Talk:Kim family (North Korea)

Requested move 25 December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is for "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" or an otherwise close variant whereof. There is consensus against the current "Kim family" and the proposed "Kim Communist Dynasty". (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Kim family → Kim Communist Dynasty – "Kim" is the most common name in Korea, there are many other prominent Kim families/tribes/clans. This should indicate it is about the Communist dynasty. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, North Korea is not a communist state, in 2009, all references to communism were removed from their consitution, I think Kim Dynasty (North Korea) or just Kim Dynasty would be more appropriate. Charles Essie (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter if the NK constitution calls itself a Communist state or not, since the ruling party is the Communist party, and the Kim family is the dynasty at the head of the party and the state. Kim Dynasty (North Korea) is acceptable to me. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine, but the Workers' Party of Korea is not a communist party, it was, but not anymore, they replaced Communism and Marxism–Leninism with Juche and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism as the official ideology of the party and the state. Charles Essie (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and also oppose the current name. Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and there are lots of other notable people with the same surname, so the title could cause mixups with other families. Also, chuch'e seems to be more prominent than communism in present-day DPRK. The final title should match similar requested move such as Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree#Requested move. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to something, such as "Kim Dynasty (North Korea)". "Kim family" will not do. Oculi (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title as vague. Evidently, the proposed title is at least technically inaccurate so how about the suggested Kim dynasty (North Korea) but with a lowercase d since it is not a proper title of the family? —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

up until 2013, Kim family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was not about the North Korean ruling family. According to Kim (Korean surname), this is the most common surname in Korea, so there are many families that someone might create a tree for, so just "Kim family" is insufficiently precise or disambiguous. Many Kims are notable. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment see Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree and Template talk:Family of Kim Jong-il for related move requests -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Category:Kim Il-sung family was recently moved to Category:Kim family, which I find a bit confusing. This category title is hardly descriptive, as Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and the family of Kim Il-sung is hardly the most notable. What about 16th century Korean nobles? What about wealthy business tycoons named Kim? Calling the whole thing "Kim family" is a bit counter-productive in my opinion. "Kim Il-sung family" uses the name of Kim Il-sung (the first president within the successing line of three) as a descriptor to firmly show which Kim family it is about. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment feel free to enter a suggestion for the name of this article, since I am assuming someone did a speedy rename based on the name of this article. (though they should not have, considering this requested move is open) -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I fully agree that "Kim family" should not be used to designate the Kim Il-sung family. The category name should either include a reference to North Korea/DPRK or it should be "Kim Il-sung family" since it's his dynasty we're talking about. Coinmanj (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it should be "Kim dynasty (North Korea)", because it has outlasted Kim Il-sung by 20 years, and he's already had two sucessors. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know its very easy to cll this a "dynasty" but seeing as it isn't exactly a feudal or constitutional monarchy, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as a "Family Dictatorship", like the Julian-Cluadian dictatorship in Rome?2600:1002:B025:5FDF:8953:F600:8EBC:BE9B (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Title of Kim Jong-un

“ Kim Il-sung was known as the Great Leader, and his eldest son raised to be his successor, Kim Jong-il, became known as the Dear Leader. [footnote: As of October 2013, Kim Jong-il's son and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had no such official title.] ”

This is a bit ambiguous and unclear. It seems correct that Kim Jong-un doesn't have a title including the word "leader" (or at least I haven't seen any such title in use anywhere), but the wording could suggest that he doesn't have any title at all. He certainly has titles – every North Korean leader has lots of titles. For example, the article List of Kim Jong-il's titles lists lots of different titles held by his father. A particularly popular title for the moment seems to be "Beloved Comrade Kim Jong-un" (경애하는 김정은동지), as seen for example here (official state propaganda: Rodong Sinmun), although "Comrade" (동지) sometimes is replaced by "Marshall" (원수). Also, Kim Jong-il is sometimes "Great Leader" (Great Leader Comrade/General Kim Jong-il, 위대한 령도자 김정일동지/장군).

