korea?  I suppose if this difference of opinion can't be resolved, I would have to vote for using his formal government and party titles, but it seems as if a lot is being made here over very little. Brandon39 05:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Everyone should take a deep breath and relax

message: http://www.answers.com/kim%20jong-il
answers.com is a handy source, and has him down as a dictatorial leader. Myself, I'd call him the worlds ugliest elvis impersonating munchkin, but thats just me.... Sam Spade 15:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: I am reverting edits by 172 (which removed part of the first paragraph as "gibberish") and Adam (which re-introduced the word "ruler" and "ruled" to the first paragraph). I believe that the words "leader" and "ruler" are ambiguous and may be biased (as witnessed from the long slug-a-thon on this Talk page and archives), and so therefore Kim Jong-il's relevance must be spelled out in specific detail without using these words, so that a reader can reach his own informed understanding of this person's place in his country and the world. As such, I don't see that an attempt to spell out the person's role is "gibberish." If you believe that Kim Jong-il's titles are self-declared and meaningless, then this is something which bears discussion here and possibly also in the article.- Brian Kendig 20:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouild have thought that was fairly obvious. From my poiunt of view you could start with the fact that it reads better and has an encyclopedic feel to it. Perhaps yiou would equally care to explain what you find objectionable in Adam's version, SqueakBox 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I just explained this: the words "leader" and "ruler" are ambiguous and may be biased (as witnessed from the long slug-a-thon on this Talk page and archives), and so therefore Kim Jong-il's relevance must be spelled out in specific detail without using these words. Remove the explanation (as 172 did), and the titles make less sense; put the word "ruler" in (as Adam did), and the whole "leader"/"ruler" argument comes right back up again. I agree that the current revision after 172's and Adam's edits "reads better" because it's simpler - but it still runs afoul of the same shades-of-meaning issue that's plagued this article for over a year, and this is not acceptable. It would read even better if it just used the word "dictator", but that's not acceptable either. - Brian Kendig 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: It occurs to me that Madeleine Albright would probably wish that the infobox had a different picture, not including her looking like she's Kim's #1 fan. —wwoods 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox portrait 

message: Which is the proper name for this person? Someone yesterday went through and changed all instances of the former to the latter. CNN.com uses the latter. If there's no complaint, I'll move this article to the latter name. - Brian Kendig 19:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Kim Jong-il" or "Kim Jong Il"?

message: I wish an entertainment company (WB, Disney, or whoever else) would make a character (likely a villain) named Kim Jong Eel that would be, of course, an eel, and prominently shown as the main villain on many cartoon shows.
It's just like how characters have been named with the name of their species as their surnames, like "Bugs Bunny", "Porky Pig", "Mickey Mouse", "Wile E. Coyote", "Chester Cheetah" (commercials only), "Donald Duck", and numerous others. 
Therefore, why don't we have a "Kim Jong Eel"? Not like North Korea can sue or anything, so cartoon manufacturers could create a "Kim Jong Eel" character at anytime. When this character imitates the many things KJI does or has done, that right there is a funny way for Americans (and any other viewers) to learn of his vile nature. 
--Shultz 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The less attention popular culture gives to nasty people, the better, IMHO. - Brian Kendig 16:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, it's like giving less attention to Hitler. Had we have done just that, he would've conquered more lands and killed more Jews (and other of his undesirables) than he did. The sooner the masses learn about KJI, the sooner something will be done about him. --Shultz 01:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he not even have a cook with him? – Wikipeditor 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ...What do cooks have to do with anything?  And no, this does not belong in the discussion, as it has nothing to do with the ARTICLE. - MasterXiam 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim is well known for importing fine chefs from around the world, including a pizza chef from Italy who prepared pizza on the train that took Kim to China a few years ago, or so I have read.  This is ironic, as thousands (or millions) of his citizens were starving at that time.  Badagnani 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kim Jong "Eel"

message: I am late to the debate, but wondered if the whole leader/ruler thing had been resolved. If so, can we remove it from the Current Surveys RfC page? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there resolution? 

