Wikipedia

Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 2

< Talk:Kim Jong Il
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Misc

Adam:

Well, I can just imagine how this is going to go. I'm going to object to this effort to blatantly propagandize this article, and you're undoubtedly going hurl charges of "apologia" and "rationalizations." I find this unfortunate, given the great deal of respect that I have for you and your work.

Refrain from advocacy and work within the confines of NPOV policies. In order to keep this civil, tone down this article. Don't accuse me of supporting this regime. 172 11:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rather than restoring the old article, I'm putting up a neutrality flag. I'll give you some time to clam down, and tone the article down, on your own. You cannot write a polemic that might as well come from the AEI or Heritage Foundation here. This is a repugnant regime, but NPOV policies still apply. 172 12:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, thanks very much. Rather than running off to daddy, why don't you tell me which bits of my edit you don't like? I note, of course, that you have consistently failed to do this at Aleksandr Lukashenko, despite repeated requests, so I'm not optimistic. If you do, however, I am quite happy to discuss these points with you. My starting position, of course, is that my edit has made the article both more encyclopaedic and more readable than it was before. Adam 12:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plus I have even used a photo that shows us what Kim actually looks like, rather than a propaganda cartoon. How wicked of me. Adam 12:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, this disingenuous response is a step up from McCarthyite browbeating that I expected. You know very well that your version's slanted and how to work within NPOV constraints, but you chose ideological purity instead. You'd be able to manage just fine without me boring you by going line by line and picking out problems. So rewrite a handful of sentences, salvage some of the old content, and keep the loaded terms and unsubstantiated accusations to a minimum, and it would be far easier on the both of us. This would take 10 minutes at the most, I bet. If you to this, I'll shut up. BTW, I tried to get rid of that cartoon a couple of days ago. At least that's one good thing about your Axis of Evil speech/article. As for the Lukashenko article, it's still on my to-do list. However, I have other matters to address aside from this website. For now, spending any more time on Wiki than I do as it is would be masochistic. 172 13:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aww, you're no fun at all. Let the record show that I offered to discuss your objections to my edit, and that you declined. I will now remove your "neutrality flag," since you can't have it both ways. Flagging an article then declining to debate is just a form of blackmail. "Fear neither criticism nor self-criticism" (Mao Zedong). Adam 13:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, User:172 insists on attaching a "neutrality flag" to this article, but is apparently afraid to debate the matter. This is the mark of an intellectual coward. I rest my case. Adam 13:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm on the busy side now, with way too many application windows open at once. And for crying out loud, keep my in mind my reputation; I'm not the slightest bit intimated by aggressive posturing (I'm usually the one guilty of this tactic anyway). Despite considerable differences, I do find your perspective thought provoking and insightful. For example, I enjoyed reading your comments on this page a couple of months ago. So please, grudgingly accept the fact that NPOV and moral clarity are conflicting here on your own. You'd probably be able to predict almost all of the comments I'd make verbatim anyway. 172 13:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't give a toss about your reputation, which is one of an apologist for Stalinist regimes who lacks the guts to defend his position when challenged. You're welcome to it. Adam 13:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Foaming at the mouth again? I'm running late as it is. I'm going to go out an water my Kimjongilia and bow to my Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung statues. I'll be back tomorrow, though. 172 13:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is pathetic! - You are both acting like children - Why don't you both go off and create some real content, and stay the heck away from this imbroglio. Furry animals sounds about right. Adam, you can do the Spotted Quoll and 172 can do the Red necked Pademelon. And, if you don't know what they are then it is high time you found out!!! - Gaz 13:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My thanks to Gaz for giving me the opportunity to write about the spotted quoll, which has been on my to-be-done list for many years. I remain ready to debate Kim Jong-Il with 172 or anyone else. Adam 06:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article's already considerably better. Regarding "the debate," frankly, you were getting irrational last time when accusing me - at least least implicitly - of being a Stalinist fellow traveler. Next time, we need to start off with a better understanding of the nature of our diverging views. First, recognize that while I'm coming from a different perspective, it's not one of "an apologist for Stalinist regimes," but a different paradigm of international relations (one stressing the limitations of power and skeptical of moralism). Second, acknowledge that we disagree on how to end this regime, not whether or not this regime has to go. For example, I was optimistic about Kim Dae-jung's Sunshine Policy; I'm sure that you weren't. I like what, e.g., Selig Harrison has to say about the DPRK; you probably believe that, e.g., John Bolton has better ideas. 172 17:52, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bravo Adam!! - Wikipedia is enriched and the world is (hopefully) now a safer place for the Spotted Quoll. No word yet from 172 on the Red necked Pademelon. Perhaps these photos will provide some inspiration. - Gaz 11:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Kim family

