![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As others have asked, why is there no photo of Jong-un? If there's no free photo alternative to be found, then why not use a non-free image, citing fair use, temporarily until a free alternative is found and can be replaced? King Kim the III is a politically significant figure, and yet no picture? Nguyễn Quốc Việt ( talk) 07:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Finally, when you say "Obviously, if I were to complain about this in any other venue, it would just lead to 100 more instances of the same people talking the same nonsense about the availability of press photos", I guess that means for you that it's the system you should be raging against then. If you're certain that you will meet such replies if you head over to the Village Pump, don't you think that means that you're the odd one out here? When in Rome, do as the Romans do; if you're going to fight for a justice against a problem with the system that you don't agree with, that's your journey to undertake. Hell, you might even be able to convince 100 Wikipedians towards your viewpoint if you try and try again. I'd like to point out that I'm not acting as an individual who is intentionally trying to be a party pooper here; we have had numerous request for comments before, and the existing consensus is that adding a non-free image of Kim Jong-un is at odds with NFCC. Wikipedia works with community consensus, so in essence, you're swimming against the flow here. Again, if you try, you might be able to reverse consensus, after all consensus is not permanent and is definitely subject to change. -- benlisquare T• C• E 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I know and have read about this, here is a list of things that I am confident that the Free Content Movement, and indeed the Wikimedia Foundation, would have never intended to be an inherent assumption in the 'could be created' clause:
Clearly nobody in the Foundation or the movement would sign up to any of that as reasonable or sensible or ethical or part of any mission. If anyone disagrees with that conclusion, instead of the usual bollocks as seen above, how about you actually get off your asses and provide some hard evidence that either the Foundation or the Free Content Movement sign up to your particular brand of crazy? If you find yourself unable to complete that simple task in the name of the free content movement (a task which is after all 100 times easier than obtaining a free phtoograph in any of the ways you advise), then the time for you shamefully claiming that anyone in either of those organisations would ever aagree with any of this garbage is surely coming to an end. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
And just to remind everyone, here is what Benlisquare said above about effort in the name of free content - "you can come up with all sorts of excuses to justify not bothering to go out of your way to do something towards creating a free-license image, rain hail or shine". It takes absolutely no effort to claim that someone in the Foundation intends 'could be created' to mean all the things it has been claimed on this page. It takes some effort to convince people with evidence that this is precisely the sort of case they had in mind - let's see which way he goes, or anyone else for that matter. I predict either complete silence, or just more of the same nonsense. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm just creating a section here to keep track of the fact that I asked Masem to ask if Jimmy Wales really believes the things he is claiming he does just above. If, in the unlikely event, he ever asks Jimmy Wales to actually give his opinion, we can record it here, for posterity. That's not going to happen of course, because as anyone can see, Jimmy Wales obviously didn't intend anything close to the sort of nonsense Masem is attributing to him directly above when he was coming up with the "could be created" clause. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
More bullshit.
And obviously, I don't think there aren't any other instances that you haven't thought of yet - I think this is it, I think you've thought long and hard about this subject, and this pathetic list of completely unrealistic or entirely improbable scenarios is the best you could come up with. If these are the supposed 'options', then it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that, based on actual facts, where people deal with the real world, a free image will never become available, unless a bunch of entirely unrealistic happenstances occur. In your brain, you somehow think that adds up to justification. But once you realise that, apparently, Jimmy Wales classified every single album cover as historically signigifanct when he was drafting the policy, and he considered his stance to be at the "extreme" and, you don't have to be a genius see that this is nowhere near the line he would have expected "could be taken" to be drawn. By endlessly repeating this utter bollocks as if it was remotely convincing (because I looked, and funnily enough, it has all appeared before in past discussions in various forms), you are simply making a mockery of Wikipedia, of the Free Content Movement, and of simple logic. It's shameful. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick question. How do you know North Korea is a country with freedom of panorama? It isn't listed on any source I could find. Going by the arguments against a fair-use KJU photo, should we assume that if there without explicit proof of, North Korea does not have freedom of panorama? Especially considering 110.174.77.95 's link saying you can't photograph a soldier? Schvass ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama is completely irrelevant. By acting as if Wikipedia or the Free Content movement was set up to encourage people to use pictures of paintings/sculptures as alternative to actual free images of actual real people, you are only making yourselves look even more stupider than you already are, which takes some doing. And that's before we even get to the stupidity it takes to be talking as if NK is the sort of place where the average citizen or a tourist is going to be able to have a conversation with a policemen or security official about their photographic rights under Freedom of Panorama, should they be stupid enough to tell them that they intend to release their photograph for free use around the world, to be modified and reused in any way imaginable. While that probably appeals to the propoganda ministry to a point - being able to control how the likeness of the supreme leader appears on the most popular encyclopedia in the world - they're probably also smart enough to realise what the downsides of that are too. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick scan of that Category:Soldiers of North Korea shows that the vast majority were taken from neutral soil, so of course, claims that this means anything as far as the measures and risks the average tourist, never mind ordinary NK citizen, would have to go through to obtain a usable image of Kim, who for understandable reasons never goes within rifle range of the border, are of course total bullshit. If an when someone comes here with an example of a tourist or average citizen getting into a position where a usable photograph of Kim would be a realistic possibility, and we can hear from them precisely what that invovled for them - what expense they had to occur, whether they needed any special permissions or otherwise, whether they were subjected to any searches or asked any questions about their pictures, then maybe we can talk. That won't happen of course, we'll somehow just end up talking about murals or mooching off commercial agencies again no doubt. Anything to keep the discussion away from anything that remotely addresses the real world barriers to the prospect of getting a usable free photograph of the actual, living breathing Kim, that any encyclopedia worth it's salt would provide (as opposed to saying sorry, because we think that it's not 100% impossible to get this image, you will need to go elsewhere for your encyclopedic needs) - as if anyone in the free content movement has ever said anything remotely like that in their lives, especially when discussing a website that has no problem at all in classifying every single album ever made as historically important enough to justify a non-free image. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add any of these pictures, since there aren't any
Chard8990 ( talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is it alright if I post an image of Kim Jong Un, a imagine oif him and not a satirical one, because his dad and grand dad has and why won't he? http://www.drumeuropean.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kimjongun_vert-17656b658f19f87081f7480c13e6decc827decdc-s6-c30.jpg will this be visible? 188.24.217.178 ( talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Renewed talk from Archives: His religion?
How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments, the most important thing about him or any person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Saying that religion is one of the most important things for a person is an unjustified assumption that only you and like-minded people share alone. Plenty of people don't care whether John Smith likes this imaginary sky daddy, whether Jack Smith likes that imaginary sky daddy, or Jane Smith likes no imaginary sky daddy. The statement you have made is merely your own opinion, and it's one that not everybody shares. Furthermore, we do not have reliable sources regarding his religion. Previous attempts to add "Juche" as a religion to the pages of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were also reverted because there are no reliable sources that state that Juche is a religion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Seconded. As a living, breathing example that religion isn't "the most important thing about[...]any person," I couldn't have said it better myself. Rockhead126 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"...only you and like-minded people share 'alone'"? Whatever beliefs to which one is bound (*religio-*) comprise his or her religion. Everyone has such important beliefs. They are the kind of beliefs which are necessary on the basis of which to argue against others' religious beliefs. The beliefs of Kim Jong-un which are most important to him should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs)
Alright then. Find me a reliable source that tells me what he believes in then. We obviously haven't found one yet; why don't you help us figure out what his religion is. I certainly don't know what it is; it's not like I can call his phone and ask him. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC) CJ: Fair enough; I think there's a talk section on this article which explores that further.
Religion is important to some people, unimportant to others, and sometimes not present at all. It is more than possible that a supreme leader of a brain-washed country might not admit to a belief in any power higher than himself, so as to allow his subjects to venerate him in lieu of a less tangible deity. Such an attitude might also make it unlikely for him to express a belief that deities do not exist, for similar reasons. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's false that "religion is...unimportant to others." This comment presupposes that Christianity is false. It's not a neutral comment. According to Christianity, unbelievers know God but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Ro 1.18)
I don't know how one could not see that belief in or denial of an Infinite, Personal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-controlling, self-contained, self-revelatory Creator God conditions everything he or she believes about anything else.
Again, "How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments?"
Cj3061 ( talk) 19:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)cj3061 4-25-2014
This can be uploaded to Commons and used here. Go for it Nope...don't. It is not CC as indicated as another person has pointed out it was an image lifted from a newspaper.--
Maleko Mela (
talk)
21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What's the copyright status on
these photos from the barbershop that put up a poster of KJU? Since the UK is a country with freedom of panorama, wouldn't this technically fall under the same rationale for using a cropped photo of a public portrait on Kim Il Sung's page? Do we know about the copyright of whoever made the Kim Il Sung portrait? No, but it's apparently irrelevant under freedom of panorama.
