Talk:Kim Jong Un

Q1: Why doesn't the article mention the recent news about Kim Jong Un's death/illness?

A1: While many news organizations are reporting that Kim Jong Un may be dead or gravely ill, these reports are either speculation or from unreliable sources.

Q2: Shouldn't the article at least mention that Kim Jong Un might be dead or in grave danger?

A2: Our biographies of living persons policy puts a priority on maintaining factual accuracy, not on including all the possible information. Publishing speculative rumors of any person's death isn't allowed.

Reference 105 and referencing the Daily Mirror

You guys do realise the Daily Mirror is more full of s*** than a latrine right? You really shouldn't be citing that utter garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.52.195 (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A tabloid certainly isn't a suitable source for a claim like that. I removed it per WP:BLPSOURCES. January (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

Just created Talk:Kim Jong-un/FAQ, it's quite a rough piece of work that gets the general idea across, feel free to brush up some things here and there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email

Image

Seriously, what's the worst that can happen if we use a so-called copyrighted photo of Kim Jong-Un? What, will KCNA file a copyright claim against Wikipedia? They're a rogue and isolated state, they can't do anything even if they wanted to. And Wikipedia is a pillar of freedom of information, we might as well use their "copyrighted" material as a stand against them. 128.223.223.65 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We honor copyright as a general principal and a matter of settled policy 100% of the time, with no consideration as to whether we like or dislike the copyright holder. Accordingly, I oppose your idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The restriction against the image has zero to do with the legal ramifications of copyright law against the Wikimedia foundation - it is more because we have a specific resolution from the Foundation to promote free content creation and minimize non-free content. It's a core principle of the entire set of wikimedia sites. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be a case for the fair use rationale, have you ever thought about that? --Maxl (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We have thought about that, of course. There has been lengthy discussion here and here, and the conclusion is that fair use images of Kim Jong-un are not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy on non-free content. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And at the RFC on the subject. The proposal to allow a fair use image was, by far, the minority opinion. Consensus can change, but for now the standing consensus is we will not be using a fair use image of Kim Jong-un. The RFC pretty much stands as law, so far as using a fair use image here is concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think opponents are sticking to their guns on not employing fair-use in this article either 1) out of stubborn pride, or 2) to wean wikipedia away from the unsettling gray-area of fair-use. Either way, I think a non-free image will eventually win-out in this case, but not after a fair amount of unnecessary chest pounding. Poshzombie (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Poshzombie. Somehow, a few people here, like Masem and Hammersoft, are trying to keep ANY image out of this article. Anyway, if I remember the cited discussions correctly it was just the two who were against using a picture under the fair use rationale. And two people were hardly the majority in those debates unless you count the thickness of their skins against any sensible arguments... I could go on... but better not... politeness keeps me from continuing... :) --Krawunsel (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation has language that prevents us using a non-free image, irregardless of the rationale (certainly, the picture of a world leader would otherwise not be contested for meeting all other parts of NFCC). But NFCC#1 is based on direct language from the Foundation on what is considered replaceable fair use, and is a non-negotiable point. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Attacking myself and Masem as having "stubborn pride", "just the two who were against", and our having "thickness of skins" is hardly helpful, much less accurate. As has been pointed out in this very thread before, there was an RFC on this issue. Proponents of using a non-free image were soundly defeated by a 3:1 margin. It wasn't just myself and Masem. Being on the side that did not win an issue is understandably depressing. However, it is not justification for attacking us nor is it justification for using a non-free image. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added free image, although a graffiti, is based on a photo.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I *think* it might be okay. While it is a photograph of street art in France where there's no Freedom of Panorama, the original flickr account appears to be that of the graffiti artist themselves (thus they can take photos of their own art for free). The image is not based on any obvious copyrighted image, so hard to make an argument it being a derivative work. In other words, as long as we're sure about the flickr photograph being made by the graffiti artist, it should be okay. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A photograph of graffiti about the subject is not appropriate for the infobox. It may be for another section of the article, if it isn't a derivative work. Jonathunder (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• This 'free' graffiti isn't. It's clearly derivative of this image. Lighting angle (shadow under lower lip, shadow under chin) and direction of eyes and cant of head are dead giveaways. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely derivative and thus not okay, regardless of the graffiti/photograph artist. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The image is free, as all Category:Demeure du Chaos files. Its a discussed issue, (See [1]), and had been already decided to be kept. And is simply ridiculous to say that a graffiti wich is not difamatory aint suitable for an infobox, if we followed that rule, every infobox about a person that shows a picture, drawing, painting, etc... instead of a photo had to be deleted. Im starting to think that other users who claim that some here dont want to have any image of Kim Jong Un here might be right...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The image is not free if it derives from an unfree work. There's also a huge difference in appropriateness between using a portrait painting of a historical person and using spraypainted graffiti which copies a news photo of a living man. Jonathunder (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I repeat that a consensus had been made in Commons about the Demeure du Chaos files, see above. And, can you explain that alleged "huge difference" between a portrait, drawing, etc... and a graffiti? Both are simply forms of art, and in this case, as much of the graffitis had been made out from photographs, are much more accurate that several drawings and paintings I've seen in infoboxes, in wich the artist had made his personal interpretation instead of simply depicting the person...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is no question that, if the graffiti artist's image was an original work that the use of flickr photos from that account would be free images. The problem is that the image the graffiti artist made is obviously based on an AP photo and thus a derivative work, and thus cannot be considered free. If the artist attempted a new composite image from multiple sources, as to remove the derivative work issue, then we'd be reasonably okay with using it in liue of a photograph until such became available. (it certainly was artistically accurate enough to be usable.) --MASEM (t) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What about this image from Live Science? According to their website it's "public domain", see here. Coinmanj (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That claim is wrong. The photo is a portion of one on this page: [2] which clearly lists it as an AP Press photo. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So the two of them are still blocking EVERYTHING. The page from where Hammersoft claimed a graffiti was taken doesn't contain a picture of a graffitti and therefore Hammersoft's claim of July 5 was clearly wrong. --Krawunsel (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to blame two people as if they're the Wikipedia boogeyman. Their position is clear, as is mine - we cannot have unfree images without a decent excuse, and that is that. So far there as been no decent excuse brought forward and accepted by the community with strong consensus. Conversely, forcing the use of non-free images of Kim Jong-un is acting against everyone's freedoms, and freedom is something that Wikipedia is built upon. You might not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but that does not mean that you can ignore people who repeatedly inform you about what Wikipedia is about. We are here to educate, whilst respecting freedom for all, both in regards to freedom of information and freedom to copyright. We respect the freedoms of others, including copyright holders. That way, Wikipedia can remain to be free of legal chains to anybody, meaning that both readers and contributors can enjoy the benefits of an encyclopedia that is, by all definitions, free (libre and gratis). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would not consider disregarding ANY arguments brought by others but themselves very beneficial for the Wikipedia. Of course we cannot have unfree images in the Wikipedia, with the exception of thus used by the fair use rationale which is another thing they disregard. But they simply claim an image is unfree usually without giving proof, or, with false prove, as mentioned in my above post. Is that really helpful to the Wikipedia or beneficial? I don't think so. And "Bogeyman" is your word, not mine. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, we've explained why the images that have been found fail to be free (the graffiti was a derivative work, and the claimed free photos are really press photos lacking the proper markings and treated inappropriately as free by those other sources). I want to see an image on this page, but we have a requirement that we cannot, period, use non-free images of living persons and will continue to remove and have deleted images that are clearly press photos or based on such. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reports of a child

