Talk:Kim Il-sung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] U.S. war crimes

I removed this passage:

"...and a long list of U.S. war crimes have been documented including use of biological warfare such as a constituted effort to spread cholera, and the widespread massacre of civilians."

...owing to the fact that none of this 'documentation' about U.S. attempts to spread cholera is cited, nor are there any cites for the 'widespread massacre of civilians.' Just as importantly, there is no mention of North Korean or South Korean atrocities (apparently the U.S. killed everyone in the Korean War), and therefore the passage has NPOV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.131.98.11 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] worshipped him

I replaced "worshipped him" by was required to revere him because the former phrase implies a groundswell of voluntary support, whereas the latter phrase describes the reality that North Koreans are required under pain of imprisonment or death to show respect and even reverence for their dictator. To do less is considered treason. --Ed Poor

[edit] leader / dictator

I replaced "leader" with "dictator". I feel that this change is still NPOV (e.g. hitler, mussolini). If anyone disagrees that I'll be glad to discuss it here. Drunkasian 17:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If Kim was a dictator, his actions can speak for themselves. Everyking 18:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is good but you should also do the same with Franco, Pinochet etc.. and not just with those leaders from the left. --83.79.70.90 (Bluewin/Swisscom, Zurich) 20:32, 9 July 2006

[edit] MR, RR junk

DO NOT REMOVE the MR, RR stuff. On Chinese and Korean articles, it is common to indicate the system of transliteration, even if most people don't know what the systems are! WhisperToMe 14:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I've been editing Korean articles for months, and this is the first time I have seen "MR" and "RR", so don't tell me this is a "convention." I suspect it's actually just you showing off how clever you are, as usual. Adam 15:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=McCune-Reischauer

I made only a few of those links.

Adam, It's time to either find a better excuse NOT to put the "RR, MR" thing in, or, it is time to just let it happen.

WhisperToMe 15:57, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

EDIT: In addition, RR is the official romanization of South Korea, not North Korea, which uses MR. WhisperToMe 16:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This is yet another example of how editors use Wikipedia as a forum for displaying their own cleverness rather than serving the interests of readers. Far too any articles are cluttered with pointless exercises in transliteration like this one, inserted by editors who have no interest in whether they mean anything to readers or not. However I have learned not to argue with pedants so I won't bother with this issue further. Adam 00:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I know you might object to that table, but don't get mad at me :) - See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). WhisperToMe 21:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I am a bit late on the discussion here, but can someone bring me up to speed on why in the WikiUniverse North Korean people, places, and things are ever Romanized with the South Korean government’s new (high politically charged) Romanization system? This appears to be anything but logical. The South Korean Ministry of Education does not speak for all Koreans (their Northern counterparts would be quick to tell you) nor does it decide how the language is to be Romanized except in South Korea. (and not everyone there bothers to listen to the Ministry’s dictates; i.e. Korea Times)
The South Korean rules don’t apply north or the DMZ, so why is Wikipedia littered with North Korean topics with a South Korean Romanization affixed? Long ago the North Korean government took a stand and adopted a Romanization system of their own, it is a modification of McCune Reischauer. It isn’t the same as McCune Reischauer; it is the north’s own modification. Thus if all Northern topics need to have the southern system of Romanization displayed, then why do southern topics not have the DPRK’s modified McCune Reischauer? Thus all topics related to anything on the peninsula would need three different Romanization; South Korea’s Ministry of Education’s new Modified system, North Korea’s not so new modified McCune Reischauer, and plain old McCune Reischauer with all its diacritical marks.
If we’re going to be absurd and unnecessarily display the south’s system for Kim Il Sung (by the way, whoever created the entry for the Romanization of Kim’s name in the Southern system got it wrong even by southern rules. According to the Ministry of Education’s system the initial기윽 in the family name 김 is never Romanized G, but always K) Then why not really be absurd and consistently display all three systems even when they are not appropriate?
If the Wiki naming conventions require the use of the southern system on this northern name… then I must question the sanity of the individuals who created the naming convention.

[edit] footnote?

I've removed the "footnote" on air brushing. it doesn't seem to be connected anywhere, and the non-sequitur about gore seems out of place (it's not even about air brushing).

[edit] "Propaganda"

I toned down the reference to "North Korean propaganda" on NPOV grounds.