Schvass (
talk)
14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What about this image on Commons? thumb Ocaasi t | c 23:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
if you could put Kim Jong Un picture on his politician page, i would appreciate it. thanks so much for your consideration! Josh Brannon
107.220.148.162 ( talk) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done - As explained above we can find no copyright free picture to use. -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Swagginddgjdigj ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) he was the biggest loser winner of 20000123456789x on earthbound and he also won how babies are made on the planet 3042894982 and he died in 3920192382048120=48=12842=
This report has been verified by several South Korean reporters. Kim Jung-Un reportedly purchased and had this restored 1955 Chevy imported thru various countries to finally get it into North Korea. One South Korean reporter said other North Korean high ranking official was very unhappy about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.217.179 ( talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Although there has been feverish international media attention on this issue, I don't think it needs much expansion based on what we know (as opposed to what is speculated). I trimmed the information significantly now that Kim has re-emerged. However, this has immediately been expanded. I don't think this is very notable, and unless health problems reoccur, I think the incident will become less significant over time. Wikipedia is not news.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be trimmed,but it could turn out to be a permanent issue such as Gout, and that would be very notable. I believe that it should be at least mentioned in the article as he is now using a walking stick which denotes a moderate disability, temporary or no. Until such confirmation, I think it should be trimmed and a wait and see attitude adopted. 75.130.155.203 ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should have this section. There are many speculative reports and rumours about North Korea, and this is just one of them.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dennmann57 ( talk) 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) The difference between North and South Korea? In South Korea the people are fat and the leaders skinny.....
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I discovered an error on this page. In the first paragraph on this page, the text states: "He is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il and his consort Ko Young-hee."
Citation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5428300/Kim-Jong-un-a-profile-of-North-Koreas-next-leader.html
However, at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled "Early Life and Education," the following sentence contradicts the earlier statement: "Kim Jong-Un was the second of three children Ko Yong-hui borne to Kim Jong-Il, his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong is believed to have been born in 1987."
Citations: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2957573 https://nkleadershipwatch.wordpress.com/kji-2/kim-yo-jong/
New comment from DrJulieSunny on 12/3/14 I'm new to this stuff (sorry). Thank you for asking for clarification. My specific question is: Is Kim Jong-un the third and youngest son (1st citation/1st reference to his biological family) of his parents or the 2nd of 3 children (with an older brother and younger sister - see 2nd citation link/2nd reference)? I requested an amendment to this conflicting information because I'm not very informed on this topic and I don't have the answer myself. I'm wondering if any other readers have observed this inconsistency. Thank you!
Drjuliesunny ( talk) 04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Drjuliesunny ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The change would be, I think, to pick one correct description of his mother's name and his place in the family. Does anyone know the truth of this? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 04:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the picture....hes not a portrait.... 2601:9:8500:1503:646C:D97B:5A11:3803 ( talk) 08:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As demonstrated aptly by the recent NK government hacking of Sony to prevent the release of a film mocking him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.163 ( talk) 04:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/where-is-n-koreas-sense-of-humor . I agree with this user concerning his sense of humour, it should be mentioned if it is a significant part of his personality (to be humourless) or causes irrational statements/actions.
Why is there no mention of the widely publicised addiction to Swiss cheese? Often cited as a cause of his numerous health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.72 ( talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose including speculation about medical conditions referenced to articles that cite unnamed North Korean sources. These sources do not meet our standards for biographies of living people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/asia/kim-jong-un-birthday/index.html very clearly says "There is a lot of debate about the year he was born," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute, a Korean think tank. "Some say it is 1984 while others say is '83 or '82." Unusually I propose that the ambiguity be put in the article - both the text and infobox. Legacypac ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not informed about wikipedia's biographical standards but I think the UN report discussed in the article (and at greater length here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea) should be mentioned in the introduction. Specifically, it should be noted that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights warned Kim that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/world/asia/north-korea-un-report/) based on hundreds of first-hand interviews documenting "unspeakable atrocities" committed by his government and that an estimated 150,000-200,000 political prisoners are being held in concentration camps under his regime.
Much of the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the current introduction should be moved lower in the article. His university degrees, his ranking on Forbes lists, and potential involvement in the Sony hacking are all less 1st order than the above human rights violations.