Apparently, Kim Il-sung had two sons named Kim Pyong-il. According to Suh Dae-sook's biography of Kim Il-sung, the first was born to Kim Chong-suk (also Kim Jong-il's mother) in 1944, and died "in a swimming accident" in 1947. The Kim Pyong-il who challenged Kim Jong-il for power was a half-brother, as mentioned in [1]. I haven't been able to find a date of birth for him. -- Sekicho 07:58, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

The birth date for Kim Pyong-Il I saw was 1944, but that doesn't seem to fit the chronology. On Stalinist apologists, my view is that if it looks like a spotted quoll, flies like a spotted quoll and quacks like a spotted quoll, then it probably is a spotted quoll. Adam 21:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will not communicate with you about this page or any page until you shut up with this bullshit about me being an apologist for Stalinism. It's pointless to discuss content here with someone who can't control his fanaticism and discuss things rationally. Behind the facade of your self-righteous posturing, your intolerance owes more to fascism than to liberal democracy. Read Arthur Schlesinger's 1997 Foreign Affairs piece here if you're interested in thinking for a change. There's more to his commitment to democracy than rhetoric and slogans; he understands it. BTW, unless you're pledging to change your tone, you don't need to respond. After all, I wouldn't respond otherwise. 172 23:34, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since 172 has indicated that he has no further contribution to make to this page, I am again removing his "disputed neutrality" tag. If he reverts this change again, I will refer the matter to Disputes Between Users or whatever it is called now. Adam 23:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have now protected the page. PMA 15:44, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

If you are protecting it, then go back to the 23:54, 24 Feb 2004 version - the last stable version. If you don't do it, then I will. Right now, it seems as if the protection is a means of enforcing the version favored by one antagonist in a two-way edit war. And it might have to be protected indefinitely. I will not deal with that fascist Adam Carr until he agrees to shut up with this bullshit accusing anyone who challenges his egomania of being a Stalinist in every edit summary, every talk page, and even my own user page. He may be an ex-Communist, but his mentality comes straight from totalitarianism. His commitment to democracy is a hallow façade for his self-righteous posturing. A reasonable user well versed in the subject should pick up that if I have any bias, it's pro-Kim Dae-jung, not pro-Kim Jong Il. I won't even dignify this McCarthyite fanatic by allowing him to use me as a vehicle to spew his hate. 172 17:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mate i didnt know what version would not offend either of you - do not accuse me of delberately enforcing Adam's version - all i did was protect the page and since i didnt know which version would least offend either of you i didnt revert just protect. PMA 17:34, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry for being a little terse. Adam's games are leaving me a bit frustrated now. 172 17:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to PMA for protecting the page, which was my intention. It can now stay protected until hell (aka the DPRK) freezes over, or 172 goes back to his gulag, or both. I am glad that 172 is feeling frustrated. I hope he feels sufficiently frustrated to go away and leave this project to people who actually want to write an encyclopaedia rather than eulogise tyrants and murderers. One of my missions in life is to cause frustration to people like him by ramming the truth down their throats till they gag. I'm sorry to be blunt, but six months experience at WP has taught me that this is the only way to deal with the little cell of stalinoid propagandists who infest this project. Adam 23:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For your own good, get psychological help right away. 172 01:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Assuming Adam's rational, these charges of "Stalinism" are a classic use of a straw man devise. I'm hoping that it's a cover employed so that he can get away with adding his polemic attacking South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's approach to dealing with the DPRK. However, if he's really sincere, one has to wonder about his sanity. If you go by his logic, anyone favoring a less hard-line approach to North Korea than the Bush Administration's is a Stalinist. Until the past couple of days, I figured that Adam was just using rhetorical devices. Now it seems as if I'm dealing with a real nutcase. BTW, is there a user who plays by the rules of NPOV who'd want to look over the last version that I posted and compare it with the current version?172 01:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't hold back, Adam, tell us what you really feel. ;-) -- ChrisO 00:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My 2 cents: whatever 172's motives (and he is impossible to work with), I wouldn't be surprised if the North Koreans adopted his versions of this article as their official biography of Kim, it's that unjustifiably laudatory. Given the minimal information we have to work with, the current version does at least give some semblance of balance. --Robert Merkel 00:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My objections to 172's edits have nothing whatever to do with Kim Dae-Jung's policy, and I have no idea where he gets this idea from. I would have thought a discussion of the policy really belongs under Kim Dae-Jung or Politics of South Korea, but I have no objection to it being mentioned here. But the key point about Kim's policy of course was that it failed, because the DPRK saw it, as communists always see concessions, merely as a sign of weakness to be exploited. They used Kim's policy as a device for extorting more "aid" out of the west, while conceding nothing in return.