I also altered a comment ascribing to "propaganda" the photographing of Kim from the left so as to avoid an unsightly growth on his right side. Almost anyone would want to be photographed from a good angle rather than a bad one; there's no need to hunt for sinister propagandistic motives. Indeed, I wonder how the author of that line knows about the unsightly growth if it was never photographed. If there is no evidence of its existence, the entire comment should be excised. Shorne 23:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The growth is referred to if you look hard enough. If you search on google for 'Kim Il Sung' and 'growth' you'll get a small number of references, though admittedly nothing conclusive. I remember hearing it on BBC TV many years ago and it stuck in my mind, but that's not exactly a reference I can quote. Although you will struggle to find much evidence of his growth, you will similarly struggle to find a photograph of Kim (other than a young Kim) taken from the other side. I cite this as evidence. This is too much of a coincidence: many people have a 'better' side, but the occasional picci of their other side does get taken.
On whether it is propaganda or not: Avoiding photographing the growth is clearly much easier than airbrushing it later, so that's why it was done. As far as how sinister it was, I'd say it was as sinister as the Soviets airbrushing Gorbachev's birthmark - more a combination of vanity and respect than anything else. (Though there was certainly propaganda in other respects - Kim's face is everywhere.) I don't object to the rewording - there's enough to say that some said he had a growth and there's evidence of the North Koreans being careful to picture him from his better side, but not any piccis of his growth as far as I'm aware.
So, the growth is hardly important. But I do think it's an interesting bit of trivia about Kim Il-Sung, which is why I added it in the first place. Jongarrettuk 23:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll take your word on the growth. I don't really object to the comment; I just think it's rather silly to make an issue of a growth. Surely there are more important biographical details that do not appear in this article? Shorne 00:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are - it was only meant to be an interesting aside. Jongarrettuk 09:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is interesting. Again, I don't really object in this case; I just don't want to see this sort of thing degenerate into a gossipy tone. Too many interesting asides might cheapen the article. Shorne 09:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just for the record, I watched a show on PBS last night called "Welcome To North Korea". There was lots of archival footage of Kim Il Sung, and I can confirm that Kim had a large growth on the back of his neck/head which is clearly visible from the right side (his right). In one shot in particular it was clearly visible as Kim turned and walked away from the camera. And yes, most shots of Kim were taken from the left, presumably to avoid showing this disturbing-looking growth, which was somewhere between the size of a closed fist and a softball. I'm no doctor, but it was an unnerving sight and surprisingly close to the brain. Maybe this explains a few things??

There's a picture of the Great Leader with Mao from the right side at http://www.nordkorea-info.de/images/KIS_Prominents/KIS_Mao.jpg. I realize that this may be a younger picture of him but given what's been said here I thought it interesting to note. This one (http://www.nordkorea-info.de/images/KIS_Prominents/KIS_Mao2.jpg) is also from the right and is more recent. kev. 01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

His official autobiography actually mentions that he, as a child, got such a growth due to malnutrition. It says it went away after he had some pork. The growth is probably a recurrence of the one I've just mentioned. Therefore the fact is clearly not hidden from North Koreans, but is similar to the way that reporters wouldn't take pictures of President Roosevelt being lifted in his wheelchair. --Ionius Mundus 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The collective lack of knowledge about Kim’s wen is alarming. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Anyone who has moderate knowledge of the Koreas knows of the growth and the impact it had on Kim and how he governed his nation. The comparison to FDR is quite appropriate in that none of us would take anyone seriously who argued that FDR was not crippled, yet I see with my own eyes on this very page some ignorant soul denying the wen. I suggest some homework is in order.

[edit] Grotesque=POV?

"During the 1970s, Kim's personality cult grew ever more extensive and grotesque."

While I whole-heartedly agree that personality cults are disturbing, isn't declaring Kim's cult "grotesque" a POV statement? I'm not sure what word would be a better fit. Is "extensive" alone a sufficient description? --Feitclub 14:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Intense, intrusive, extreme? Everyking 16:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

War Record Fabrication

What about the theory that Kim spent the war years in Moscow, and the official version of him leading guerilla bands against the Japanese is a fabrication?