If someone comes to this article and reads only the introduction it is more important that they be made aware of these human rights violations than that he has a physics degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.167.197 ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason The Interview has an entire paragraph in the lead, but nothing in the body of the article? Although the movie is in the news currently and Kim is the subject of the film, I feel like there could be a section like "Media portrayal" that mentions this movie and other portrayals of him in films, news media, etc. It could also link to the article about the Sony hack and mention that North Korea was accused of perpetrating the attack. I feel like the article as a whole could use some reorganization as far as its section structure goes, but this would be a start. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In terms of power, Kim was ranked "the third highest among Koreans after Ban Ki-moon and Lee Kun-hee," according to the lead. Isn't this a silly claim? Neither Ban nor Lee command an army or a country, nor can they execute inconvenient family members. NotUnusual ( talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed in the latest edit that there was a change to American English, but there are still instances of words like 'favoured' and 'honour' used in the article. If you have a preference for one or the other, please indicate below with any arguments for your position and we can include the appropriate tag at the top of this talk page. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to American English and added a tag at the top of this talk page. That way it'll be consistent per WP:ARTCON. There were some users taking both sides above, but as user Snow Rise said, this isn't a particularly contentious point even for an article of this sort. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|image = Zjw333 ( talk) 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is not the place to show someone's ugly sketch, please revert back to Kim's real portrait. 2601:9:8500:1503:154E:2596:E387:CCFF ( talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any source that he is an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:562:5A01:450B:1684:19B0:2648 ( talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be hard to find one that isn't copyrighted. However, the page's "locked down" condition makes it impossible for most Wikipedeans to simply add a pic ourselves. RobertLovesPi ( talk) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Then what if someone just drew a sketch of KJU? Would that be un-professional? Or still non-free because all known photos of KJU are non-free, and it would have to be based on a non-free photo? Schvass ( talk) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I see a photo on flickr here in which has a creative commons license. Would it be possible to upload this photo to Commons?— Michael Jester ( talk · contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that we have more options for freely-licensed drawings of Kim Jong-Un. They were sketched by members of the Reddit community r/ICanDrawThat. They are hosted on Flickr under Creative Commons here and here, however the latter doesn't allow for commercial-use- an issue that I'm addressing. What do you think of these new options? Note: I'm using a throw-away so I don't link my Reddit account with my Wikipedia account which uses my real name. Thanks, F0064r ( talk) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let just say that as a casual observer I find you people as we say on the internets, retarded.
Common sense should be the guiding principle in all things and I think the majority of readers would agree with me that even taking a copyrighted picture would be acceptable here even if it didn't fall under fair use which it does. Ridicilous. A random dude made a random sketch of a world leader...what an encyclopedia
213.100.108.117 (
talk)
14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the international copyright info page at Wikimedia Commons [7], material from the NK government should be copyright-free, right?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#North_Korea
- P388388 ( talk) 10:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well that is frustrating. I do think a modern world leader should be represented with a more photo-like image.
Here's one I drew for you guys, if you want to use it. It's not perfect, but hopefully closer than what's there now. - P388388 ( talk) 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Feel free to play with the image and see if you can improve. My goal was to make it as photo-like as possible, but not so photo-like that it could be mistaken for a real photo. I wouldn't feel right about having a "faked" photo on Wikipedia, if that makes sense. In other news, it's possible that Kim may visit Moscow for ceremonies commemorating the end of WWII, so hopefully someone there can get a real photo then. - P388388 ( talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
[8] Jong-Un is visiting Russia in May, and from likely state visits with Putin, we'll likely be able to get a free photograph as we had with Jong-Il. -- MASEM ( t) 07:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been countless suggestions on how to obtain the elusive free license photo of Kim Jong-un that we need.
Attempts at this have ranged from calling the DPRK UN representative and asking them to publish a KCNA photo under a free license, stipulating whether Dennis Rodman might want to publish photos from his private collection under a free license, to the ultimate absurdity: 'why don't you go there and snap a photo of Kim yourself'. I might have found a new way which combines the best, and not the worst, features of these attempts.
What went wrong with the DPRK UN representative's office is that they didn't understand why it's important for us to get a photo with a certain license, rather than just getting a photo. And even if they did, they're not KCNA and they don't own the license so as to change it to a free one. Rodman, in turn is a busy man and his private collection is likely to remain so. Going to DPRK by yourself of course is possible but running into Kim is highly unlikely
Now, if only there was a (Western) media organization that understands licensing, deals with publishing and distributing photos or videos, and has caught Kim on camera (the overwhelming majority of Western news agency published photos are KCNA photos distributed with or without permission). Well, there is one: Vice News. Vice went to DPRK (during the Rodman trip, which explains why Kim showed up) and they have footage of Kim that they shot themselves.
Since Vice is a media organization, safeguarding their intellectual property is what they do for a living. This is important for two reasons. First, they (unlike the DPRK UN representative's office) will know what a free license is and why we want one, and second, they know when it doesn't hurt them to release a tiny fraction of their material under such a license. Vice may be an easier party to contact with inquiries than the DPRK UN mission, KCNA, or Rodman. It's their job to answer inquiries concerning their intellectual property, and there is likely to be no language or cultural barrier.
