Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 4

message: Attention anonymous user: You and I may think that Kim is a dictator and should be called one, but there is no point in altering the text to that effect, because it will always be reverted, and it is more important to save revert wars for matters of substance rather than symbolism. The text makes it clear enough that he is a dictator. Adam 04:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I also think that Kim is a dictator and call him one whenever I'm not writing an encyclopedic entry. Given that WP doesn't have a standardized set of editorial policies, to avoid endless squabbling about when to use the term and when not to use it, we might as well just avoid the term in general. 172 05:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea to create a policy about this. But for that matter, I couldn't agreem ore with what you two have said. Anyway, was protection really necessary here? Ambivalenthysteria 08:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening comments

message: "Kim Jong-il was born as Yuri Kim" Kim Il-sung gave his son a Russian name and not a Korean one? This seems highly unlikely. What is the source for this? Adam 23:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yuri Kim

message: User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation requested 

message: Official biographies say that Kim Jong-il was born at Mt Paektu, in February 1942. Other sources not just claim that he was born outside Korea, but also that he was actually born in 1941. Why does this article mix these two claims? What are the sources for this version? Babelfisch November 8th, 2004
*I wouldn't trust his "official" biography, 1941 sounds like a safer bet.--Fallout boy 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth place and date 

message: It is widely known that Kim Jong-il has fears of flying. It is indeed true that all his official visits to Russia and China are done with a train, not a plane. Yet, other sources also claim Kim Jong-il was in the GDR back in late 1950s to be trained as a fighter pilot.
I think it would be wise to sort out that little part of Kim Jong-il. Any ideas or sources provided would be great. Sandmann
Kim Jong Il was seriously injured in a helicopter accident in 1976. See Kim Jong-Il's fear of flying 'caused by copter crash'
Quote:
"His unexplained aversion to air travel, which led to his epic 24-day train journey to Russia in 2001, was revealed by Ingolf Kiesow, who served as Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang from 1979 to 1982, in an interview published in the Japanese weekly Shukan Gendai. 
"I have met Kim Jong-Il up close several times. A close look exposed a scar from the top of the forehead to the pate," Mr Kiesow was quoted as saying. 
"It was the scar of a serious injury, which he suffered when he boarded a helicopter and got involved in its crash inside North Korea toward the end of 1976," he said. 
The interview was conducted in Stockholm by Japanese diplomatic writer Masayuki Koike, who claimed to be a long-time friend of Mr Kiesow." 
--Ctustison 17:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim and flying 

message: Whoa, was anyone consulted about moving this page before it actually happened?  Could someone justify why it was done? Wally 17:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: On 09:11, 23 May 2005, Dmcdevit edited this page with the comment "(rv stealthily inserted anon personal attacks)".  That's very odd, since there was nothing "stealthy" about how I added my comments, nor were they personal attacks.  Here they are (now out of context):
Whether someone is a dictator and how s/he came to power are orthogonal issues.
:How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit?
It's sad that you find your own susceptibility to rational argumentation surprising.
:How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit?  It's a comment on expectations concerning reasoned discourse, but it's not an attack on anyone.
Referring to "Baby Bush" tells us about Shorne's biases in re Kim Jong-il? That tells us a lot about your biases, methinks.
:How is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit?  It's an ironic observation of an apparent bit of hypocrisy.  If my comment is "personal attack", then surely the comment that I responded to was "personal attack" as well, and should also have been deleted -- if deleting talk from talk pages is what WP is about.
"counterweight"? Encyclopedias are supposed to inform; they aren't platforms for this sort of POV crap. As the NPOV policy says, "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."
:How, in heaven's name, is that a "personal attack", Dmcdevit?  Perhaps you take calling something crap to be a "personal attack" on its author.  That would be a mistaken view (is that a "personal attack"?), but if it is in fact your view (is that a "personal attack"?), then you might have just removed the word you found offensive and left the substantive comment (and indeed it was substantive).
That "when it's true" argument can be made for all POV language, and it's bogus in every case.
:How, Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"?  Do you take saying that a general form of argument is bogus as a "personal attack" on the person who wrote the specific instance of the argument?  Treating such non-ad hominem rhetoric as I wrote as if it were ad hominem diminishes the distinction and debases the concept. 
Calling people stupid both provokes fights and is contrary to WP policy.
:How, dear Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"?  It was in fact a comment on a blatant personal attack, but you saw fit to leave that personal attack in place on this page; just search for "stupid".
Intolerance for disagreement? If that manifests itself as your going away, that's good for WP.
:How, my good Dmcdevit, is that a "personal attack"?  Note, once again, that it was in response to a substance-free smear of someone else, yet you leave that person's comment in place.  People have thanked me for my efforts in improving WP articles and urged me to spend more of my valuable time doing so, but encounters with folks who delete material even from talk pages for no good reason, as well as the various other immature behavior seen on WP in the form of revert wars, grossly POV edits, and so on discourage me from doing so.  Do you take that comment to be a "personal attack", Dmcvedit?  At best, one might consider these comments out of place on this page, but then a responsible and mature person would move it somewhere else -- like, say, Dmcdevit's talk page. 68.6.40.203 01:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:68.6.40.203|68.6.40.203]]'s dispute of [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]'s revert 