message: I thought it might be a good idea to discuss further what material should be included in this biography. This is in relation to the following 3 paragraphs which have put in an appearance a couple of times, only to promptly be reverted back out again:
Konstantin Pulikovsky, a Russian emissary who travelled with Kim Jong-il across Russia by train reported that Kim had live lobsters air-lifted to the train every day which he ate with silver chopsticks.
Kim does has a reputation as a drinker. During his 2000 summit with the South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, Kim Jong-il was seen drinking 10 glasses of wine. It is also known that Kim has a taste for Hennessy VSOP cognac.
Kim Jong-il  is also associated with Johnnie Walker 'Swing', than Hennessy. 
But it should be noted that most world leaders including, and especially  the pope, and Queen Elizabeth II have large liquor cellars, and that the constant refrences to Kim John-il's liquor prefrences and collection are a propaganda tool for the west.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has met Kim Jong-il, said that the North Korean leader was very well informed and in her opinion "was not delusional".
The person posting this information stated two things in defence of its inclusion:
1) that the information was accurate and came from a reliable source
2) that the information would help readers to understand KJI.
As I understand it, these statements themselves are not being factually disputed. They are being removed because they are considered to be of only marginal relevance to this article. That is, they are somewhat trivial facts that are considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps partly because trivial information may have the effect of seeming to trivialise the subject matter itself.
  
Before inserting the material again, perhaps whoever wants this information included in the article can make an argument on this discussion page for its relevance.
Personally, I don't have very strong feelings about its inclusion or exclusion, although if it is included I think it should be given less prominence. I suppose that one argument in favour of leaving the material in would be that it highlights some degree of hypocrisy from KJI. Living a luxurious lifestyle is not exactly what one might expect from a good Communist.
I must add that that memorable Madeleine Albright quote sounds completely bizarre because it is out of context. I think Albright was addressing a public whose only knowledge of KJI probably comes from some snippet on Weapons of Mass destruction on the evening news, featuring the cliched image of soldiers marching through Pyongyang and a cursory caricature of KJI as being a possibly deranged hermit. --Alexxx1 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think you summarized the issue nicely. it doesn't belong because it's not encyclopedic style, & inconsistent with how other wikipedia articles on leaders treat the subjects. as for hypocrisy, there's a lot of trivial facts that could be inserted in gw bush's article to "highlight some degree of hypocrisy" with his self-identification as a "compassionate conservative," but that'd be pov & undermine the credibility of wikipedia. Appleby 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see why everything has to be compared to George W. Bush.  If something is in/not in GWBushs page, that does not mean it has to be in or not in Kims page.  Trivial facts are just about the only facts that people know of Kim other than his photos on CNN behind a microphone when they talk about North Korea.  I agree that the Albright quote does sound a bit out of place.  My vote goes for putting   some of the personal facts in that are referenced.  How many articles in Wikipedia have a triva section?  Many many.  This is no difference, just make sure they are unbiased and I dont see a problem.
as you can see from the existing article, we know quite a bit about kim jong il. it's not like the article is too short without the silver chopsticks bit. asking yourself if the same type of information would be appropriate for the gw bush article is a good test of whether it is npov & unbiased, to make sure you're using the same standard unaffected by your politics. how many biographies of national leaders in wikipedia have a trivia section? you would be treating this differently. Appleby 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand what Appleby is saying. However, I've noticed that more personal details have been taken out of the article on the same grounds. I think that the removed paragraph was not well formulated but I just wonder whether readers of the article will now be losing out on something. I think it would be a shame if every last personal detail was stripped out of this article in the quest for NPOV. After all, the GW Bush article does have a section titled Outside the United States, which deals with Bush's portrayal in non-US media. Is this a way that this KJI article could maintain NPOV? - by having a separate section dealing with the way Kim has been portrayed in the media in different countries. And the Bush article isn't completely devoid of info that could be labelled trivial. For example, the following statement: Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature. --Alexxx1 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: see Ad hominem. see also article edit history.  Appleby 04:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silver chopsticks, lobsters and cognac

message: When you read its article, it's clear that Kim Jong-il has lost the Mandate of Heaven. Or more accurately, the "Kim Dynasty" has. I read somewhere that Kim Il-sung was planning on reunifying the peninsula by going the way of the other Commie Bloc countries as reports trickled onto him about the beginnings of the famine. When he shared this with Kim Jong-il, he didn't like that, so they both got into a rather animated argument, which results in Kim Il-sung's untimely downfall.
Had Kim Il-sung checked with a doctor about chest and arm pains in the days up to it, he would've lived to free the Northern half at last. KIS was starting to see his Mandate of Heaven getting taken away when he passed on, but KJI is perpetuating his rule despite this. He's only prolonging the inevitable. The DPRK will go the way of the Communist Bloc whether he likes it or not. --Shultz 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people have been predicting the imminent demise of North Korea for quite a while. I'll believe it when I see it. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Mandate of Heaven]]

message: Why is there not one mention of political repression in North Korea conducted by a dictatorship that is widely regarded as the world's worst today? I see we have been busy with a debate on whether or not to include "ruler" but that looks trivial and rediculous by comparison to this. CJK 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm...

