Talk:Kim Jong Un

Birth year confirmation

According to , Kim Jong-Un's birth year has been confirmed by his relatives to the CIA as 1984. Is this evidence sufficient to nail down the birth year in the article? Quote:

"They can reveal, for example, that Kim Jong Un was born in 1984 — not 1982 or 1983, as has been widely thought. The reason they’re certain? It was the same year that their first son was born. 'He and my son were playmates from birth. I changed both of their diapers,' Ko said with a laugh."

Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus: It's already in both the Early Life section and info box. If sources conflict, then sources conflict. Not sure it's within Wikipedia's power to "make the call" beyond that. The other sources will need to be proven as falsehood. Are you willing to go that extra mile? -- Tytrox (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Tytrox: ah, I totally missed that in those sections. I'll pass on the extra mile required to confirm the birth date. :)

Protection level

Bernspeed (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC) This article is at a very high protection. I am curious about why this happened. Even some other articles like Donald Trump are only extended confirmed protected. It says "feel free to edit" even though almost nobody can even if they wanted to.

It seems a bit overboard but people adding their own theories could lead to vandalism and edit wars Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not an admin but this protection level is used only in emergencies when the edits are so numerous for an unconfirmed death reports. The article will not be updated to show he’s died until most North Korea confirms it themselves. North Korea keeps things pretty tight related to the Kim family. The official family tree isn’t even known.--Rockchalk717 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically, there's a lot of unreliable sources reporting he is dead whereas we have no reliable sources reporting that he is (at best, they are reporting on the rumors that he is dead but not confirming them). Users were trying to add that, and as this is a BLP that requires the highest level of sourcing, protecting this was appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand how it was so important to keep this information out that regular/confirmed users from adding any information on the entire page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s an easier way to keep the death rumors out of the page due to the volume of edits.--Rockchalk717 04:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Because what we have here is a genuine content dispute between confirmed editors and unconfirmed/IP editors. My position is to keep the current event template but not to update until we have a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It just seems a bit extreme since confirmed users can not make updates on the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Kim Jong-un was born in 1984 NinJack1121 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

On the page it says he may have been born on 1983 or 1984 and he was born in 1984 NinJack1121 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And your source for this certain knowledge is what? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There has never been any formal confirmation of his actual date of birth. OnlyIPForMe --2600:8802:2200:2320:20A5:BCF2:1A60:982B (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliable source required. El_C 05:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Adding reports of alleged deathWKeyMaster (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC) WKeyMaster (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please, see discussions above. --MarioGom (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The first footnote explaining that 'Kim is the family name' should be removed and {{Korean name|Kim}} added to the top of the article instead.  Nixinova   T   C   08:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 to this edit request. This is the standard we follow for Korean names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, just came on here to request the same thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory information

The lead and infobox says he was born in "1983 or 1984" but §Early life says "1982 or a year later or 1984". Which is it?  Nixinova   T   C   08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The contradictory info is a product of the uncertainty, which the sourced content addresses. El_C 09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Someone added that same "1982" source into the info box over the last 24 hours, which I reverted, but then I hadn't noticed it was already under Early Life. We can review it once the full protection has been dropped. Tytrox (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the info is contradictory, I'm specifically saying that the article itself is. The lead and infobox do not mention 1982 at all, but Early life does. That needs to be fixed.  Nixinova   T   C   00:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should give the official date and just have a note that this is disputed by some. This isn't very important.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First line of entry

The article leads with "Kim is a North Korean politician." He's not a politician. He didn't win an election. He's a hereditary dictator. When he dies, newspapers will correctly call him that in the lead to his obituary.

I note that Wikipedia calls Pinochet and Stroessner dictator in the lead, but not Fidel Castro. A political bias?