That is probably the case, but I doubt it can be proved, and the Kim Il-Sung Fan Club President, (User:172), would never allow such a suggestion. Adam 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be covered though PMA 07:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and I removed the reference that he "fought" against the Japanese; barring conclusive evidence that he was in Russia for the 1930s as well as the 1940s, I put that he "served" with a communist unit.
Another detail that probably deserves more scrutiny is Kim's adoption of the name of an anti-Japanese hero after his death; on the rare occasions this is ever mentioned in North Korean sources, this was to "honor" the first Kim Il-sung, but the almost total silence about this, as well as Kim's general modus operandi, suggests he probably was an imposter, claiming the glory of a real fighter for himself. ProhibitOnions 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of Birth

Kim il sung was NOT born in korea. The official government news sources tell everyone that their leacer was born in korea but in reality he was born in Vyatsk, near Khabarovsk, Russia. This should be reflected in the wiki entry.

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Kim_Il-Sung

You're thinking of Kim Jong-il. Adam 30 June 2005 04:35 (UTC)

No, I am not. I had read about the fabrication of Kim Il-sung's birthplace years ago. The fact that he was born in Soviet Russia is not an obscure fact.

Soviet Russia didn't exist in 1912. You are confusing Kim Il-sung with his son Kim Jong-il. Adam 1 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

the article says "Many outside scholars believe he was born in Russia." but i couldn't find any sources for that. all i could find were the following, all of them saying he was born in korea: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Appleby 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As seen above, there seems to be some confusion between the Kim the Father, who was born in Korea, and Kim the Son, who was born in the USSR. Adam 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

adam,ur corect.kim il sung was born in north korea.in 1912,russia wasn't soviet union.it was soviet union around 1933-1991.PSif 1 of u r korean,speak to me in korean.user:dark-hooded smoker

[edit] "Occupation forces"

I dared to remove the word "occupation" from the description of Soviet forces who drived the Japanese out of Korea in August 1945. Of course, it is usual for English-speakers to equal "Soviet" with "occupation" and viciuos stuff like that, but I think it was an unconcious slip of the pen caused by an established worldview rather than the true intention of the author, since he/she does not mention the US forces, which entered South Korea the same year as a part of the Soviet-American agreement, as "occupational". Actually, they are not mentioned at all. Why? - X-lynx 12:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have anything to do with Kim Il-Sung--Planetary 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Post WW2 whereever US or Russian forces occupied a region they refered to it as occupation ( eg US occuptation of Japan and Germany ). The word might have bias now, but then was considered neutral. David J James 6 October 2006 (UTC)

when did it cease to be neutral? The Soviets and Americans occupied Korea. Why try to re-write history? What other word in the English language would better suit what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.82.164 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictator?

I have a comment to make. I noticed that in wikipedia, it is easy to call dictators for regimes of the right like with South Korea during the 70s and 80s. My question is why can't that be the case for regimes of the left. Samething goes with other right wing strongmen like Pinochet, Franco etc... whereas Castro, Mao etc.. are never referred to as dictators. Is Wikipedia biased? 85.0.23.125 (Bluewin/Swisscom Zurich) 07:30, 17 July 2006

You bet! It reflects the point of view that is formally called neutral, which is what heavy contributors (who tend to become administrators) generally agree upon. Glorious source of illumination Jimbo Wales says what goes in this Democratic Peoples Republic of Knowlege - although criticism of Him is Treason, it's generally so weak and ineffective He tolerates it. -- 209.6.189.247 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, Wikipedia sucks. Szoer

[edit] Spam

I don't see why we should have so many links to an online bookstore (north-korea-books.com). I removed them. bogdan 12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

What's up with the beginning of the article?

D-hyo 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's being constantly vandalized. Mnc4t 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenation

Hyphenation of Korean names when Romanized is a South Korean practice. Kim Il Sung is not South Korean. Why is his name hyphenated? If the Wiki Naming Convention dictates this then the naming convention needs to be altered to show a more realistic representation of how North Koreans do it in North Korea. I am looking at an edition of his official biography from the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Pyongyang as I write – and they don’t use southern hyphens…. So why are they being foisted in to his name here?

[edit] POV

I see that you have made a concerted effort to maintain a NPOV. However, in so doing you've created a pretty biased, pro- Kim Il Song piece of literature. Reading your article, one would think that the official North Korean view point that Kim Il Song was a "flawless leader for the ages" is correct. Detailing some negative elements of the man's career does not by definition constitute a non-NPOV. 75.187.61.90 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To a degree, I concur. Do you have some useful, authoritative sources and/or quotations you would like to see included for balance? Alice✉ 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in the year of Kim's second marriage

This article [8] states year 1962 while the article about Kim's second wife [9] states year 1952. Both can not be right! I have no clue about this part of history, but I guess 1952 is more likely to be correct. By 1962 they already had 3 children and Kim Song-ae had already achieved a formidable political career - which was probably only possible with some help from her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urlek (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War

The section on the Korean war is POV and biased, not to mention the whole section appears to be a justification of the communist side of the war rather than a discussion of what Kim Il-sung had to do with the Korean war.