message: see timeline details & citations in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. also  &  Appleby 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: agreed framework

message: At the moment it says - 
No direct evidence has emerged to link Kim to the bombings[citation needed]. 
Why do you need a citation to prove there has been no evidence, surely it's only necessary if there is evidence so as to provide a link to it, I'm going to get rid of the citation needed bit but correct me if I'm wrong. --Horses In The Sky 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1983 bombings 

message: This is the first time I read this article and I noticed that there is no section on criticism/public perception.  Most leaders of nations that have pages on wikipedia have such sections (see Tony Blair, Hugo Chávez, George W. Bush, and Hu Jintao for examples).  Is there a reason that the smartest, most clever, most physically fit ruler in the world doesn't have such a section? AriGold 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Almost everyone national leader has a criticisms section, and Kim Jong-Il should certainly have one related to how he is viewed in the west. --68.149.181.145 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does someone like Kim Jong-Il need a criticism section? I don't really believe it's necessary, considering he's perceived as a power-hungry communist dictator in every part of the world with the exception of maybe China and Russia. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: His personality cult is mentioned.  I think it would be useful to have a list of his "official" sporting records (such as scoring 38 under in his one and only round of golf http://www.anyonefortee.com/Shots/Kim.html).  I'm sure there are many others like that. 86.135.8.222 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, it was just stated on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that one claim is that he wrote 1500 books while a college student (which would have required him to write more than one book per day. The extent of the personality cult is not really examined here, but it is getting a lot of media play lately, especially in relation to the missile test situation. 68.145.238.33 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the golf "achievement" has been much repeated in the western press, I have not seen any original N Korean source (but of course I know they are hard to dig out). When I was in DPRK in late 2005 we asked about this, and a guide said they thought the claim was made up by some foreign media, and that the DPRK government had denied it but was ignored. The guide seemd to think the claim was silly but quite funny. I can imagine that a few western journalists could make up new Kim stories over few drinks and that some may escape into the unverified "true stories" zone. Rkidley 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through some of the Western media articles mentioning this story, and they were all vague about the source of the information.  There's nothing about it at kcna.co.jp.  Under the circumstances I think the golf bit should be removed, especially as there's no shortage of verifiable information about Kim Jong-il's personality cult.  --Reuben 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: SSG G: "the fact that he is a Pyscho"? How is it a fact? How do you define Pyscho? For all the faults of the regime, Madeleine Albright apparently found him an intelligent and surprisingly well-informed man. I visited the DMZ from the north in 2005, but only for a few hours, not stationed there of course. I was at the main Panmunjong point, and also visited another more open area further east. I did not notice that it looked any browner on either side. When I was there the DPRK farms looked like they need fertiliser etc, as the crops were uneven but did not look too bad. I did not see deer, but as the land is mostly farmed behind the border I would not expect to (though I suppose it is likely that most or all wild deer were killed in the famine years). I think crops were relatively good in 2005 compared to some earlier drought and flood years. People on the DPRK side of the DMZ did not generally look hungry when I was there though some soldiers were very lean. There were no fat people, except a couple of chubby youngsters in Pyongyang. Of course we were probably in the better-off parts of the country. In one country areas outside Pyongyang some people did look poor and rather worn-out. I travelled by road in DPRK from Pyongyang to Kaeson and the border, and by train to the Chinese border up north so saw a fair bit of the country, but nowhere outside the usual tourist zones. Our guides raised the issue of the famine a few years back and did not deny it. I was at the DMZ with a western group, some of whom (mostly European & Canadian had also visited form the south, and they all said it was far more relaxed a visit on the north side than going in from the south, surprisingly. And some DPRK soldiers took cigarettes from my group, it did not seem to be an issue. Some N Korean men seemed quite open about preferring western cigarettes to theirs.  Maybe we should exchange pictures of the zone SSG G.Rkidley 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His sporting/creative "achievements" 

message: What happened to the portrait? I think one should be added at the top of the page. --68.149.181.145 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that.  I think it got deleted during a bout of vandalism.  The image is now back in its rightful place. --Reuben 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait Needed 