Sajita (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Kim Jong-Un is a head of state, therefore he is a politician. He also won an election: "On April 14, 2012, during the fifth session of the 12th Supreme People's Assembly Kim Jong Un was elected as the country's supreme leader." Daxar (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is a head of multiple states; does that make her a politician?--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:8D92:BA3A:7779:C450 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "head of state" being a politician or no depends on the constitution of the country. The UK is a constitutional monarch which disallows the royal family from holding any political power/office, urgo Queen Elizabeth is not a politician. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

North Korea does not run on your typical western democracy type government/electoral system in the way that you suggest. You should read more into how politics works in one-party states. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tytrox: You're wrong on that part. There's a difference between a dictatorship, where power is concentrated in one person, and a one-party state, where power is concentrated in one party. There are many one party states that are not dictatorships, such as the historical Soviet Union after Stalin, (disputably) Singapore, or the post-Mao People's Republic of China. Some dictatorships aren't based on party rule either, such as some military juntas or Ancient Rome. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Chess: Fair. My point was mostly addressing Sajita's statement on invalidating his recognition as a politician based on absence of democratic election. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead doesn't claim he rules a western democracy, it claims he's a politician (specifically, the supreme leader) in a dictatorship -- and yes, it does refer to North Korea as a dictatorship. This is an accurate portrayal of his position. - Tga (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Politicians are not necessarily elected representatives, and even elected politicians are not necessarily elected by universal suffrage. --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sajita: The lede (although not the first sentence) refers to him as "ruling a dictatorship" and goes on to list numerous human rights atrocities. In all honesty though you're right about the inconsistency here. The lede sentence is what gets grabbed by Google and other places for their knowledgebox. It's also what most people read. I would support changes to other articles to remove "dictator" from the lede sentence and shift that characterization elsewhere in the lede to maintain the emphasis on purely descriptive & factual information rather than value-laden terms like "dictator". Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Autocrat" is the technically correct term to describe KJU's rule. "Dictator," while far more accurate than the disingenuous and ingratiating term "politician," may be perceived as derogatory or disparaging. Autocrat, however, is a more neutral descriptor. But "politician" is totally inappropriate because it appears ridiculous in this context, is patently incorrect, and allowing it to remain reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. - JGabbard (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@JGabbard: A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an office in government. Kim Jong Un is: 1) a chairman of the WPK; 2) holds 4 offices in the DPRK. Incidentally, I know that referencing Wikipedia is incorrect, but Mohammed bin Salman belongs to Category:21st-century politicians - by definition, even monarchs are politicians, let along the elected leader of the DPRK.--Adûnâi (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Contradictory Age

In the past (on other articles) contradictory birth dates generally led to the birthday of the subject to be removed until there is a credible consensus. Why is this article promoting the contradiction? *Note: I'm not opposed to it, just curious* -- Sleyece (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given the contextual nature of how strenuous it can be to get info about certain topics in and about North Korea, it's not something that can easily be backed, but as long as there's consensus that the given source material is deemed credible, as well as best information provided. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• We have discussed this issue many times. The essential point is that some say that the official date is false. I don't think we are likely to progress from there.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we'll just need to ensure the info box and "Early Life" sections are consistent with each other. -- Tytrox (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• It is unique among Wikipedia pages. The consensus on the rest of the encyclopedia is that when birth data is contradictory, it is removed until credible sources come to a consensus on the date.... That's why people bringing it up and discussing it (for the record). -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that it is likely to be resolved without some dramatic development. There is an official date, and no one has produced any North Korea records to show this to be false. I think the best approach would be to give the official date, and just note that some disagree with this. Is there another article with a comparable situation to this?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• As far as I can see, the evidence against the official date is the "numerological" parallel between the birth dates of the three leaders: 1912, 1942, 1982. This, of course, could be real, except that we know Kim Jong Il's birth was registered in the USSR in 1941. Some have said in previous discussion his birth date was changed to 1942, so that he could be born on Mt Paektu, but in fact he could be born on the mountain in either year. (He could also, by the way, be born on the mountain and have his birth registered in the USSR, but he couldn't have his birth registered in Korea.) That appears to be all the real evidence against the official date. Rodman's comment doesn't really mean much at all, as he doesn't say Kim told him the official date is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Answering my previous question, Age fabrication may give some help answering how to deal with this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to point out that my effort to make the infobox more streamlined was totally in vein. There is now a third birthdate in the box making it more convoluted and less encyclopedic. No one is going to read that and take away useful information. The editors of this page are just intellectually masturbating at this point. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I decided to browse this article and I'm shocked to see there are several unsourced statements on it. The article of a high coverage dictator shouldn't have uncited statements, and while I'd always amend it myself, the page is on full protection for obvious reasons. Could an admin take an in depth look over the page and either add references to the unsourced statements or remove them? – DarkGlow (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything that looks unsourced on a quick visual parse. Keep in mind the lede does NOT need to be cited as long as that's in the body, and we don't require a cite after every sentence (but every paragraph should end in a citation); if a sentence lacks a cite, presume the next immediate citation(s) applies to that sentence too. You will need to be more explicit thus for any other concerns. --Masem (t) 03:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: In the personal life section, it states: "He said Jong-un was a big fan of The Beatles and Jean-Claude Van Damme.[citation needed" – so there's one right there. And despite the personal life section being mostly sourced, a lot of it reads as a WP:TRIVIA section. Is it encyclopaedic to list what music he likes and what teams he supports? – DarkGlow (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this page fully protected?