message: I do not accept neoconservative attack structure paradigm on the Chairman. He is a leader. A ruler is a pejorative. One might like or not like him or accept his inspiring leadership, this is an individual decision that ought not be imposed by a rightist dialectic. 
Dr Carr's definition is unhelpful in my submission because it ignores the fact that in the "democratic" polity there is no voluntary following of leaders. 
If I reject the leadership of George W Bush and took action to remove him from office or overthrow that system, I would face treason charges, as I would in the DPRK. It is a common attribute of statehood to protect itself. Ideally we could do away with this. This is what the Juche idea is all about, if one takes time to embrace it. 
I am concerned that one can characterise the leadership of a sovereign nation as a "dynasty of petty thugs...holding power solely by tyranny and brainwashing through the bizarre cult." These unfortunate words could equally be ascribed to the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush "dynasty" if one were to indulge in such beligerence. 
Rather, the Wikipedia project aspires to NPOV and even in figures reviled by Americans and neoconservatives, I believe it is important to acknowledge the need is even greater in such cases to ensure neutrality. We are not here to judge Kim Jong-il, he is elected through proper, lawful processes in DPRK and you can have your views but he is the internationally recognized leader by over one hundred nations. I do not say he should define his own title, even though we extend this indulgence to President George W Bush, but can we call him a leader when he is a leader. After the forces of US imperialism invade and install Halliburton as the ruler of Korea then we can accept the word ruler but only then. It might be Dick Cheney's sole chance at leadership, in this case we might say leadership with profit share and dividends.
I hope this puts things in their proper perspective. Thecunninglinguists 10:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, he's as pedantic as Ruy Lopez, and yet the style seems different, though the ideology remains the same. *scratches nonexistent beard* J. Parker Stone 10:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've decided you're just a joke account really, though this site does seem to attract some "interesting" kids. J. Parker Stone 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, more than one person could hold this view. Everyking 10:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What're you talking about? J. Parker Stone 10:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Grandiose? Everyking 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pejorative Parlance of the Neoconservative Attack on DPRK and its Chairman

