Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Renewed discussion

I just have a quick question, being a bit of a walk-in to what seems to have been a...colorful discussion on a decidedly colorful man. Is it completely necessary to say right off the bat "Kim Jong-il's official biography says this. What really happened is this."? If his biography's nonsense, why bother quoting it at all? I've never seen an encyclopedia quote a source that was known to be false before, unless it was absolutely integral to the subject. This seems to just be rather of a non sequitur designed to make the reader think he's a conniving, lying bastard right off the bat - surely, as they read deeper into even a balanced account of his life, they would come to that truth on their own, eh? This not mentioning that it just looks a touch fishy on account of the fact that "what really happened" is neither sourced nor cited, so the one source that is provided is one that we're immediately told cannot be trusted. That's not a very good way to set a reader off, is it?

Also, just as an aside, I have to know who does his hair!  ;) Wally 06:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The wording probably originated as a concession to Stalinist propagandists like User:172 who spent weeks opposing any suggestion that Kim is anything less than the greatest hero of modern times etc. The rest of us would prefer an article that simply ignores the regime's propaganda and states what facts are known, but the persistent revert wars of the Stalinists makes this impossible (see for another example Khmer Rouge). (The hair is by Pierre de Pyongyang.) Adam 07:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uh...okay. So if one is to interpret that (and, additionally, the entire archive of this talk page) and remove each and every piece of BS, it would read, "We had irreconcilable differences and thus no one bothered to change it," yes?

Given that, does anyone have any sincere objections to a change on that paragraph? I don't know who wrote it or what their motivation was, but it just reads far too cynically for my taste. Wally 23:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Changes to articles relating to the DPRK usually start a war with the Friends of Stalinism (User:172, Hon Sec), so proceed at your own risk. Adam 01:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know that many people here yet, so lemme see if I consider them Friends of Stalin before I have to worry about getting the idea and then cognitive dissonance later, eh? :P In any case, let me give a little tinker and we'll see after what you all think. Wally 02:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your intentions to approach me with an open mind. I respect your efforts to avoid presupposing others. I'd let it go at that, but Adam Carr put me in the awkward bind of having to defend myself from personal attacks. For now I'll just speak for myself, and you can make up you own mind as time goes on. From my experiences with Adam, I've seen him deliberately pick fights with users who urge him to write and behave neutrally. IMO, he's made hurling a repertoire of ad hominems (e.g., "Old Left shellbacks," "apologist for Stalinist regimes," "stalinoid propagandists," "Stalinist propagandists," "Friends of Stalin" - just to name his choice attacks solely from this article) his modus operandi when dealing not only with me, but with anyone else who's even mildly critical of him.
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I've observed many users take him at his word. He consistently misrepresents my positions in statements to others. Notice, e.g., the summary of Adam's 15:17, 4 Mar 2004 revision of Kim Jong-il. He wrote, "accepting some of 172's minor edits on points of no consequence. rejecting his re-insertion of Stalinist propaganda, and will continue to do so." My summary in the preceding 14:24, 4 Mar 2004 version had been, "Rv - You are a LIAR. The issue is your biased treatment of the Sunshine Policy, not pro-Kim Jong Il material." Just to get an idea about where I was coming from, notice the difference between our versions. You wouldn't pick it up from observing Adam's browbeating, but I was trying to balance his hopelessly biased treatment of South Korea's "Sunshine Policy."
So strangely enough, Adam's idea of "Stalinist propaganda" was my attempt to balance his unfair treatment of the handling of foreign policy in the Korean peninsula by Kim Dae-jung, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, etc. He calls me a "stalinoid propagandist" for supporting Kim Dae-jung and Clinton administration policies toward the DPRK. One can say what he wants about these policies, but IMHO Adam doesn't have his head screwed on correctly if he's drawing such conclusions in this context.
I'm just speaking from the standpoint of my experiences, but I do see a pattern going on for months of harassment and intimidation employed in order to advance a political agenda. In this talk archive, Adam effectively calls for immediate war with the DPRK. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that my abuse resulted from my opposition to his to turn this article into a pro-war advocacy piece. 172 05:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Follow-up: there's my opening shot. I feel that the change I've made restores the integrity of the pragraph whilst maintaining the salient points on Kim's early life, presenting it in a factual and unbiased manner and, at the same time, warning the reader of the amount of discord and debate on the subject. Please let me know any relevant thoughts. Wally 02:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that statements from his official biography should be removed. The claims made by the DPRK are part of the phenomenon and illustrate the cult of personality they have made for him. Should I say that you capitalist propaganidists are purposely trying to defame Kim? He was born in a log cabin dammit! --Jiang 03:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, being an avowed democratic socialist, it would be very hard indeed for me to capitalistically propogandize against Mr. Kim. However, the manner in which the official biography was quoted was only insofar as was necessary to discredit it; in that we can all likely agree that the source is not valid, there is no need at all to quote it, or even mention it's (suspected) false, merely that there's been quite a bit of discord on the subject. As for the personality cult, I feel that's articulated clearly already, in so many words, in fact. Nevertheless, if you still feel it's necessary to include, perhaps a minor "cameo" notation can be arranged - put the bio someplace where it won't cause any trouble. Wally 04:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re User:172's edit above:

  • The epithets that I directed at 172 are perfectly accurate descriptions of his political position (not "personal attacks"), and I am puzzled that he bothers denying them. When I was a Maoist/Stalinist (30 years ago now), I was proud of it, and proclaimed my politics openly. But 172 hides behind weasel-words and euphemisms: obviously today's Stalinists are not the fearless proletarian revolutionaries we were.
  • His stuff about Kim Dae-jung is of course nonsense, as I pointed out somewhere far above on this page. My edits were all directed at 172's attempts to falsify the record of Kim Jong-Il and his regime, but apparently 172 is too gutless to defend his Dear Leader openly and resorts to this smokescreen on an irrelevant issue. It's all a bit sad, really. Adam 05:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, my party registration is Democratic and I vote Democratic. This has been the case since having first registered years ago. I'm also living on the payroll of the State of Florida. I wonder if your grounding in reality has worsened since your Stalinist days. When ex-Marxists move to the right, they don't do it half-assed. 172 06:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seems I've stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest here. And all I wanted to do was be a productive member of the community and contribute to an article. Silly me.

For the record, while some may easily be swayed by a loud and urgent voice, I am not such a person, so neither you, 172, nor you, Adam, has cause to worry about the other being able to defame themselves in my mind; only an idiot, dullard and moron would allow one person to sully their opinion of another whom they don't even know. I suspect, however, that addressing me is rather of a smokescreen to justify the continuing of the verbal Jutland you two have been engaging in for some time (having read the talk page and archive, I'm now familiar with the disputes, which I'm not entirely sure did anything good for my intelligence level). To whit, I don't think I can declare myself very much surprised that most of the editors of this article have been driven off. No Man's Land is not a pleasant place to be.

I think everyone should be cognizant of the fact that the request was for comments on my revision; what I got seemed to be a pair of well-worded but ham-handed attempts at a pre-emptive strike against the other that resulted in what looks like an episode of Jerry Springer, which makes me wonder which of you stole the other's woman, or man, or is pregnant with Giuseppe the Pool Boy's baby.

Forgive me if I am out of line here, but new as I may be I am an intelligent person who values free-form debate for the purpose of gaining consensus and exploring ideas, as you two clearly are and do as well. But this...I know not what this is, but it is not debate, and it is not intelligent, and it is certainly not expository or a consensus. If this article is to be the best it can, and far be it for me to say what that is, cooperation will clearly reign superior over competition. This is not to mention the disconcerting nature of the fact that two authors whose work I've come to regard so highly during long hours of reading the Wikipedia - yours on the Australian political system (especially the Whitlam Dismissal), Adam, and yours on the History of the United States, 172 - could be engaged in such an embarassing catfight.