Just because KJU has not been seen in public since April 11 does not mean that we have to fully protect the page. Can't we institute something less severe such as allowing autoconfirmed or extended autoconfirmed accounts to edit? We have already implemented pending changes to the article. It therefore seems excessive to me to fully protect the page. Banana Republic (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history of persistent recentism/vandalism and you'll appreciate why full protection is required.Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see in the history a high level of vandalism / edit warring that would warrant full protection. Banana Republic (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, which I and many others do not agree with. What do you want to add to the page that's so urgent? Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Banana Republic: You need to observe the history of over the last couple of days. The vandalism is based on the frequent posting of sources that make mention of the rumours of his death, but none have been substantiated. This can breach WP:TOOSOON, WP:RUMOR, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the like. In this Talk page alone, there have been several times where people have requested to post his rumoured-death info, behind IP accounts, despite the suggestions being declined each time. Those sections have since been removed. It's not vandalism/edit-war of just 1 or 2 accounts, it's the flooding of the same unconfirmed material. -- Tytrox (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We have other tools to handle such problems. We can put edit notices warning editors not to enter Kim Jong-un's death until it has been confirmed by North Korea. Here is a link to the notices when editors press the button to edit the Donald Trump article. There is no need to fully protect the article. Banana Republic (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: You should maybe ask @Ymblanter: why he activated the Full Protection. It might be a fact that clearly edit notices weren't enough in this case. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I added full protection because on Apr 25 there was massive addition of unverified info and edit-warring which included edits by confirmed users (example). Whoever needs to edit the article before the protection would expire tomorrow is welcome to add a protected edit request to this talk page. There was of course no vandalism prior to the protection because the article was semi-protected, and normally one does not expect autoconfirmed users to vandalize articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Confirmed users should have access to the article and warnings can be put in place if needed. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think now that US intelligence is saying that it does not think that Kim Jong-un is dead, it's time to open up the article for editing to confirmed / autoconfirmed editors. Banana Republic (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia should be open to all editors or at the very least those who have an account, could someone please ease the restrictions? I think it’s clear that confirmed users can govern each other and don’t need to be blocked from access Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Golly! What's the rush yall? 03:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.88.85 (talk)

Is he the second or the third son of Kim Jong-il?

In this page it is stated that "he is the second child of Kim Jong-il" but in Kim Jong-il it says "his third son, Kim Jong-un, was promoted to a senior position". I think Kim Jong-un is the second son from one woman, Ko Yong-hui, and there's one more son from another woman, Song Hye-rim. That makes Kim John-un the third son of Kim Jong-il. It's a second son for the couple. --Bonbonenata (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can see what you mean. It could mean to read as mean the 2nd son to Jong-Il by Ko Yong-Hui and printed without noting that relationship. Submit an edit suggestion for it. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why a formal edit request would be necessary here; it's pretty clear what should be changed. What's needed now is for an admin to be bold and make the change. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the article is currently under full protection, no one but admins can perform the edit, hence my suggestion for @Bonbonenata: to make an edit suggestion request. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh, the protection is set to expire (presumably back to semi?) on the 28th, at which point someone can presumably address both this imprecision and the missing word in "though had" that I raised in a section above. -sche (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 April 2020