message: I saw a strange edit summary by User:NWOG and checked the edit. I didn't like the removal of content and rewording, so I reverted. Discuss as necessary. Sam Spade 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: i'd really really like to know what's wrong with "effective head of state" or "highest post." those are from the article body itself, do not have any positive or negative connotations. there's more than one accurate & appropriate way to describe things. if you change something, shouldn't there be a reason, to correct or improve? what are you reverters correcting or improving? you can offer new suggested wording, but it's already obvious "leader" & "ruler" are contentious because of their connotations. it's not obvious to me why "effective head of state" & "highest post" are being reverted. don't revert to the same, already controversial, word, suggest a new one. Appleby 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with ruler? I have no ideological obsessions, but leader makes him out to be something he is not, SqueakBox 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I could live with his father being described as a leader, but the fact that Kim inherited power from his father, more than the lack of democratic scrutiny, weighs heavily with me. In that sense I don't have a problem with the current version but I am worried it is original research, Wikipedia:No original research. Can you please source the claim that he is effectively the head of state, because from what 172 says he isn't the actual head of state, and remembering that in my country at least (UK) the head of state doesn't hold any real power, so really it is not satisfactory at present, SqueakBox 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Compare Google  , Just because other rival encyclopedia's (often outdated) say sdomething does not mean we have to. Search for him with leader anmd we get dear leaderfollowed by Kim il-Sung, whereas we get some nice sources for ruler, SqueakBox 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well having done it correctly it appears that encyclopedia britannica comes up for ruler (contradicting your earlier encyclopedia sources) ansd that leader is what he is called in North Korea. I would call him leader if I were in North Korea. He is a ruler who ios a self styled leader is my conclusion, SqueakBox 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Neither ruler nor leader is original research, obviously. We could throw sources back and forth all night with sources and resolve nothing, SqueakBox 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not convinced by your other encyclopedia sources. We anyway have abundant sources for both rulwer and leader as you well know, and this is not the way to resolve the argument, SqueakBox 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is quite a good one, and here is another from no less an authoritative body than the Washington Post. There are an abundance of sources as you well know, and as I said before this is not the way to resolve the issue, SqueakBox 23:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not sure any of your sources are more reliable than mine. An encyclopedia based on other encyclopedia's and the press probably won't give that much accuracy anyway. I think the way tio resolve the issue is to use neuther ruler nor leader, SqueakBox 00:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Engaging in personal attacks is not recommended here, so don't repeat. It appears your arguments have run out of steam and you are only left with personal invective. Do you think the other people who revert you are also insane? do you think you are in any position to judge? it appears from your latest comment that you are no longer willing to debate the issue, SqueakBox 00:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually you were questioning my sanity while completely ignoring my sources. Why do I need to read wiki policies to resolve that, though we could start withj Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You claim my sources are no good but not why you think they are no good. in many sources he is the ruler, SqueakBox 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I pointed out, and do so again, that the encyclopedia here use the word ruler. None of your arguments so far have provided a reason for not saying ruler, and nor, might I add, have you, SqueakBox 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I certainly do not agree with you about leader being overwhelmingly used. Anyway trying to win an argument on the basis of the alleged number of sources is not in the wiki policy you keep directing me to, and would be completely impossible to enforce, SqueakBox 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sourcing is not a competition, and doesn't really help in a case like this where both are used a lot, ie I could come up with hundreds if I put the time but there is no point to such a wasteful expenditure of energy because we already know both are used by outside sources. I suggest we try to reframe the opening without using leader or ruler if you will not abide ruler though I am still not sure why you objetc to ruler whereas several arguments disliking ruler have found there way onto this page. I agreew ith 172 about high office, it is confusing and I won't use it again, SqueakBox 01:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 14-1 is a fantasy figure and you won't get anywhere claiming you don't have to explain why you don't like ruler but we do have to explain our reasons. How is that debate? aA far as I am concerned you leaders are the reverters not we rulers-where did you get that idea from? as this argument predatres your involvement in wikipedia, SqueakBox 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i didn't mess with your comments, except to move them out of the area i designated for "arguments for ruler" Appleby 06:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: please use the "summary of reasons" section i created for, um, summary of reasons. i didn't alter the content of your comments, just moved them out of the space i clearly designated for another purpose. thanks for your courtesy. Appleby 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: please have the minimum courtesy to not interfere with an attempt to organize a vote. nobody's stopping you from making any comment you want, but that space was created for "summary of reasons" to facilitate a vote. you are free, as i made clear, to add or change reasons, but engaging it a meta-discussion right in the summary section defeats the purpose of the summary section. please, i would think it's a minimum etiquette. don't get so excited about clearing out a space i created for a specific purpose. it's quite acceptable to reorganize or summarize the discussion page, as long as the content of messages are not changed (e.g. Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages)Appleby 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: it may not be acceptable to you, but it is acceptable to wikipedia. i moved it to where our discussion was occurring, and indicated that it was referring to "below." relax, & be courteous. why are you afraid of a vote? Appleby 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i ask you, once again, to move meta-comments out of the summary section. if you don't do it, i will reorganize the section i created to serve its stated purpose. please feel free to add or edit actual argument summaries, as you feel is reasonable & fair. Appleby 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i made some organizational changes per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pagesAppleby 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: then why are you tampering with my comments? please do read when i refer you to wikipedia policy, such as the refactoring policy i guided you to. see, how on-going editing for readability, without altering the content of the comments, is encouraged? i knew you could read english as well as i can. Appleby 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: you're of course free to try to change wikipedia policy on refactoring, but i didn't violate existing policy. Appleby 16:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: Leave my comments alone! SqueakBox 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i didn't mess with your comments, except to move them out of the area i designated for "arguments for ruler" Appleby 06:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: please use the "summary of reasons" section i created for, um, summary of reasons. i didn't alter the content of your comments, just moved them out of the space i clearly designated for another purpose. thanks for your courtesy. Appleby 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: please have the minimum courtesy to not interfere with an attempt to organize a vote. nobody's stopping you from making any comment you want, but that space was created for "summary of reasons" to facilitate a vote. you are free, as i made clear, to add or change reasons, but engaging it a meta-discussion right in the summary section defeats the purpose of the summary section. please, i would think it's a minimum etiquette. don't get so excited about clearing out a space i created for a specific purpose. it's quite acceptable to reorganize or summarize the discussion page, as long as the content of messages are not changed (e.g. Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages)Appleby 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: it may not be acceptable to you, but it is acceptable to wikipedia. i moved it to where our discussion was occurring, and indicated that it was referring to "below." relax, & be courteous. why are you afraid of a vote? Appleby 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i ask you, once again, to move meta-comments out of the summary section. if you don't do it, i will reorganize the section i created to serve its stated purpose. please feel free to add or edit actual argument summaries, as you feel is reasonable & fair. Appleby 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i made some organizational changes per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pagesAppleby 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: then why are you tampering with my comments? please do read when i refer you to wikipedia policy, such as the refactoring policy i guided you to. see, how on-going editing for readability, without altering the content of the comments, is encouraged? i knew you could read english as well as i can. Appleby 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: you're of course free to try to change wikipedia policy on refactoring, but i didn't violate existing policy. Appleby 16:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tampering with text