If someone asked Vice to release a single still frame of their original footage under a free license, we could have our photo. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC), modified by Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
Please add a new image of Kim Jong-un that will hopefully remain on this site. -- Mr. AWA ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As others have asked, why is there no photo of Jong-un? If there's no free photo alternative to be found, then why not use a non-free image, citing fair use, temporarily until a free alternative is found and can be replaced? King Kim the III is a politically significant figure, and yet no picture? Nguyễn Quốc Việt ( talk) 07:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Finally, when you say "Obviously, if I were to complain about this in any other venue, it would just lead to 100 more instances of the same people talking the same nonsense about the availability of press photos", I guess that means for you that it's the system you should be raging against then. If you're certain that you will meet such replies if you head over to the Village Pump, don't you think that means that you're the odd one out here? When in Rome, do as the Romans do; if you're going to fight for a justice against a problem with the system that you don't agree with, that's your journey to undertake. Hell, you might even be able to convince 100 Wikipedians towards your viewpoint if you try and try again. I'd like to point out that I'm not acting as an individual who is intentionally trying to be a party pooper here; we have had numerous request for comments before, and the existing consensus is that adding a non-free image of Kim Jong-un is at odds with NFCC. Wikipedia works with community consensus, so in essence, you're swimming against the flow here. Again, if you try, you might be able to reverse consensus, after all consensus is not permanent and is definitely subject to change. -- benlisquare T• C• E 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I know and have read about this, here is a list of things that I am confident that the Free Content Movement, and indeed the Wikimedia Foundation, would have never intended to be an inherent assumption in the 'could be created' clause:
Clearly nobody in the Foundation or the movement would sign up to any of that as reasonable or sensible or ethical or part of any mission. If anyone disagrees with that conclusion, instead of the usual bollocks as seen above, how about you actually get off your asses and provide some hard evidence that either the Foundation or the Free Content Movement sign up to your particular brand of crazy? If you find yourself unable to complete that simple task in the name of the free content movement (a task which is after all 100 times easier than obtaining a free phtoograph in any of the ways you advise), then the time for you shamefully claiming that anyone in either of those organisations would ever aagree with any of this garbage is surely coming to an end. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
And just to remind everyone, here is what Benlisquare said above about effort in the name of free content - "you can come up with all sorts of excuses to justify not bothering to go out of your way to do something towards creating a free-license image, rain hail or shine". It takes absolutely no effort to claim that someone in the Foundation intends 'could be created' to mean all the things it has been claimed on this page. It takes some effort to convince people with evidence that this is precisely the sort of case they had in mind - let's see which way he goes, or anyone else for that matter. I predict either complete silence, or just more of the same nonsense. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm just creating a section here to keep track of the fact that I asked Masem to ask if Jimmy Wales really believes the things he is claiming he does just above. If, in the unlikely event, he ever asks Jimmy Wales to actually give his opinion, we can record it here, for posterity. That's not going to happen of course, because as anyone can see, Jimmy Wales obviously didn't intend anything close to the sort of nonsense Masem is attributing to him directly above when he was coming up with the "could be created" clause. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
More bullshit.
And obviously, I don't think there aren't any other instances that you haven't thought of yet - I think this is it, I think you've thought long and hard about this subject, and this pathetic list of completely unrealistic or entirely improbable scenarios is the best you could come up with. If these are the supposed 'options', then it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that, based on actual facts, where people deal with the real world, a free image will never become available, unless a bunch of entirely unrealistic happenstances occur. In your brain, you somehow think that adds up to justification. But once you realise that, apparently, Jimmy Wales classified every single album cover as historically signigifanct when he was drafting the policy, and he considered his stance to be at the "extreme" and, you don't have to be a genius see that this is nowhere near the line he would have expected "could be taken" to be drawn. By endlessly repeating this utter bollocks as if it was remotely convincing (because I looked, and funnily enough, it has all appeared before in past discussions in various forms), you are simply making a mockery of Wikipedia, of the Free Content Movement, and of simple logic. It's shameful. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick question. How do you know North Korea is a country with freedom of panorama? It isn't listed on any source I could find. Going by the arguments against a fair-use KJU photo, should we assume that if there without explicit proof of, North Korea does not have freedom of panorama? Especially considering 110.174.77.95 's link saying you can't photograph a soldier? Schvass ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama is completely irrelevant. By acting as if Wikipedia or the Free Content movement was set up to encourage people to use pictures of paintings/sculptures as alternative to actual free images of actual real people, you are only making yourselves look even more stupider than you already are, which takes some doing. And that's before we even get to the stupidity it takes to be talking as if NK is the sort of place where the average citizen or a tourist is going to be able to have a conversation with a policemen or security official about their photographic rights under Freedom of Panorama, should they be stupid enough to tell them that they intend to release their photograph for free use around the world, to be modified and reused in any way imaginable. While that probably appeals to the propoganda ministry to a point - being able to control how the likeness of the supreme leader appears on the most popular encyclopedia in the world - they're probably also smart enough to realise what the downsides of that are too. Kim Jong No ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick scan of that Category:Soldiers of North Korea shows that the vast majority were taken from neutral soil, so of course, claims that this means anything as far as the measures and risks the average tourist, never mind ordinary NK citizen, would have to go through to obtain a usable image of Kim, who for understandable reasons never goes within rifle range of the border, are of course total bullshit. If an when someone comes here with an example of a tourist or average citizen getting into a position where a usable photograph of Kim would be a realistic possibility, and we can hear from them precisely what that invovled for them - what expense they had to occur, whether they needed any special permissions or otherwise, whether they were subjected to any searches or asked any questions about their pictures, then maybe we can talk. That won't happen of course, we'll somehow just end up talking about murals or mooching off commercial agencies again no doubt. Anything to keep the discussion away from anything that remotely addresses the real world barriers to the prospect of getting a usable free photograph of the actual, living breathing Kim, that any encyclopedia worth it's salt would provide (as opposed to saying sorry, because we think that it's not 100% impossible to get this image, you will need to go elsewhere for your encyclopedic needs) - as if anyone in the free content movement has ever said anything remotely like that in their lives, especially when discussing a website that has no problem at all in classifying every single album ever made as historically important enough to justify a non-free image. Kim Jong No ( talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add any of these pictures, since there aren't any
Chard8990 ( talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is it alright if I post an image of Kim Jong Un, a imagine oif him and not a satirical one, because his dad and grand dad has and why won't he? http://www.drumeuropean.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kimjongun_vert-17656b658f19f87081f7480c13e6decc827decdc-s6-c30.jpg will this be visible? 188.24.217.178 ( talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Renewed talk from Archives: His religion?
How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments, the most important thing about him or any person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Saying that religion is one of the most important things for a person is an unjustified assumption that only you and like-minded people share alone. Plenty of people don't care whether John Smith likes this imaginary sky daddy, whether Jack Smith likes that imaginary sky daddy, or Jane Smith likes no imaginary sky daddy. The statement you have made is merely your own opinion, and it's one that not everybody shares. Furthermore, we do not have reliable sources regarding his religion. Previous attempts to add "Juche" as a religion to the pages of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were also reverted because there are no reliable sources that state that Juche is a religion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Seconded. As a living, breathing example that religion isn't "the most important thing about[...]any person," I couldn't have said it better myself. Rockhead126 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"...only you and like-minded people share 'alone'"? Whatever beliefs to which one is bound (*religio-*) comprise his or her religion. Everyone has such important beliefs. They are the kind of beliefs which are necessary on the basis of which to argue against others' religious beliefs. The beliefs of Kim Jong-un which are most important to him should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs)
Alright then. Find me a reliable source that tells me what he believes in then. We obviously haven't found one yet; why don't you help us figure out what his religion is. I certainly don't know what it is; it's not like I can call his phone and ask him. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC) CJ: Fair enough; I think there's a talk section on this article which explores that further.
Religion is important to some people, unimportant to others, and sometimes not present at all. It is more than possible that a supreme leader of a brain-washed country might not admit to a belief in any power higher than himself, so as to allow his subjects to venerate him in lieu of a less tangible deity. Such an attitude might also make it unlikely for him to express a belief that deities do not exist, for similar reasons. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's false that "religion is...unimportant to others." This comment presupposes that Christianity is false. It's not a neutral comment. According to Christianity, unbelievers know God but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Ro 1.18)
I don't know how one could not see that belief in or denial of an Infinite, Personal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-controlling, self-contained, self-revelatory Creator God conditions everything he or she believes about anything else.
Again, "How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments?"
Cj3061 ( talk) 19:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)cj3061 4-25-2014
This can be uploaded to Commons and used here. Go for it Nope...don't. It is not CC as indicated as another person has pointed out it was an image lifted from a newspaper.--
Maleko Mela (
talk)
21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What's the copyright status on
these photos from the barbershop that put up a poster of KJU? Since the UK is a country with freedom of panorama, wouldn't this technically fall under the same rationale for using a cropped photo of a public portrait on Kim Il Sung's page? Do we know about the copyright of whoever made the Kim Il Sung portrait? No, but it's apparently irrelevant under freedom of panorama.