Dennis Rodman has stated that Kim has a daughter; [3] I don't know if that's enough to put such info in this article. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also a separate article about the daughter: Kim Ju-ae. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A consideration in how reliable a source that Rodman is (the sources that report what Rodman reports are reliable, but this is equivalent to one step-removed without secondary information). It's not that we can't say what Rodman said, but we should not necessarily believe it should be taken as fact at this time since that's exactly one person, period, making that claim. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of things can be sourced to just one person if that person is in a position to know and there aren't any reasons to doubt the claim. This isn't an anonymous source. The New York Times has said, "Mr. Rodman also revealed that Mr. Kim was 30 years old and that his birthday was Jan. 8." Note the NYT editor's decision to use the term "revealed" instead of "claimed," etc. There aren't any contrary claims as to the birthdate aside from perhaps the North Korean government but the government communications are more likely to be subject to propaganda concerns than what Rodman was told by his "friend." In any case, re the birthdate the NYT adds that "The age and birthday conform with what South Korean intelligence officials have said." Wikipedia is not infallible such that if it later emerges the information was wrong Wikipedia is not necessarily embarrassed. Wikipedia often changes with time as more information becomes known. Hedging bets with "1983 or 1984" has been and should continue to be a rare practice reserved for very poor sourcing.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

the murder of his ex girlfriend

south korean media reported he machine-gunned his ex, all her friends, and sent the family to prison camps.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/08/29/2013082901412.html

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)