I propose to change the following segment-

Kim is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia in February 2017. On 12 June 2018, Kim and US President Donald Trump met for a summit in Singapore,

into-

Kim is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia in February 2017. However, according to the point of view of Kim Jong-un himself, he is an idealist who fights to defend socialism, a system which he considers to be noble and advanced. On 12 June 2018, Kim and US President Donald Trump met for a summit in Singapore, Lenmoly (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I vote no. It comes across as highly puffery and weasel-wordy. It should otherwise also be accompanied with a citation, given the claim(s). -- Tytrox (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• No, that doesn't describe whether or not he ordered the assassination.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. - as there is objection above, assume this is now at phase 3 of WP:BRD and establish a consensus for the change first. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Change "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea" to "the chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea". Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this page restriction be less strict?

I feel that this restriction, or at least part of it, should be lifted. In the talk page, I feel that editors have reached the consensus that it should not be listed that Kim is dead. Wikipedia is good at governing itself and I feel that opening up this page again would feel less restrictive to confirmed users. It does not seem like anything is changing anytime soon. What do other non-administrators think of this proposal? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that you were until a few days ago actively pushing the Kim is dead narrative, I question why you now want page restriction reduced.Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Same questions than above, Wikipedia isn't news and we should wait before reporting him dead. What edit is so urgent that you need protection lifted ? Daxar (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong to say dead. But maybe also wrong to say alive. Why not just say unknown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at users who have made contentious edit requests, I think extended confirmed protection might be enough, but not less at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to lift protection early. And from the edits to the article before protection and then to the Talk page after, I think it was necessary and a good call. TMZ said he was dead and the article was flooded with people wanting to be FIRST! to make it so. When Kim Jong-un is verifiably dead, every media outlet in the world will be carrying the news and we'll have our choice of reliable sources. Only then should it be in the article. In the meantime, unconfirmed speculation has no place in it. If there is some critical bit of information that the article needs, anyone can post an edit request. Schazjmd (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So today the full protection expired at 18:41, and the first attempt to say he was dead (without reliable sources, again) happens just 28 minutes later [1], and then once again by a different IP just eight minutes after that [2]. The page has been re-protected, albeit a lower protection than before. I think the current protection level is probably sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• And now, thanks to another edit without a source to support it [3], it's protected at a higher level. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ahhh for the days when we were just fighting off bad NFC use.... :) --Masem (t) 21:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • hahahahah! Indeed! Now they fight over which free license image to use! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can’t it just be up to other editors to revert changes and warn users who put up information without sources? This seems better than blocking everyone out. Once again, opinions from those who are not administrators are very welcome Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The thing is that the unconstructive edits stay for too long and thousands of readers see the unconfirmed "facts". That is the problem. — J947 ^[cont] 01:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted after 3 minutes, Wikipedia is good at governing itself. Make the ban less restrictive and leave it up to the editors. As for personal comments from some other editors, I stated my sources and you stated yours. We came to a consensus that he is not dead. That’s why there’s a talk page. This has nothing to do with my opinion on whether Kim is listed as dead or not, I’ve never even edited this page. Just please lift this restrictive ban on Wikipedia editors Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Wjrz nj forecast: This is a very sensitive article per BLP and it received 401,865 views yesterday. A BLP violation that stays for 3 minutes is viewed 837 times. That is terrible. There are 6 million articles to edit here, not just this one. — J947 ^[cont] 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with J947. Keep in mind that when it was set to pending changes protection, it was being changed to indicate he was dead without a source to support it [4]. The lowest level of protection that would prevent that sort of disruption is extended confirmed access, which is where it sits now. Until this rumor is either confirmed or quashed, it seems reasonable to retain this level of protection given that it is a BLP. and a highly viewed article. In fact, this article is THE most viewed article on Wikipedia for April 19-25, with 2.6 million views (see WP:TOP25). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There’s a reason that there are warnings to editors. Also there are editors who will spew misinformation. This is just a fact. I don’t support this and prefer consensus on the talk page, but there is misinformation all around us. However, preventing editors from accessing these pages is against what Wikipedia stands for. Unlock the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wjrz nj forecast, in the past few days you have made several requests to insert false information on this page, including a request to declare him dead, declare him brain dead, and to say that he was reported dead by the Japanese media. None of these requests were backed up by reliable sources, and any time anyone asked you for a source you either ignored the request or were found to be mistaken. To be perfectly honest, it's a very good thing this page was protected. – bradv🍁 03:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with bradv, preventing misinformation is far more important than allowing page access for non-urgent and often questionable edits and I question Wjrz nj forecast motivations in pushing for this. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this has gotten out of hand. First, I never requested any false edits. I simply stated my facts (and I always provided my sources) and it turned out to be inaccurate/based on consensus. That’s what the talk page is for. I completely agree that Kim should not be listed as dead. That’s why I’m advocating for removal of anyone who adds this information. If you want to question my motivation, feel free to. I’m motivated to keep Wikipedia open to editors, which is a principle of the website. I am eager to restore this on this article as soon as possible and I think it’s now possible to let it up to the editors of Wikipedia to govern the article. For these reasons, I want this article to be reopened. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel inclined to agree with @Wjrz nj forecast:. We've reached a point of consensus about the issue. I'm happy for edit restriction to be lifted to allow confirmed Users. It's the IP address edits that need to continue to be blocked for now. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wjrz nj forecast has been on WP since 30 March 2020 and is arguing policy issues, sorry but I don't AGF here. Reopen the page and see how long it takes for the rumormongers to return. Mztourist (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Fair point. I didn't consider that. -- Tytrox