Schvass (
talk)
14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What about this image on Commons? thumb Ocaasi t | c 23:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
if you could put Kim Jong Un picture on his politician page, i would appreciate it. thanks so much for your consideration! Josh Brannon
107.220.148.162 ( talk) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done - As explained above we can find no copyright free picture to use. -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Swagginddgjdigj ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) he was the biggest loser winner of 20000123456789x on earthbound and he also won how babies are made on the planet 3042894982 and he died in 3920192382048120=48=12842=
This report has been verified by several South Korean reporters. Kim Jung-Un reportedly purchased and had this restored 1955 Chevy imported thru various countries to finally get it into North Korea. One South Korean reporter said other North Korean high ranking official was very unhappy about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.217.179 ( talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Although there has been feverish international media attention on this issue, I don't think it needs much expansion based on what we know (as opposed to what is speculated). I trimmed the information significantly now that Kim has re-emerged. However, this has immediately been expanded. I don't think this is very notable, and unless health problems reoccur, I think the incident will become less significant over time. Wikipedia is not news.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be trimmed,but it could turn out to be a permanent issue such as Gout, and that would be very notable. I believe that it should be at least mentioned in the article as he is now using a walking stick which denotes a moderate disability, temporary or no. Until such confirmation, I think it should be trimmed and a wait and see attitude adopted. 75.130.155.203 ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should have this section. There are many speculative reports and rumours about North Korea, and this is just one of them.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dennmann57 ( talk) 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) The difference between North and South Korea? In South Korea the people are fat and the leaders skinny.....
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I discovered an error on this page. In the first paragraph on this page, the text states: "He is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il and his consort Ko Young-hee."
Citation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5428300/Kim-Jong-un-a-profile-of-North-Koreas-next-leader.html
However, at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled "Early Life and Education," the following sentence contradicts the earlier statement: "Kim Jong-Un was the second of three children Ko Yong-hui borne to Kim Jong-Il, his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong is believed to have been born in 1987."
Citations: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2957573 https://nkleadershipwatch.wordpress.com/kji-2/kim-yo-jong/
New comment from DrJulieSunny on 12/3/14 I'm new to this stuff (sorry). Thank you for asking for clarification. My specific question is: Is Kim Jong-un the third and youngest son (1st citation/1st reference to his biological family) of his parents or the 2nd of 3 children (with an older brother and younger sister - see 2nd citation link/2nd reference)? I requested an amendment to this conflicting information because I'm not very informed on this topic and I don't have the answer myself. I'm wondering if any other readers have observed this inconsistency. Thank you!
Drjuliesunny ( talk) 04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Drjuliesunny ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The change would be, I think, to pick one correct description of his mother's name and his place in the family. Does anyone know the truth of this? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 04:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the picture....hes not a portrait.... 2601:9:8500:1503:646C:D97B:5A11:3803 ( talk) 08:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As demonstrated aptly by the recent NK government hacking of Sony to prevent the release of a film mocking him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.163 ( talk) 04:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/where-is-n-koreas-sense-of-humor . I agree with this user concerning his sense of humour, it should be mentioned if it is a significant part of his personality (to be humourless) or causes irrational statements/actions.
Why is there no mention of the widely publicised addiction to Swiss cheese? Often cited as a cause of his numerous health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.72 ( talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose including speculation about medical conditions referenced to articles that cite unnamed North Korean sources. These sources do not meet our standards for biographies of living people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/asia/kim-jong-un-birthday/index.html very clearly says "There is a lot of debate about the year he was born," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute, a Korean think tank. "Some say it is 1984 while others say is '83 or '82." Unusually I propose that the ambiguity be put in the article - both the text and infobox. Legacypac ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not informed about wikipedia's biographical standards but I think the UN report discussed in the article (and at greater length here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea) should be mentioned in the introduction. Specifically, it should be noted that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights warned Kim that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/world/asia/north-korea-un-report/) based on hundreds of first-hand interviews documenting "unspeakable atrocities" committed by his government and that an estimated 150,000-200,000 political prisoners are being held in concentration camps under his regime.
Much of the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the current introduction should be moved lower in the article. His university degrees, his ranking on Forbes lists, and potential involvement in the Sony hacking are all less 1st order than the above human rights violations.