I think it's worth acknowledging, 172, that perhaps Adam simply doesn't regard "Stalinist apologist" or whatever as a perjorative statement, but rather as a factual one, divorced of the baggage one might attach themselves upon hearing it. Not being acquainted with your political beliefs, I cannot speak to the truth of the title - or accusation, if you'd like to see it as such - but perhaps his calling you that did come from a calm, studious, and balanced reading of your collection of beliefs that simply lent themselves to that conclusion, which was duly delivered not thinking it was anything worthy of shame, but simply another boat on the lake. Due to that, you should not immediately react "Oh God, how could you say that, you're so wrong...!" etc. Perhaps just kindly point out that you don't see yourself as possessing such an ideology. Denying it so vigorously and polemically makes it look like you're hiding something, and through the denial lesser people think you guilty. Maybe the lack of respect from him is not from beliefs, but from perceived inability to stand by and support them barring a reasonable refutation from you.

I also think it's worth acknowledging, Adam, that if 172 says he is not a Stalinist, or a communist, or whatever, then he isn't and should be taken at his word. No matter what you may think of the views - and seeing that you're an Australian Labor person, I don't think you can be that reactionary - if 172 does not wish to call them "Stalinist", whether they are or are not do not force the term on him. Either you're wrong and he's not, or you're right and he just lives in denial, no sweat off your back. If he admires Stalin, fine, you'll never change his mind and he'll never gain any political power with such a view, so you're both covered. Not only that, but I don't like walking into a discussion and hearing the first thing out of someone mouth as "X is a Communist/Stalinish apologist/Marxist fascist/dog-worshipping limousine liberal/avowed foot fetishist". This information is not really relevant to a newcomer to this page. To be honest, and I'm saying this strictly objectively, it did indeed look like an ad hominem attack to me, and it did look like you were hitting first to try to capture my opinion. I'm flattered, surely, but it wasn't necessary. If either of you were that bad, which I do not at all think you are, I would have discovered on my own and hated you all the same.

I have a bit of a radical idea to deal with this problem, which may not have been tried before but, who the hell knows, might be effective if you two are willing to take a little time and impress a newbie with the brilliance of your prose (which, as I've said, I do admire from reading your work). Each of you write, seperately, exactly what you want the page to be, in a Word document or something, who knows. Just write it all out. Exactly what you'd like to say, if you were the benevolent dictator of this page. Then, send them to someone you trust to be neutral for a look and a compare/contrast. I think the results would probably surprise you. If it succeeds, you gain a bucketload of new insight, and if it fails, you've spent an hour of your life on writing instead of bickering.

Forgive my boldness. I do realize I'm a new person stepping into a minefield, and I have not an ounce to every pound of experience either one of you has here at Wikipedia. You can rest assured that I am sufficiently embarassed at bludgeoning myself in here in such a way. However, lack of experience is no excuse for silence, nor is it one for not trying to seperate two writers sufficiently brilliant that their brains have shut down and their egos taken to the sword and shield. Nonetheless, if you'd prefer I just exit and leave the article to the two of you, I'd be more than happy. I certainly could not do nearly so well as either of you, putting your mind to it and committing yourself to a neutral assessment of this...interesting character. However, I would like to help, and I think a step on that path is getting you to acknowledge that neither is the other an idiot, nor a criminal, nor a genocidal maniac, etc. etc.

Now, either of you have any comments on my revision of the opening paragraph? :) Wally 06:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, Wally! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thought provoking and earnest reflections of your experiences on the site. Your Jerry Springer episode crack was right on target especially. Having gotten used to the Springer-like atmosphere (this article isn't alone by any means), it's all the more refreshing to see such a mature, reasonable, and conciliatory posting on WP. I'm very willing to accept your advice if Adam can reciprocate that. 172 07:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wally, I appreciate your sentiments, but I would make several points:

  • Comments as long as the one you just made tend not to get read.
  • 172 has never actually denied that he is a Stalinist. He has said only that he is a registered Democrat. So is Lyndon LaRouche. Anyone can be a registered Democrat. I judge 172's politics by the edits he makes to articles relating to the DPRK, which have been entirely consistent and could only have been made by someone whose fundamental objective is to prevent criticism of Kim's regime, the most tyrannical totalitarian government in the world.
  • I by contast see my role at Wikipedia generally, and here in particular, as trying to write articles which tell the truth about their subjects, within the general western intellectual and moral framework. I frequently make mistakes of fact and judgement, but I do not, unlike 172 and his colleagues such as Lance Murdoch etc, engage in systematic and deliberate evasion of the truth.