message: Some sources say that this man was born in 1942 and then others say that he was born in 1941. Why in the world would the North Koreans change Kim Jong-il's birth year? 
Which birth year is the most accurate?
Sandy June 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to non-NK sources, it appears that the year was changed from 1941 to 1942 so as to lend credence to the claim that he was born on Paektusan and not somewhere in the Russian Far East.  See GlobalSecurity.org, BBC, Infoplease.  -- Visviva 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am so confused

message: Kim Jong Il did not succeed his father in any legal sense, he is not the president of the DPRK as Kim il Sung was.  Moreover, while Kim il Sung died in 1994, Kim Jong Il did not become general secretary of the workers party until 1997, so to say that he was the leader of the DPRK since 1994 is entirely inaccurate.  Further Kim Jong Il is just one of three top officials with executive power, his legal authority is considerably less than Kim il Sung possessed as President, he has no ability to conduct foriegn relations or to lead the government, and while Kim Il Sung was both head of state and head of government for north korea, Kim Jong Il is neither as those positions went to other people; his role is strictly military and as party leader, a figure head.
I know that western news sources love the idea of it being a dynasty and the american government frequently personifies enemy governments in a single figure as a way of trying to dismiss the political complexities in any government, it is simply not accurate in any real senseNoJoyInMudville 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're putting too much credence in the official titles.  Have you tried watching North Korean news broadcasts?  I don't find that they support your analysis that "his role is strictly milirary and as party leader, a figurehead."  If you watch the North Korean news, I think you'll find that they center on Kim Jong Il at least as much as western ones do. --Reuben 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What are your sources?  Again, I certainly don't buy that the central role of Kim Jong Il is an invention of the western media.  You can see the same phenomenon in the North Korean news.  I can point you to examples if you like.  But I would definitely like to see your sources.  --Reuben 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession 

message: - this article seems to say so, but I'm hesitant to add this information because the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and the alleged source is a South Korean lawmaker.  Can anyone find anything else about this? Esn 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News of failing health?

message: There seems to be a recent surge of vandalism from unregistered users.
I beleive locking this page for a certain period of time would prevent any future vandalism.RiseRobotRise 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we protect this page?

message: "It is believed that his official birth year was adjusted so he would be seen to be 50 at the time of his father's eightieth birthday." ....What?--Nonpareility 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN today says his true age is unknown. --Gbleem 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: This article really should make more mention of the father/son relationship, I mean psychologically and politically Il-Sung wittingly or un created Jong-il.--Marsiliano 08:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the father/son relationship 

message: The article says this: "Kim Jong-il is a reclusive Stalinist leader who is known for his "cruelty and unpredictability"." The "Stalinist" part is POV, but the quoted part is much worse. Citing the quote is worthless if it is still presented as fact. The word "known" is what's key, because it suggests fact. It would be much better to attribute this viewpoint than to present it as a fact. Everyking 09:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of POV: although "Kim Jong-Il is often mocked in countries where free speech is not punishable by death" makes a valid point, it is still not exactly neutral. WikiMarshall 06:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hey, I just went to the official homepage of the DPRK (  ) and I noticed that on the opening page with the portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, they are now both referred to as "Great Leader". I seem to remember his title (inc. on that site) as "Dear Leader". Have we had a bit of a change of status? Anyone got any more info on this?
lots of issues  | leave me a message 10:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That site seems to be a bit confused, since some of the headers say "Dear Leader."  Interestingly, Naenara doesn't seem to use any qualifiers with Kim's name at all; he is simply called chairman (주석) or leader (령도자):   .  Perhaps there has been a change?  -- Visviva 10:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I briefly checked their official news page with Google, and the only reference I saw with Jong Il as "Great Leader" in 2006 was a recent movie title: "The Great Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il Gives On-site Guidance to the Work in Different Fields."  The news agency seems to still overwhelmingly refer to Jong Il as "Dear Leader" and Il Sung as "Great Leader". Phydeaux 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Current KCNA broadcasts use 위대한 령도자 ("Great Leader") for Kim Jong Il, among other titles.  The formerly prevalent 친애하는 지도자 ("Dear Leader") doesn't get used at all there.  By the way, there seem to be quite complex rules for how different titles are used.  For example, Kim Il Sung is also a "Great Leader," but with a different word for leader: 위대한 수령.  And Kim Il Sung can be simply "The Great Leader," but Kim Jong Il is "The Great Leader Kim Jong Il."  I think the article should mainly reflect the personality cult as it exists in North Korea, as far as that can be ascertained.  English-language PR sites from North Korea, as well as foreign associates like the KFA, may have their own practices and their own motives.  I think the English-language media put out by the North Korean government make some effort to play down the personality cult by avoiding honorifics altogether, while the KFA if anything plays it up by using honorifics all the more - but not necessarily the "correct" ones relative to current usage inside North Korea!  Basic summary: lots of honorific titles are used, and they change a bit over time.  --Reuben 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not certain that this "official" DPRK website at http://www.korea-dpr.com is really official. People I know with good knowledge of the country are not convinced it is. It is run by a guy called Jean-Baptiste Kim in outer London, UK. He is of S Korean & French heritage and says he lived in Pyongyang. Attempts to check if it has any official status have so far failed. Rkidley 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Jong-Il now a "Great Leader"? 