My objections to 172's edits have to do with their general fatuousness and dishonesty. An example:

My paragraph:

On the domestic front, Kim has given occasional signs that he favors economic reforms similar to those carried out in China by Deng Xiaoping, and on visits to China he has expressed admiration for China's economic progress. But at home he has done little or nothing to relax the absolute control of the state and party over all aspects of economic life. He has certainly given no sign of considering the decollectivisation of agriculture, which was the foundation of Deng's reforms.

172's paragraph:

On the domestic front, Kim has given occasional signs that he favors economic reforms similar to those carried out in China by Deng Xiaoping, and on visits to China he has expressed admiration for China's economic progress. So far, however, little progress has been made concerning the decollectivization of agriculture, which was the foundation of Deng's reforms.

First, 172 has removed this sentence: "But at home he [Kim] has done little or nothing to relax the absolute control of the state and party over all aspects of economic life." This statement is both true and relevant, indeed vital, to the topic of the paragraph. Removing it seriously distorts the meaning of the paragraph, suggesting that Kim is carrying our genuine reforms when he is doing no such thing.

Second, 172 changes this sentence: "He [Kim] has certainly given no sign of considering the decollectivisation of agriculture, which was the foundation of Deng's reforms" to this: "So far, however, little progress has been made concerning the decollectivization of agriculture, which was the foundation of Deng's reforms." This suggests that Kim has made an in-principle decision to decollectivise agriculture, and that some progress, albeit only a little, has been made in this direction. This is totally untrue. There has been no such decision. There has been some tinkering at the edges of the collective farm system, but certainly no moves towards dissolving it, as Deng did. This is of course the real reason (not "international hostility" as 172 elsewhere insinuates) why the people of the DPRK are eating leaves and fleeing to China.

These changes can only be explained in two ways. Either 172 is very stupid (which I don't think), or he is deliberately seeking to make Kim Jong-Il appear to be less oppressive, obdurate and callous than he actually is (which I do think). And since this is only one of a number of examples I could give, it is evident that this is the whole purpose of his presence here. I point out that he is doing the same thing at Alexander Lukashenko, who seems to be another of his Most Admired Stalinoid Thugs.

I hope this explains what is going on to anyone masochistic enough to be following all this. Adam 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am watching, and perhaps I am a masochist, but here goes. BOTH of you are guilty of POV here. Adam, you are too hard line. 172, you are an apologist. I put forward my alternative as middle ground, and believe it to be NPOV. Apart from trying to mediate here I have absolutely no interest in documenting ANYTHING about Kim Jong-il. - Gaz 07:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the domestic front, Kim has given occasional signs that he favors economic reforms similar to those carried out in China by Deng Xiaoping, and on visits to China he has expressed admiration for China's economic progress. This does not appear to have translated into any real relaxation of the ecomomic situation at home, and specifically there are no signs of the decollectivisation of agriculture, which was the foundation of Deng's reforms.