If someone comes to this article and reads only the introduction it is more important that they be made aware of these human rights violations than that he has a physics degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.167.197 ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason The Interview has an entire paragraph in the lead, but nothing in the body of the article? Although the movie is in the news currently and Kim is the subject of the film, I feel like there could be a section like "Media portrayal" that mentions this movie and other portrayals of him in films, news media, etc. It could also link to the article about the Sony hack and mention that North Korea was accused of perpetrating the attack. I feel like the article as a whole could use some reorganization as far as its section structure goes, but this would be a start. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In terms of power, Kim was ranked "the third highest among Koreans after Ban Ki-moon and Lee Kun-hee," according to the lead. Isn't this a silly claim? Neither Ban nor Lee command an army or a country, nor can they execute inconvenient family members. NotUnusual ( talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed in the latest edit that there was a change to American English, but there are still instances of words like 'favoured' and 'honour' used in the article. If you have a preference for one or the other, please indicate below with any arguments for your position and we can include the appropriate tag at the top of this talk page. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to American English and added a tag at the top of this talk page. That way it'll be consistent per WP:ARTCON. There were some users taking both sides above, but as user Snow Rise said, this isn't a particularly contentious point even for an article of this sort. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|image = Zjw333 ( talk) 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Kim Jong-un has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is not the place to show someone's ugly sketch, please revert back to Kim's real portrait. 2601:9:8500:1503:154E:2596:E387:CCFF ( talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any source that he is an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:562:5A01:450B:1684:19B0:2648 ( talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be hard to find one that isn't copyrighted. However, the page's "locked down" condition makes it impossible for most Wikipedeans to simply add a pic ourselves. RobertLovesPi ( talk) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Then what if someone just drew a sketch of KJU? Would that be un-professional? Or still non-free because all known photos of KJU are non-free, and it would have to be based on a non-free photo? Schvass ( talk) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I see a photo on flickr here in which has a creative commons license. Would it be possible to upload this photo to Commons?— Michael Jester ( talk · contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that we have more options for freely-licensed drawings of Kim Jong-Un. They were sketched by members of the Reddit community r/ICanDrawThat. They are hosted on Flickr under Creative Commons here and here, however the latter doesn't allow for commercial-use- an issue that I'm addressing. What do you think of these new options? Note: I'm using a throw-away so I don't link my Reddit account with my Wikipedia account which uses my real name. Thanks, F0064r ( talk) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let just say that as a casual observer I find you people as we say on the internets, retarded.
Common sense should be the guiding principle in all things and I think the majority of readers would agree with me that even taking a copyrighted picture would be acceptable here even if it didn't fall under fair use which it does. Ridicilous. A random dude made a random sketch of a world leader...what an encyclopedia
213.100.108.117 (
talk)
14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the international copyright info page at Wikimedia Commons [7], material from the NK government should be copyright-free, right?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#North_Korea
- P388388 ( talk) 10:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well that is frustrating. I do think a modern world leader should be represented with a more photo-like image.
Here's one I drew for you guys, if you want to use it. It's not perfect, but hopefully closer than what's there now. - P388388 ( talk) 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Feel free to play with the image and see if you can improve. My goal was to make it as photo-like as possible, but not so photo-like that it could be mistaken for a real photo. I wouldn't feel right about having a "faked" photo on Wikipedia, if that makes sense. In other news, it's possible that Kim may visit Moscow for ceremonies commemorating the end of WWII, so hopefully someone there can get a real photo then. - P388388 ( talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
[8] Jong-Un is visiting Russia in May, and from likely state visits with Putin, we'll likely be able to get a free photograph as we had with Jong-Il. -- MASEM ( t) 07:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been countless suggestions on how to obtain the elusive free license photo of Kim Jong-un that we need.
Attempts at this have ranged from calling the DPRK UN representative and asking them to publish a KCNA photo under a free license, stipulating whether Dennis Rodman might want to publish photos from his private collection under a free license, to the ultimate absurdity: 'why don't you go there and snap a photo of Kim yourself'. I might have found a new way which combines the best, and not the worst, features of these attempts.
What went wrong with the DPRK UN representative's office is that they didn't understand why it's important for us to get a photo with a certain license, rather than just getting a photo. And even if they did, they're not KCNA and they don't own the license so as to change it to a free one. Rodman, in turn is a busy man and his private collection is likely to remain so. Going to DPRK by yourself of course is possible but running into Kim is highly unlikely
Now, if only there was a (Western) media organization that understands licensing, deals with publishing and distributing photos or videos, and has caught Kim on camera (the overwhelming majority of Western news agency published photos are KCNA photos distributed with or without permission). Well, there is one: Vice News. Vice went to DPRK (during the Rodman trip, which explains why Kim showed up) and they have footage of Kim that they shot themselves.
Since Vice is a media organization, safeguarding their intellectual property is what they do for a living. This is important for two reasons. First, they (unlike the DPRK UN representative's office) will know what a free license is and why we want one, and second, they know when it doesn't hurt them to release a tiny fraction of their material under such a license. Vice may be an easier party to contact with inquiries than the DPRK UN mission, KCNA, or Rodman. It's their job to answer inquiries concerning their intellectual property, and there is likely to be no language or cultural barrier.
If someone asked Vice to release a single still frame of their original footage under a free license, we could have our photo. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC), modified by Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
Please add a new image of Kim Jong-un that will hopefully remain on this site. -- Mr. AWA ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)