Adam 07:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is anything still disputed in this article, or is this now just a personality feud? Ambivalenthysteria 08:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's just a personality feud. Wally hit it on the head when he said that this looks like an episode of Jerry Springer. I asked Adam if he'd want to give User:Wally's advice a change, but apparently he flippantly brushed off his posting and started throwing chairs again. 172 08:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, it is a discussion of the political and editorial differences between me and 172. It cannot be a "personality feud" since I know nothing about 172's personality. It is not currently linked to an actual dispute over the content of the article, since 172 knows I will revert him if he again tries to reStalinise this article. As to Wally's proposal, as I have said before I am reasonably happy with the article as it stands, since I in fact won most of the edit wars with 172. But I would be happy to do another edit of it and place it in a neutral location for comment. Adam 08:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you don't knock off your McCarthyite bullying, then I'm going to report you to a wider audience. I'm not a Stalinist, and this ought to be apparent to any well-informed, intelligent WP user who's dealt with me as extensively as you have. I wonder what kind of disorder is causing your delusions. 172 08:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, 172 now says on the record that he is not a Stalinist. I am happy to accept that. (I will not bother asking him to retract his statements that I am a Nazi.) That does not absolve him of the charge that he is an apologist for Stalinism, and specifically an apologist for the DPRK regime, which is in fact the charge that I have consistently made and which I still make. Any "well-informed, intelligent WP user" who reads back through the history of this article will see that accusation amply justified. Adam 09:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172 also said on the record that "Adam and I differ on how we'd like to bring an end to this regime." That doesn't sound like an apologist for the DPRK regime. --Wik 09:43, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that he has been inconsistent about that. When pressed, he has said that he disapproves of Kim's regime. But he has consistently edited the article in a contrary sense, and accused those who have taken him to task over this of being Nazis, fascists and McCarthyists. Adam 10:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, thank you for your kind words, they are very much appreciated. Adam, the reason I wrote something as long as I did was because I think everyone here is adult enough to read through one, and take the salient points from it. It seems that some of them have been lost. Let me, thus, put it in small words for easy comprehension:

  • Adam, I may be new, but I don't think you "win" edit wars. The point is to collectively create a solid article with relevant details on a person's life. Together. How you "win" that I fail to see. Also, don't say, "Fine, he's not a Stalinist - but he is a Stalin apologist!" That's just quibbling and pedantry of the sort that is, frankly, beneath you, not to mention everyone else here. We're not even talking about bloody Stalin. Just accept what he says and move on. Besides, you say he's a Democrat, and so was Lyndon LaRouche. So was Strom Thurmond. So was Jeff Davis. Having worked quite a bit for the Democrats, I can attest that it's just as likely - far more, I should say - that he's towards the right of the spectrum than to the left. Democratic politics lend themselves to little generalization.
  • 172, don't provoke further by even insulting back. There's a "sticks and stones" thing that comes into play. Frankly, I don't think legions are being apprised through this of your "seedy Communist underlife" and picking up torches to come after you. It only makes it worse. Just do as above and respectfully deny his labels, which he seems to receive, after a fashion. You two are too much in-demand as writers here to be at odds for too long. I can't see the community standing for it. Also, don't make your agreement to anything contingent upon his - you lead the way.

And BOTH of you, for the love of God stop adding fuel to the fire. This is not getting anywhere. I want to talk about Kim Jong-il. That's the purpose of this place. There are good changes that can be made. Let's make them and do it in a truthful, readable and entertaining way. Wally 16:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The curious thing to me is that both Adam and 172 purport to be professionals, yet repeatedly say and do unprofessional things. WPers sometimes wish for involvement by more professionals, but after seeing these two go at it, I really wonder about the standard of behavior in history departments these days. Stan 20:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stalinist behavior