The second paragraph says "After several altercations at the border (allegedly instigated in part by the U.S. command), it appeared that civil war might be inevitable." With no citation. The parenthesized part is what I have issue with. With no citation we might as well change it to say (allegedly instigated in part by the North Koreans) or (...Kim Il-Sung himself) or (...Martians) There is no documentation of who made the allegation, let alone some kind of substantiation of those allegations. If someone can't cite this statement, it needs to be excised.

The second paragraph also refers to the North Korean action as "crossing the border" and when the chinese get involved, they "crossed the Yalu River". Contrast this with the UN counter attacks at Inchon and Pusan. When the UN launched an offensive its referred to as "the US led invasion." Twice I have edited "crossed the border" to "invaded" and twice I have been reverted. I'd like to know why "crossed the border" is acceptable and "invaded" is POV when referring to Communist actions, but when the UN undertakes a military action "crossing the border" is POV and "invading" is accurate. This is the only place I have ever seen the American thrust up to the Yalu referred to as an invasion of North Korea, and while it is a stretch to call counter-attack in the face of an enemy attack an "invasion" it is close enough to accurate to let it go, AS LONG AS you also call the initial attacks invasions as well. So lets pick one or the other. If the US was invading North Korea, then its only fair to say that the North Koreans and subsquently the Chinese invaded as well.

The 4th paragraph states that "Upwards of 3.5 million Koreans were killed in the U.S. invasion" again, this has nothing to do with Kim Il-sung. Now, does this statement of Korean casualties apply ONLY to those Koreans who were killed as a result of US military action above the 38th parallel? Or does it apply to all Koreans who died in the whole conflict. Because if it applies only to the North Koreans who died above the 38th parallel then to make it unbiased we would need to add a sentence about all those civilians who died south of the 38th parallel as a result of North Korean and Chinese military action. And if it applies to all Koreans who died in the war, then it needs to say something like "upwards of 3.5 million Koreans were killed in the conflict"

as written this whole section seems like a history of the Korean war from North Korea's POV. Someone needs to justify all of this, and in the absence of convincing justification, re write this section. This is an article about Kim, this section needs to reflect what Kim did in regards to the Korean war.--72.191.31.112 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I may have been the editor that reverted your change. If so I owe you an apology for not taking your concerns seriously (we get a lot of IP vandalism on this article, but that is no real justification). My only excuse is that had you made the changes you outlined above I probably would have detected your logic but, as you only changed one or two incidents of "crossed the border" and this portion of the article had been stable for a while, I assumed the worst. Sorry again! Alice✉ 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

two more things that i noticed about this section on a further reading. In the first paragraph the section says "the people of northern Korea chose Kim Il Sung as the prime minister of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)" this would lead a casual reader to believe there was some kind of election, or democratic process. Unless there can be a citation provided this needs to be changed.

In the 4th paragraph South Korea is referred to as "US occupied" nowhere in the entire article is North Korea referred to as "Soviet occupied" so either references to the north need to be changed to say "Soviet Occupied" or South Korea needs not be referred to as "US occupied"

I'm sure that someone else would be a better choice to edit this article, but the discrepancies and POVs are so glaring that it needs to be edited. --72.191.31.112 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis seems reasonable to me; some sources would be even better, of course.
Why don't you draft the changes you propose and place the draft text here on the talk page in case there are any lurkers that object?
I'll support any unbiased, balanced and referenced changes. Alice✉ 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Playwright?

According to HK media channel "Phoenix TV", Kim Il-Sung was also a playwright, and was the author of a play, known in Chinese as "lian hua gu niang" (I don't know the Korean name). Any ideas? Benlisquare (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found the actual name, its called (꽃파는 처녀/卖花姑娘), or “The Flower Girl”. Apparently, the North Korean government claims that Kim Il-Sung wrote the play/opera theatre production. It revolves around a girl who sells flowers, and her family is taken away by warlords. Or something. I don't quite get it either. Chinese internet forums claim that the play is merely DPRK propaganda. Korean wikipedia and Chinese wikipedia both have an article on it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)