message: Why does Kim Jong-il's name transliterated mix the McCune-Reischauer and the Revised Romanization?
--Greasysteve13 05:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite common with modern Korean names; indeed the syllable "Jong" isn't a proper rendition of 정 in any romanization.  Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), we use the established English spelling where one exists, as it does in this case.  Otherwise we would use McCune-R, since he is North Korean. -- Visviva 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.--Greasysteve13 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand why south korean government used RR system. Actually, if Korean pronouce "GIM", most western people recognized it as "KIM." I was so suffering by that. --Drpepper000 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Name]] 

message: Why is there no reference in the article to Jong-il's immortality and status as a quasi-god like figure???
:(In reply to the above unsigned comment)
:# What immortality?
:# The current president is not Kim Jong-il, but Kim Il-sung (“”), so if one of the men can be considered immortal, it would be KIS.
:# Cult of personality#Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il is already linked from this article.
:Wikipeditor 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immortality:

message: I saw a documentary about Kim a year or two ago on the History Channel and there was an interesting interview with some South Korean actress he had kidnapped.  While he was attempting to seduce her, he would use self-deprecating humor like putting his hand over his head and spinning around whilst saying "Don't I look like a midget's turd?"  If we could track down the interview and get a citation, I would LOVE to add this as a "personal quote" from the Dear Leader. Childe Roland of Gilead 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't I look like a midget's turd?" 

message: Seems a little odd, even for who this guy is, to say that he was born at 6pm in the morning. Verification/correction for this? z ε n 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His biography says that; we're not asserting that he was. -Amark moo! 05:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I realize the context, but it looks like a typo without indicative quotations. z ε n 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth time 

message: Is there a group of "entertainment women" (maybe translated variously as "pleasure groups," "pleasure squad," or "pleasure brigade") maintained by Kim Jong-Il and his father called gipumjo?  I have heard about this but cannot find anything about it online.  Maybe my spelling is wrong.  Thanks in advance for information bout this.  Badagnani 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Korean it's written "기쁨조", and could be transliterated as kippŭmjo or gippeumjo".  I think it's discussed in Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader by B. Martin.  --Reuben 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 기쁨 is native Korean.  It's not Sino-Korean, so there's no connection to qi.  This article needs to be well-sourced, and it should be very very careful not to present allegations as fact.  --Reuben 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gipumjo 

message: I built the Hungarian article based mostly on this one. Soon afterwards—now it turns out—a major section was removed by Argonian93, followed by a series of anonymous vandals, whose actions were finally reverted to Argonian’s highly mutilated version, totally missing a good slice of the biography. Somebody should pay some real attention to this article, because this is unacceptable. chery 14:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching and fixing that! --Reuben 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be payed some serious attention 

message: Took out part about sexual relationship with Noam Chomsky. No proof, no reason to believe, doesn't make sense. Is it a joke?
I'm not saying I support Kim Jong Il at all, it's just that I have found no proof that Noam Chomsky is homosexual. Comments? —The preceding comment was added by Liore (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for removing it, it was probably vandalism. That kind of statement violates WP:BLP (yes, it even applies to dictators) and should be removed unless sourced to reliable sources. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual Relationship 

message: The article is currently lacking in information relating to Kim Jong Il's personality cult.  The present text does not mention the prevalence of portraits of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, or the use of honorifics such as "Dear Leader" and "Great Leader," except for the discussion of reports from a few years ago that they had disappeared.  This was at most a temporary hiatus, and it seems that it may have been based on misunderstandings by Western observers (i.e. North Korean sources indicated that there was no such change).  In any case, portraits of Kim Jong Il remain common today, and the honorific "Great Leader" remains in frequent use along with others.  The article should present these very well-established facets of the personality cult first, and the possible temporary hiatus of a few years ago only secondarily, if at all.  --Reuben 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality Cult