Tytroxand Mztourist, I’m not sure why the amount of time I’ve been on Wikipedia matters when talking about policy. This argument seems to be getting personal. I know that there will be vandalism/false information but it’s up to Wikipedia to surveil these editors. It’s time to reopen the article to editors. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wjrz nj forecast I have been on WP long enough to know that genuinely new editors don't get involved in policy arguments.Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wjrz nj forecast: It's not personal. It's one of those things where with time comes experience. While I do somewhat accept that we _could_ now lift editing to just regular confirmed accounts too (so we can then deal with potential vandals on individual basis as they'll be uniquely identifiable), I'll reserve judgement for Admins to decide. If they implement the restriction, there's a reason for it. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist I’m not sure I follow, similar to you, I am an editor. I have the right to make changes and come up with ideas in the talk page. I can argue a fact, a policy, or reach a consensus in the talk page if I want to. I have not broken any rules in doing so. As an editor who has been around for a while, I’d expect you to encourage new editors, not tell them what they can’t do. I would assume that you’re an administrator, so I guess you feel that you have some executive decision over people who have been around for one month Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So, since I’m not experienced, you believe I should not comment on this issue. I really find this as being unsupportive and irresponsible as an editor. There were other editors who I was able to learn from based on their comments but suppressing new users seems against what Wikipedia is about. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You have supposedly been on WP for 1 month and here you are engaging in policy debates, I don't find that credible. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wjrz nj forecast: We never suggested you can't or shouldn't make comments/opinions. At the moment, you're the only one outright suggesting to lift the restriction, and it's coming across as a form of protest with the level of assertiveness you're showing. Time of experience can suggest level of understanding. I think I'm the only person so far who has made the willingness to give some support for your argument to lift the restriction. The rest of us had been more than happy to wait for the full restriction to lift when it was in place. Please do us all a favour and just wait it out, or take it up to the relevant area. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess since I’ve only been on Wikipedia for one month I won’t discuss policy because I’m inexperienced and don’t know any better Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 April 2020

"The Guardian reported that China had sent a team of doctors on 25 April to North Korea to monitor Kim's condition." should be Reuters[5]. The source cited in the article is a newswire from Reuters only republished by The Guardian. 17jiangz1 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 03:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 April 2020

"Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018 and the highest amongst Koreans." to "Forbes magazine ranked Kim as the 36th most powerful person in the world in 2018, the highest amongst Koreans." since there is no distinct ranking for Koreans warranting the "and". 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 April 2020

change is to was for him being dead Octaviososo (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember that the press speculates this, but it doesn't actually mean is 100% true. Editoneer (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

He is the third child not second child. Hksaram (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

When are we going back to Wikipedia values?