Isn't it typical of Stalinists to want to try to rewrite history? The deletion by 172 of my comments from this page is just an example of that. It is completely unacceptable for other users to delete a user's comments from Talk pages, but that doesn't stop 172 from behaving that way. RickK | Talk 18:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the question of professionalism, let me say this: when dealing with other people who maintain professional standards of intellectual discourse, I am (usually) a model of courtesy. 172 is not such a person, he is a propagandist. As an ex-communist myself I know how such people operate. They have to be handled according to a different set of rules. If Wikpedia is allowed to become a playpen for these people, it will lose all credibility, and no-one who cares about their reputation will either write for it it or cite it, which would be a tragedy. That is why 172 and Hanpuk and their ilk have to be vigorously opposed. Adam 01:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Well, that has all the maturity of "Mommy, he did it to me first!" Stan 06:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Stan, I will conduct my political disputes as I see fit. Adam 06:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

HG Wells said, "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." What have you to be jealous of? You certainly have great vigor, sir, and it embarasses you and defames your character in the name of a cause of hazy justification. Could you by any chance leave it be, and refrain from calling in reinforcements, so some discussion could actually occur as to the composition of the article? I really would like some points on my revision, which I have not thus far received. Wally 01:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you had produced a revision. Where is it? Adam 02:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's this, in the opening paragraph:

"Differing and extremely varied accounts exist of the entirety of Kim's life, including his birth, and many if not all of the sources involved have been subject to heated criticism (some but not all of which is politically-motivated). Nevertheless it's generally agreed that he was born in an army camp near Khabarovsk in the Soviet Union, where his father, Kim Il-Sung, was an important figure among Korean Communist exiles. During his boyhood, the younger Kim was referred to by local Russians as "Yura"."

Which was changed from:

"Kim's official biography says that he was born in a log cabin at the base of Mount Paektu while his father, Kim Il-sung, was leading a guerilla struggle against the Japanese. He was in fact born in an army camp near Khabarovsk in the eastern Soviet Union, where Kim Il-sung was a leading figure among the exiled Korean Communists, though not yet the leader of the Korean Communist Party. The Russians referred to young Jong-il by the name "Yura.""

And which I presaged here:

"In any case, let me give a little tinker and we'll see after what you all think."

And subsequently noted here:

"Follow-up: there's my opening shot. I feel that the change I've made restores the integrity of the pragraph whilst maintaining the salient points on Kim's early life, presenting it in a factual and unbiased manner and, at the same time, warning the reader of the amount of discord and debate on the subject. Please let me know any relevant thoughts."

And then here:

"Now, either of you have any comments on my revision of the opening paragraph? :)"

Which makes me wonder if you actually read anything I've written on this page thus far, or were too focused upon wrangling with 172 about various pedantries. Wally 03:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were refering only to your changes to the opening paragraph. My comments are:

I think your first sentence is a bit wordy and a bit of an exaggeration. It would be sufficient to say "Many of the facts of Kim's life are disputed." When you say "it's generally agreed" that he was born in Khabarovsk, it is of course not agreed by the DPRK, which says he was born inside Korea. This is an important matter since it touches on both his status as a native-born Korean and his father's status as a guerilla leader. That is why the original paragraph mentioned this issue. I don't know where the reference to his boyhood name came from (not from me), but I don't think it is important.

I would thus write: "Many of the facts of Kim's life are disputed. For example, his official biography says that he was born in northern Korea while his father, Kim Il-sung, was leading a guerilla struggle against the Japanese. Writers outside Korea generally agree that he was born in an army camp near Khabarovsk in the Soviet Union, where Kim Il-Sung was an important figure among Korean Communist exiles."

Adam 03:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response to Stan

The curious thing to me is that both Adam and 172 purport to be professionals, yet repeatedly say and do unprofessional things. WPers sometimes wish for involvement by more professionals, but after seeing these two go at it, I really wonder about the standard of behavior in history departments these days. Stan 20:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stan,

I appreciate your comments. However, please reread the recent talk page postings more closely. I asked Adam if he'd be willing to go along with advice by User:Ambivalenthysteria and User:Wally, and he brushed them off. So it's clear I'm the one who wants this feud to stop, while Adam's the one who wants it to continue. I consider bickering with him a complete waste of time unless I have content concerns. But I cannot stay away from this talk page. It would be quite gutless for me not to defend myself from his lies and slander.