"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice," and hard-lineness in the defence of truth isn't, either. Having said that, I have no problems with Gaz's paragraph. But if you compare the current version of the article with 172's last effort, you will see that 172's version is not only politically putrid, it is poorly structured as well, so it is not just a matter of paragraph by paragraph mediation. A choice has to be made between the two versions, although of course reasonable proposals to change my version can be debated. Adam 07:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I remember being aghast when I first watched Barry Goldwater make that pronouncement on TV. He was scary then, and that prospect is just as scary in the hands of Bush regime. The problem is that those who take such stands develop their own idiosyncratic definitions of truth and liberty, delude themselves into believing it, and justify unpardonable behaviour in defence of their delusions. When someone such as 172 seeks to exercise a moderating influence they make absolutely false accusations that he is supporting the tyrant being discussed. 172's version of the paragraph was clearly less extreme than Adam's, but there was nothing in it that attempted to justify Kim Jong-il's actions. His only crime was failing to make him into more of a monster than he actually is. Eclecticology 22:57, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

Gosh, even I don't remember the '64 campaign! Eclecticology is entitled to his views (unlike the citizens of the DPRK). But anyone who thinks that 172's influence on this article has been "moderating" is deluding themselves. As I have shown above, his influence has been to gloss over the truth, not just once but systematically. My version has removed that gloss. If you think that makes me an agent of Bush, I doubt I can persuade you otherwise. As a social democrat (as well as a historian), I reject the view that opposing Bush requires us to make excuses for Stalinist dictators. Adam

Based on the example given, 172 attempted to remove a sentence that was gratuitous propaganda. That sentence emphasized something which Kim Jon-il has not done, and was totally unnecessary except to direct the reader to a particular POV. The "truths" that you allege are not supported by any sources that would allow for facts to be checked. The speculations of a self-proclaimed historians are not a proper substitute for truth. Eclecticology 09:25, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to the sentence "But at home he [Kim] has done little or nothing to relax the absolute control of the state and party over all aspects of economic life." That statement is both true and relevant, which is my definition of encyclopaedic. This is an issue which it is perfectly possible to check. What evidence can you present that Kim Jong-Il has done something to "relax the absolute control of the state and party over all aspects of economic life"? Adam 09:36, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to make this article NPOV?

I say no. This article needs to have a prominent disclaimer, stating that virtually all information on Kim Jong-Il comes from either:

  1. North Korean propaganda, which is almost always false
  2. South Korean intelligence, which is usually overblown and often false
  3. US/UK/Western intelligence, which is usually based on South Korean intelligence
  4. Diplomats who don't want to say anything nasty about Kim
  5. Area specialists who base much of their knowledge off of the above

So screw it. Unless you actually have first-hand knowledge of what's going on in the North, you're giving a biased view of Kim Jong-Il. The best we can do is throw up all the information that is disseminated about him, with a strong warning that little of it can be independently verified because of the insular nature of the DPRK. Now please, PLEASE stop arguing over whose sources are more accurate. -- Sekicho 05:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