The rumor is over by now. There’s still going to be vandalism, there is on every page. How much longer to we plan on keeping it locked from everyone? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's to Extended-confirmation protection aka 30/500 - either have 30 days as a registered account or 500 edits. This is reasonable for what's still out there. --Masem (t) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been on for a month and I am unable to edit. I’m not saying that I have anything to edit, but someone like me should be able to edit the page Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that when the protection was lowered it was shortly thereafter vandalized. I don't think anyone is suggesting you are an untrusted editor. Get to 500 edits and you can edit the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why such a rush to lift restriction ? You commented on three threads here about protection level but you say "I’m not saying that I have anything to edit". I must say that I am questioning your motives. If there is an important edit to be made, people can use the talk page and sourced proposals will be taken into consideration. Daxar (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Hammersoft, it’s clear that Daxar believes that I’m not a trustworthy editor. What motive do you think I have? I want to open a page which I believe is possible. Leaving it open to all editors is a Wikipedia value. I know that there are vandals but that’s why there are people like you and me who will direct them to the talk page, or if necessary, report them. Users like Mztourist and Tytrox need to stop saying that I can not argue policy. I understand that it’s easier to block lots of people. However, I think it’s against Wikipedia. It’s more about values and less about what I personally want. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as these rumors are still active and unconfirmed, there will be a flood of editors who will change the page to say Kim is dead. This is not just a hypothetical, this is what happened a few days ago before protection was applied. Wikipedia will then be a unstable source of misinformation, violating even more important core principles. This is standard Wikipedia policy and the intended use of protection, and I suggest that you simply propose your edits here until the time has passed.  — Goszei (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As the rumors have settled now and a “flood” of vandalism is unlikely (there will still be some) I think that locking this page indefinitely is not the right choice. Especially for editors. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the pageviews suggest that the rumors have not yet settled. You can submit a request for un-protection by following the instructions at WP:RFP if you are so inclined. — Goszei (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wjrz, this isn't going to go anywhere. I'm sorry. Goszei has laid it out very well. It's not about denying you or anyone else the privilege of editing the article. It's about having a stable article with reliable sources supporting the prose. Since the rumors of his death erupted, the article has been vandalized to say he is dead at least nine times, and one of those was within minutes of an earlier protection expiring. Until the rumors die down, the protection is warranted and appropriate to the level of accounts that were vandalizing the article. He supposedly made an appearance today at a factory. Perhaps the rumors will begin to die down. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft and continue to question why new Wikipedia:Single-purpose account User Wjrz nj forecast feels it necessary to argue policy on this day after day wasting other Users' time. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Then who can only get access to it? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Detente section

I reverted the name of this section from "International relations" to "Detente". I don't object to a change in the section name, but "International relations" is absolutely inappropriate. Biographical articles are supposed to be chronological, and this section is part of a rough chronology that begins with his birth. But "International relations" suggests that it is a thematic section. It isn't. And it shouldn't be. International relations are dealt with in several sections when relevant. This section begins in 2018. We don't know how long Kim will be leader of North Korea. It could be decades. We can't lump all international relations in one section. Yes, the section does not use the term "detente", but "Early life" doesn't use the term "early life" either. As I said, I don't object to a change in name, but not one that will unravel the whole article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Health in 2020

Given that the reports of his death seem to have been greatly exaggerated, how much do we need to say about this fresh product from the North Korean rumour mill? We don't know that Kim had any health problems at all. The DailyNK report was based on an anonymous informant. The fact is he didn't actually disappear. He just wasn't pictured in North Korean media, though North Korean media reported him doing various things. In reality, not being photographed for three weeks is no big deal. Yes, we can document rumours, but there are too many rumours.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

They are hiding Coronavirus

(Possibly...)

Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)