The very premise that there's a conflict between a "pro-Kim Jong-il" user (172) and an "anti-Kim Jong-il" (Adam) user is Adam's delusional fantasy. By misrepresenting my stance over and over again, he hopes to discredit me. For the reality, compare the difference between Adam's 15:17, 4 Mar 2004 revision and my 14:24, 4 Mar 2004 version. Adam was POVing content related to South Korea's Sunshine Policy and the handling of foreign policy in the Korean peninsula by the Clinton administration. For the sake of full disclosure, I voted for Clinton twice. Although he's not my favorite Democrat, I give credit to Clinton, along with Carter (who visited the DPRK in '94), Albright, etc. for defusing tensions in East Asia. So this is my POV. Adam has to be fundamentally delusional if he concludes from this that I'm 'defending my Dear Leader.'

Adam isn't an idiot, so perhaps he's just trying to POV the article by any means necessary. If you want to see Adam's POV, check the talk archive here. He's more of a hard-liner on the DPRK than the Bush Administration. I liked Clinton's approach. He wanted to propagandize this article, and I tried to stop him. That's why he's going after me.

User:Wik has also picked up on the baseless nature of Adam's slander. Note:

172 also said on the record that "Adam and I differ on how we'd like to bring an end to this regime." That doesn't sound like an apologist for the DPRK regime. --Wik 09:43, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate help from you and other users. Is there a way to force Adam to quit harassing people (I'm not his only target)? He gets off on going after people, and will not stop out of consideration to other users who want to write an encyclopedia rather than wage blood-feuds. If I don't have to be put in the position of having to defend myself from a smear campaign, the nonsense on this talk page will stop. 172 07:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ROFL Adam 07:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FUD from Adam. 172 07:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, you two could agree to mediation. If not, there's always the Arbitration Committee to decide who's in-bounds and who's out-of-bounds. Stan 14:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me, based on a look at the history edit referred to by 172 above, that it wouldn't be too hard to fit both perspectives in there. The edits didn't seem to be too mutually exclusive to me. Ambivalenthysteria 08:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I am reasonably happy with the article as it stands, so I don't think there is anything to mediate or arbitrate at present. All we are doing here is chewing over old arguments, which I am happy to stop doing. I think 172 is an apologist for Kim Jong-il, and he thinks I am a Nazi, and I doubt either of these views is going to be changed by mediation. So long as the article is not dragged back to its old state, I will now gracefully retire from this page: I have my hands full annexing the Sudetenland. Adam 14:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Off-topic debate about process issues