We are not arguing over whose sources are more accurate. We are arguing about whether this is an encyclopaedia article or a piece of propaganda. In any case I disagree with Sekicho that it is not possible to know anything about the DPRK or the Kim family. Intelligent reading of the available sources enables us to write reasonably reliable articles on these subjects (as I have just done with Kim Jong-Nam), while acknowledging gaps in our knowledge. That is what historians are trained to do. I don't know what 172 has been trained to do. Adam 06:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In a way it is true that we are not arguing over sources. It is typical of anti-communist extremists to conveniently omit sources. Those who argue most loudly about Kim Jong-il's failure to respect the 2000 agreement just as easily gloss over the United States's complete failure to live up to its side of the bargain. Accurate facts about the DPRK are difficult to come by; they must often be distilled from one side's speculation and the other's amateurish propaganda. I interpret "intelligent reading", as supplying the missing facts. Eclecticology 09:46, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
Eclecticology:
Don't even dignify Adam with a response. After all, he isn't concerned with writing an encyclopedic entry whatsoever. He's just blowing off hot air. The only thing he has to offer is a repertoire of ad hominems and vitriolic slogans. User:RK was almost banned for similar behavior. But at least RK presents evidence along with the blistering attacks. Adam's just seeking to discredit anyone who's trying to stop him from hijacking the article for his propaganda. He's trolling this page, unwilling to compromise with anyone who doesn't go along with his blatant pro-war advocacy piece. He'll attack anyone who wants to insert anything into the article that doesn't coincide with his case for going to war this minute. BTW, read our conversation in Talk:Kim Jong-il/archive 1. Even Richard Perle would think that Adam's a madman! 172 12:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
172, I am no more on Adam's side than yours, but I put forward a compromise wording for the example paragraph cited by Adam above. He, at least, replied, and that reply was to agree to the compromise. I have heard nothing from you. Do you not read all the comments put forward here, or do you just choose to respond to selected people? - Gaz 14:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eclecticology's language makes it clear that he is not really engaging in a debate about historical evidence: he is merely objecting to anyone telling the truth about his pet anti-imperialist heroes. I know from long experience that there is no point in arguing with Old Left shellbacks about these things. Perhaps if he had to eat grass and leaves like the Dear Leader's subjects he might see things differently. Adam 09:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If there's ever a war with North Korea, I'll agree to eat grass if Adam agrees to go to Seoul or Tokyo as the war's unfolding. 172 12:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's tough to debate about the evidence that's not given. There's nowhere that I have expressed that Kim Jong-il is a hero; making it up again are you? I'm not familiar with the term "shellback" so I apologize for being unable to properly respond to what sounds like another insult. I suppose that it's right that if I had to eat grass and leaves, I would look on his "Dear Leader" less objectively. Eclecticology 10:45, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
Heh, so much for NPOV. It's kind of sad to see purported professionals sink lower than the hoi polloi they despise. I think we need to recruit some better historians; I know they exist, because I've read their books. Stan 10:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
All in fairness, the subject is far removed from my area of expertise. Still, it's refreshing to read your request for sources, rather than the crap from Adam calling everyone who disagrees with him evil. Honestly, my sources are the NY Times, BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. for the most part. Hence, I'm no more of an authority than anyone else who's been reading the NY Times for many years. At least to give you a better idea about where I'm coming from, I find the work by Selig Harrison (who's at the Woodrow Wilson Center) convincing. Also, User:Sekicho's comments (see above) are very reasonable, despite perhaps stretching his conclusions way too far. From nowhere else in the entire world is reliable information such a scare commodity. Perhaps this is a better realm for political scientists specialized in the region or scholars of international relations. 172 12:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we have exhausted the possibilities of this discussion. When and if the article is unprotected we can resume combat. Adam 12:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article has now been unprotected, and I have done an edit to make the Korean names conform to what the Korean users tell me is the correct Wikipedia convention. I have also added the material about Kim's family that I learned while writing Kim Jong-nam and Kim Jong-chul, and done a general tidy-up. I hope the article can now be left alone for a while. I certainly have better things to do than argue about Kim Jong-il. However I will be watching, and I will revert any attempt to restalinise it. Adam 05:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

In order to force a truce in this nasty edit war I have protected this page. Please work toward a compromise on this subject after the edit warriors on this page are able to cool off. I don't see how compromise can be accomplished when tempers are so high. With WikiLove, --mav 13:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no possibility of a compromise with 172. I have repeatedly offered to debate specific edits with him both here and at Alexander Lukashenko. He prefers just to resort to abuse, and you can see from his last effort. The page will just have to stay protected until he loses interest or is banned. Adam 13:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"War alone brings up to the highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision—the alternative of life or death."

- Benito Mussolini. Adam Carr

I wish they would ban both of you and just let sane people write the damn article. -- Sekicho 13:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

In all fairness, this isn't how I usually act. But I'm increasingly certain that this is the only way one can deal with Adam Carr, the Joe McCarthy of Wiki. If I can create a foil, fighting demagoguery with demagoguery in a sense, I'll be able to show people that his righteous posturing is merely a cloak for McCarthyism, disdain for democracy, and warmongering. 172 13:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. I removed some and will remove others (from both of you) later. --mav

Mav, I realise you are well-intentioned but I don't think you have any right to censor a talk page in that way. It is a record of the debate over this article and should be left intact so that anyone who interested can form an opinion.