message: i'll wait another reasonable period to hear authority that overrides the citations i've given so far, because so far, "leader" is the authoritative & common preference. or we can arrange for a vote if you want. really, "highest post" is ok with me, but it is wordier & inconsistent with other wikipedia articles, & apparently it's not good enough for some people obsessed with the 14:1 minority "ruler." note this discussion & call for citations began oct 19. Appleby 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you would have to go through the million+ entries to ensure that they were each one relevant or not. How do you intend incorporating your 14:1 statistic into the text? and without breaking the original research policy. You really are not furthering this debate by throwing Google statistics around as if they were sacred truth when all Google actually shows is that both are used. I don't either believe 172 makes his stuff up, indeed I trust his word on this one. We don't want an encyclopedia made up based on rudimentary readings of Google stats. That is not wikipeduia pilicy or the way things are done here. Why don't you like ruler? If you could answer this question maybe we could move further forward, SqueakBox 03:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We don't make up article based on bots doing algorythmic searches. Your using Google stats is original research. We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that both terms are used, so I say it again we cannot resolve the debate in this way. now iot would be great if you could give a reason for why you don't want it to be ruler. Sourcing the word leader and Kim is not a reason, SqueakBox 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: continued discussion on leader/ruler

message: * google (squeakbox formulation)
: leader: 1,370,000     ruler: 96,600  (raw numbers as of 19 oct 2005. now slightly different, but ratio still about 14:1 for "leader")
* encyclopedia britannica
: both leader and ruler
* encarta
: leader 
* encyclopedia.com (columbia encyclopedia)
: north korea: Kim jong il "took over leadership" 
: kim il sung: kim jong il "took over leadership" from kim il sung, who was "leader" 
* infoplease.com (random house unabridged dictionary)
: leader 
* bbc news
: leader  
* cnn
: leader: 674    ruler: 51 
: north korea country facts: Kim Jong Il "has led North Korea" after Kim Il Sung, who was a "leader".
* nytimes
: leader: 806      ruler: 39 
* washingtonpost
: leader: 696    ruler: 111 
:None of the reasons is a reason, SqueakBox 05:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: summary of reasons for "leader"

message: * Google results. (withdrawn)
* encyclopedia britannica
:both leader and ruler
* KBS World Radio  
:both leader & ruler
* one article from washingtonpost.com  
:washingtonpost uses "leader" over "ruler" by ratio of roughly 7:1
* He was not democratically elected, he inherited power from his father and he rules with a high degree of militarisation in North Korea, all making him very much a ruler. 
:I have removed my name from as I don't see any reasons here either, SqueakBox 05:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: summary of reasons for "ruler" (please feel free to improve)

message: He was not democratically elected, he inherited power from his father and he rules with a high degree of militarisation in North Korea, all making him very much a ruler. Atre you claiming he is not the ruler of North Korea, SqueakBox 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon. I'm an English speaker and the difference between "leader" and "ruler" is hardly one subject to the points you are associating with ruler. The only obvious connotation, which seems to be the one you are attempting to make, is that by using "ruler" you want to imply dictator and by "leader" you want to avoid any sense of "popular with his subjects."  The guy is obviously a dictator. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. Democratically elected—hardly. But it is not worth quibling about calling him a ruler or a leader.  He is both; and also a dictator. I think Adam (below) is pretty close to right, although quite frankly you could use both terms in the article and be close to correct.  Kim Il obviously thinks and acts like he is a leader; and the failure of North Korea as a country can be laid directly at the leader's feet. Not worth arguing about - Marshman 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jumping in here with an uninvolved opinion: I discovered that Reuters refers  to him as a 'leader' who 'rules', and other Reuters articles (on CNN and elsewhere) consistently refer to him as 'leader'. So I believe this sets a precedent for calling him 'leader'. - Brian Kendig 03:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some reasons for ruler