Although I bet that I'm going to hear some more bullshit about this, I reverted the recent edits by User:Barbara Shack. She's made writing about these reports a pet project of hers on WP, but is very sloopy when it comes to noting and analyzing the sources. It's hard to be sure about anything when you're dealing with a country that, e.g., raises a 105-story hotel complex, but leaves it empty since completing work in '91 (Pyongyang isn't one of the world's more bustling tourist destinations). Any news, good or bad, from the DPRK is suspect. 172 00:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with 172. I am not in favour of putting undocumented atrocity stories in articles. Barbara's spelling does not inspire confidence. Adam 02:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You know, I think it's worth noting that you might do better querying a person as to their changes rather than first belitting them and then changing them back to what you liked. It's entirely possible that this person had a valid point to make, and simply made it in an ineffective way. You two seem so revert-happy, I have to wonder. Wally 02:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep, the WP software should not allow reversion of an edit by a registered user without the prior agreement of the user - too easy to just revert changes without looking at them. 172 reverted a grammar fix by Barbara for instance, Everyking had to put it back. And of course the irony of saying "Any news, good or bad, from the DPRK is suspect" and yet filling this article with that very same suspect material... Stan 05:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that you're overreacting a bit. If you disagree with a change, you can post a note on the talk page. It only takes seconds to restore an earlier version. Every article is indefinitely a work in progress and open for discussion. It's not like I edited the article minutes before a publication deadline. 172 06:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The WP software should not allow reversion of an edit by a registered user without the prior agreement of the user". Stan, you know that would render WP completely unworkable. Every crackpot edit (and there are thousands every day) would be permanently included in every article. Adam 05:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. WP would be left about as productive as a North Korean collective farm if Stan's idea were tried out. 172 06:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"If you disagree with a change, you can post a note on the talk page" - how about doing that before reverting somebody, rather than after. Reverting without prior discussion is a completely cowardly practice. For anon vandalism, sure, I do that kind of reversion every day, but for good-faith edits by registered users, reversion is usually used as a way to avoid discussion, hoping that the person won't notice the reversion, goes away, whatever. If the person is a crackpot, prove they're crackpots via the talk page, get agreement from other editors about how to edit the page, and then move the crackpot material to a part of the article entited "Crackpot Beliefs". If this seems like a lot of trouble, well, topics that attract crackpots are going to do so repeatedly forever, so it's going to be more sustainable to provide a bounded area where the strange ideas can be aired, ringed with caveats for the average reader who wishes to enter. (I can't believe this is too subtle of a concept for people to have figured out on their own...) Stan 16:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The edit to the article and the note on the talk page were completed within minutes of each other. Since there wasn't an ongoing edit war, it's no big deal that the note on the talk page came a minute or two after the edit to the article, rather than the other way around. If you have a problem with the substance of the article after the revert, please state it already. 172 22:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but to me, "discussion" means more than a note on the talk page, irrespective of whether it's posted three microseconds before or after the revert. For instance, the thing you reverted was a link to a whole article; that article has been worked on by a number of people, it has documentation (more than than in some of your articles in fact), and it is linked to from several other places. So if the content is as problematic as you're saying, delinking it from one article is not a solution to the problem; it should be delinked from everywhere, put on VfD, etc. I don't have an opinion on the content itself, I just object to the cowardly approach taken towards dealing with another editor. Stan 23:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But there isn't a discussion. Among the users who've been using the talk page, Adam is okay with the changes, Wally's stance is unclear, your stance is unclear, and I still favor my changes. I'm up for discussion, but I cannot be faulted for not being able to find someone with whom to discuss these changes in the first place. IMO, it seems like you're just trying to find any excuse to attack me. 172 23:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, how about Barbara Stack for openers? She has a talk page, you know. If this article is not on her watchlist, she may still be unaware that her addition was deleted. I was on WP for several months before I discovered that people were deleting some of my work "behind my back" because I wasn't watching some pages. Stan 04:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My stance is a) I wanted to make a single edit, which I did, and get some substantive critique on it, which I did (after a fashion and 27 words of argument here for every one in the change) and b) I want the editing of this article to be open to everyone who might have something to contribute. You keep talking about all these pages in your watch list that you wrote and are so proud of and whatever - good job, but they're not YOUR pages. They're OUR pages, EVERYONE'S pages. You shouldn't just troll around whatever you've written defensively shunting off whatever edits are made simply because they contravene your overarching wisdom and knowledge. If you don't have time to explain errors to people who make them in bona fide edits rather than just reverting them, then maybe you're doing and investing too much in your own work. Wally 18:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well Wally, perhaps I will drop by Unification of Sweden (a subject about which I know nothing) sometime and make a lot of ungammatical, ill-informed and tendentious edits, and