Having said that, I am reasonably happy with the article as it now stands, so it can stay protected for ever as far as I am concerned. I have other things I want to work on. But as I said above, I will keep it under observation so if 172 tries to restalinise it when/if it is unprotected, I will return. Adam 14:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Personal attacks violate both. But I'm not going to get into an edit war over that when the sun is rising and I haven't gone to bed yet. --mav


I'm restoring the personal attacks. I consider Adam's attacks a badge of honor. If he didn't belive that my charges of had any basis in reality, he'd welcome my attacks. 172 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Considering the relatively minor differences between Adam's and 172's versions, I don't see how edit summaries like "REVERTING ADAM CARR'S NAZI/FASCIST VANDALISM" are called for. Wouldn't "rv" be enough? I personally prefer Sekicho's last version except for one paragraph where 172's is better. It is POV to say "and by 2002 it was obvious that Kim did not intend adhering to this agreement" - North Korea says it was the U.S. who violated the agreement first. Also, it seems too early to say "Attempts by the Chinese government to mediate between the DPRK and the U.S. appeared to have failed." What's the evidence for that? --Wik 14:32, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if one questions my personal attacks on Adam, let's consider his many months of attacking other users. I've just started emulating behavior that Adam's been practicing for months. You'd find that the turning point was 3/2/04, when Adam refused my request posted on this page that he refrain from personal attacks. I said that this was contingent on my willingness to work with him on a respectful and cooperative basis. You'd see that before March 2 I went to great efforts to be conciliatory. This posting is a good example:
Despite considerable differences, I do find your perspective thought provoking and insightful. For example, I enjoyed reading your comments on this page a couple of months ago. So please, grudgingly accept the fact that NPOV and moral clarity are conflicting here on your own.
As I became more conciliatory, he became more abusive. Thus, I had the novel idea of using his own pattern of browbeating against the ultimate demagogue himself. Since it has helped Adam intimate other users for months, I have to try his tactics for fighting his McCarthyism at least once. 172 14:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this tactic will work. I always found it better not to respond in kind to such things. --Wik 15:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, North Korea also says that everyone in the DPRK is happy and prosperous and loves the Dear Leader. NPOV does not mean regurgitating the propaganda of dictatorships as though it was fact. People who write for encyclopaedias are expected to make judgements about what is true and what is not, or what is the point of having encyclopadias?

Having said that, the article is already greatly improved over the propaganda tract it was before I edited it, so I am quite happy for Sekicho or someone else not involved to propose a compromise text for the paragraphs that are still in dispute.

Incidentally, I have made no personal attacks on 172 (I don't even know his name), and I have certainly not vandalised his User page or called him a Nazi, as he has done. I have called him an apologist for Stalinist regimes - which is not a personal attack but a political characterisation, and is undoubtedly true. I don't know why he bothers denying it. He should at least have the courage of his convictions. Adam 14:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguing that Adam browbeats users becomes redundant in light of this response. 172 15:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You must be very easily browbeaten. "True proletarian revolutionaries are fearless." (Mao Zedong) Adam 15:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is an attack if you call people Stalinist apologists (or "Old Left shellbacks" etc.) if they don't agree with your POV. You make judgements about what is true, but others may make different judgements. NPOV then means including both views with attribution. No one said that what the DPRK says should be included as fact, but the same goes for what the U.S. says, which you are all too willing to take at face value. --Wik 15:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sustained. Do not take the US/South Korea line as gospel. Their understanding of North Korea is limited to satellite photographs. -- Sekicho 15:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
Wise words from both Wik and Sekicho. However, you're still giving Adam's lies too much credit. It's utterly ridiculous for Adam to accuse me of promoting a pro-DPRK POV. (Maybe for the sake of NPOV we need an actual hard-line Communist editing this article.) Despite the all the rhetorical flourishes, Adam and I differ on how we'd like to bring an end to this regime. I admire Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae-jung's work, while he's willing to sacrifice Seoul and Tokyo to mushroom clouds. Hence, the page protection stems from an edit war that resulted from my removal of a sentence essentially criticizing Kim Dae-jung and Bill Clinton, not criticism of Kim Jong-il. Ironically, this edit war has more to do with a South Korean leader! 172 15:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's settle this.

Guys, look at the current article. Take all the excerpts you disagree with, and list them in the spaces below, along with your reason for disagreement and what language you would rather use. This way, we can reach a compromise. -- Sekicho 15:51, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

172 wants to change:

  • I'd like to expose months of harassment and intimidation of other users employed by Adam Carr in order to advance a political agenda. 172 16:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • By and large, I'm content with the version currently protected. 172 16:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam wants to change:

As I have said, I am reasonably happy with the article as it stands, which includes nearly all of the edits I originally made. I am also thoroughly sick of this argument, and have other things I would rather be doing. I will make a few points in parting:

  • I have not harassed or intimidated other users. This is an outright lie, which if said in the real world would be seriously defamatory. Fortunately no-one much cares what accusations are made here in Wikipedia fantasy land, where people like 172 can hide behind anonymous user-names.
  • I would have thought that calling someone a Nazi and vandalising their User page counts as fairly serious harassment, by the way.
  • I have not made personal attacks on 172. I have described him as an apologist for Stalinist regimes, which is a political comment not a personal one, and a correct one on the evidence I have seen. The consistent tendency of his edits both here and at Alexander Lukashenko has been to remove all edits which may reflect badly on Kim or Lukashenko.
  • I have not made any real comments on the DPRK-ROK foreign policy issue at all. All 172's stuff about mushroom clouds is just his fantasy. Most of my edits concerned the DPRK's internal politics.
  • I have not "taken the US/South Korea line as gospel." I specifically said I don't accept the more bizarre KCIA slanders of Kim. I know that nobody at Wikipedia is allowed to claim to have any expertise about anything for fear of being called an elitist, but I am a professional journalist and historian and I am capable of forming my own assessments, based on 30 years study, reading and discussion.
  • My real offence, here as elsewhere at Wikipedia, has been to break the unspoken rule that the correct "NPOV" position on all political/historical issues must be a left-of-centre, anti-western and specifically anti-American one. This is not a specifically Wikipedia fault, it just reflects the current climate in the western intelligentsia, to which most Wikipedians belong. It is ironic that I am accused of McCarthyism when the only people really subjected to McCarthyism at Wikipedia are people who break this unspoken rule.

Adam 01:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can come down from the cross now. There are plenty of righties at WP, but most of them manage to write and behave neutrally enough that most people don't know who they are. I think you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately picking fights - it's rather disingenuous to start one and then complain about McCarthyism when other people defend themselves. Stan 04:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First arbitration attempt

Damn it. If I were a judge, I would simply place a restraining order on both of you, and forbid either of you from touching this article. Too bad we have an egalitarian system here. If both of you would agree to leave each other alone and refrain from editing this article, I think the rest of us can get back to doing what we want to do (write) rather than what the two of you apparently want to do (yell at each other). -- Sekicho 15:54, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is structured the way it is precisely so that people can yell at each other if they feel it necessary, as in this case we both did. The result is a much better article than the crap that was here before we began. If you don't like to watch editing-by-conflict, you are free not to come to this page. Adam 08:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but your disagreement with 172 has caused this entire article to be locked down. I'm a Korea specialist of sorts, and there's quite a bit that I would like to contribute to this article. Thanks to personal differences between you and somebody else, part of Wikipedia's functionality has been temporarily lost. So I respectfully ask you and 172 to take your differences elsewhere, perhaps a kickboxing ring, so that the rest of us can go back to doing what we want to do (write). -- Sekicho 08:37, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's just the way it is sometimes, and everyone who contributes to Wikipedia on contentious subjects has to get used to it. Anyway, the article is now unlocked so you are free to contribute your wisdom. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll refrain from editing the article if he does. 172 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I give no such undertaking. I will edit as I see fit. Adam 08:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After unprotecting this page

Can someone update the link to the Korean alphabet to hangul, please? Kokiri 10:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Picture

Is that new picture copyrighted? ugen64 02:51, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if DPRK propaganda is copyright, in fact I doubt the DPRK is a party to the copyright convention. But I have reverted its use anyway since it is a cartoon, not an actual image of Kim. Adam 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't belong. Since the image in question is probably the most frequently used of Kim, by virtue of being the only sanctioned one in North Korea, don't you think it might as well be in the article? Stop being so reactionary, please. -- Sekicho 03:31, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

It can go in the article, provided it is captioned as being a propaganda cartoon, but the lead photo needs to be an actual image of Kim. This is a biographical article. Adam 03:35, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with Adam. But why not scrap that picture all together? I don't know about you two, but I'm getting sick of looking at that asinine cartoon - caption or no caption. So I replaced it with one of the old images. If either of you find this upsetting, go ahead and revert it. 172 06:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revert? Moi? Adam 06:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Il/Archive_2&oldid=1150056178"