do that for, say, five days running, and see how you like it. I'm prepared to bet that by day 3 you'll be unceremoniously reverting me just as I do at articles I have written. Adam 04:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You'd do better to troll at assassin, Leo Ryan or Siege of Vienna - those are and have been my major projects. Unification was an article of someone else's I cleaned up, thank you very much. And forgive me if I say that it's a little said to be so compulsively-attached to one's own work; almost a sort of paranoid narcissism. I don't check articles I've written constantly to make sure they're not changed against my liking; if it's a good change, it stays, regardless of my feeling, and I check back occasionally to see how they are. But deliberately scaring others away just so you'll have the sandbox to yourself is...well, that's something else. In the words of Judge Judy, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Wally 00:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In all fairness to Adam, I think that he means that he's concerned with maintaining the quality of articles that he's capable of monitoring. A large share, if not the vast majority of regular users keep tabs on their watchlist for that reason. 172 06:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stan's view is a bit unrealistic IMHO. I have over 400 articles on my watchlist - articles that I have mostly or entirely written, or made contributions to (like this one), and feel responsible for. Every morning there are up to 50 edits to these articles I have to look at (on my employer's time!). A few are genuine improvements, which I am grateful for. But most of them are (a) vandalism (b) crank edits (c) edits which are factually wrong (d) insertion of POV. Anyone who regularly writes for WP knows this is the case. I just don't have enough hours in my day to debate all these edits with all these people, particularly since many of them are the same people making the same silly edits over and over. So I just revert them, with a note in the Talk page for the more rational of them (ie non-malicious errors of fact). My observation is that this is the standard practice by most habitual Wikipedians. Adam 02:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. This is probably the standard practice among (a) users who tend to be writers first and copyeditors second (b) users who tend to focus on the history and politics articles (c) users who tend to rely on the watchlist feature in order to chose the articles on which they're working. It's my standard practice, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that either. We deal with a different set of difficulties from the users who tend to spend more time on administrative and maintenance matters and copyediting (i.e. the users who tend to be the biggest "civility" pushers). On that note, although Adam's been pissing me off lately, I have to commend his efforts to maintain some semblance of encyclopedic standards on the Greek and Polish articles for the past few weeks, which doesn't seem to be the path of least resistance. There's just so much bullshit! IMO, editors are a way to solve these problems, not restricting our access to editing the pages. 172 04:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only 400? :-) I'm up to 7,880, would be more but I generally limit myself to just the articles I've touched, and I look at several hundred edits each day. Perhaps it's because I lean away from political subjects, but I see maybe a half-dozen vandalisms by anons per day, and there is no controversy about quickly reverting those. Edits by new registered users generally need some cleanup and casting into standard form; instead of reverting those, I clean them up, as a way of teaching by example - many new users appreciate that, and tell me so. Problem edits by experienced users are quite uncommon, and except in a very few cases, such as this article, are quickly resolved by a note on the talk page. Now looking at Adam's contributions, I see at least in the last week he reverted a number of anons, which is uncontroversial (although in some cases it looks like he deleted some salvageable content just because he thought the English was poor), and got into some edit wars with persons who thought that their version was every bit as good as his, or better. I didn't see any uncontested reverts of a non-anon's edit, but I might have missed one. So unless last week was not representative, his own experience bolsters my belief that reverting edits by registered users without prior discussion is a bad practice. And of course 172 is famous for starting long-running edit wars by reverting other people's good-faith edits. (Yes, this is getting off the KJi subject, but it's a vestige of my almost-professorness that I think everybody is educable.) Stan 04:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When talking about Kims eccentricness shouldn't we menction at how the man loves movies, especially Westerns and porn?

When talking about Kims eccentricness shouldn't we menction at how the man loves movies, especially Westerns and porn?

The sentence "During his boyhood, the younger Kim was known as Yura (or Yuri) Kim." was removed from the article, but without explanation; was it wrong? Everyking 17:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It didn't seem to me that a piece of minor personal gossip, which is likely to be of dubious provenance anyway, belonged in the opening paragraph of a biographical article. Adam 00:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of credible web sites that include that info, and inclusion of information has to take precedence over what looks ideal, so I think it should be restored. Everyking 01:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

"At this time Kim assumed the title "Dear Leader" and the government began building a personality cult around him patterned after that of his father, the "Great Leader." Kim Jong-il was regularly hailed by the media as the "peerless leader" and "the great successor to the revolutionary cause." He emerged as the most powerful figure behind his father in the DPRK."

What source do we have for these media quotes, and why aren't they under our citations?

Also, since we only have a single external link available, is it possible it could be, I dunno, in English? :P I've added (or am about to) a CNN profile of Kim to try to provide something a) substantive and b) readable for English speakers, but we should look into the rest. For now, however, the Korean website is bye-bye. Wally 06:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Il/Archive_3&oldid=1150056180"