There is some information about this at Great Leader (concept). The current wording is confusing, but it would be too long to explain everything in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I used that phrasing to go with how the RS put it, but I also just went with the basics. Wouldn't hurt to mention that they have lots of titles if you can find a ref for it. As for the Jong-un part, I meant that he didn't have a "X Leader" title (per what the source said). I changed it to "did not have a similar title", but feel free to rephrase as you see fit. czar ♔ 03:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Main page: Template:Did you know nominations/Kim dynasty (North Korea)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The current article title is unacceptable for several reasons, most of which were mentioned here; clearly, no one in this discussion likes this title and all agree that it should be moved somewhere. According to the consensus here, however, the proposed title fixes very few of the problems with this name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Kim dynasty (North Korea) → Kim dynasty – This is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the current title doesn't even sufficiently disambiguate from the Gyeongju Kim clan mentioned on the dab Kim Dynasty, as Silla also includes some of modern North Korea. No move of the dab is necessary; it can redirect here as {{R from other capitalisation}}. A hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will be sufficient. BDD (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The North Korean dynasty is the primary topic by every conceivable measure. czar ♔ 23:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re RM1 close - User:Czar, sorry but I wish I'd followed this non-admin close and move from to Kim family to an even worse title that wasn't on the RM1 proposal above. I really don't particularly like the title "the Kim dynasty" as jokey and POVy, despite its admitted the use by some WP:RECENT news media "the Kim dynasty", something like Kim succession in North Korean would be better, and the above RM might better have been relisted with the template changed to show the new proposed title.

As to this move RM2 Oppose - the RM1 is bad enough already, RM2 is making it even worse. In encyclopedic usage the "the Kim dynasty" + Silla (or Shilla) refers to "Silla.. the cradle of the Kim dynasty" "the Kim dynasty was soon established in the mid-fourth century" "the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, backed by Tang China" "The Korean peninsula was first unified in 668 ad by the Kim Dynasty of the Shilla Kingdom" "the Kim dynasty of the Silla Kingdom began with King Naemul (356-402)" "Kim Alchi, the founder of the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, was born in this forest in 67 A.D. "..... and so on. It will not harm modern readers with little knowledge of the peninsula to know that Korea was first united by a real Kim dynasty in serious academic sources, not just 3 communist leaders who are now being called a dynasty by their critics. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also if this (awful) proposal goes ahead a hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will not be sufficient - that half paragraph is a tiny snippet of the ko.wp article and that barely gives any information. By "Kim Dynasty" what is meant is later Shilla, and the hatnote would be to the Kim kings in Silla#Later_Silla. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the other dynasty is Kim dynasty (Silla) not "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" since "North Korea" is capitalized with a capital North, not a small Kim dynasty (northern Korea). -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support I see no persuasive suggestion of a better name, and this name seems appropriate to me. I do think that some people may imagine a royal dynasty, which is is not, but the political situation in North Korea is called a dynasty in significant sources. In ictu oculi is correct that misunderstanding will happen but I still feel this is the best option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kim dynasty is not sufficiently recognizable. There are many dynasties. There are many Kims We all know the Nth Korean Kim dynasty, but only in the context of Nth Korea is it significant. Maybe South Korea and Japan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• I reverted Red Slash's closure in dispute of the summary and not the actual closure. The editor reverted my revert and asked that I give a longer comment than was in my edit summary. The current title is "unacceptable"? I don't see how there is consensus for that conclusion in either this discussion or the one from a month ago. "Clearly nobody likes this title"? A single editor's claims were "persuasive" even though no one else responded to them? I think it's fairly straightforward that these are (unsupported) opinions by no means summative of the discussion. I don't have an issue with the closure, just the summary given, and I think a single revert should have been enough to ask the closer to revisit their language. czar ♔ 06:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Who likes the current title? I didn't see anybody saying "yes, this current title is the right one." Nobody responded to Iio's well-written, clear and logical arguments, which makes them more important, not less. I don't mean to be rude at all and I apologize if I have come off as rude. Red Slash 04:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who likes the current title? #Requested move 25 December 2013. Regardless, the job of a closer is to judge consensus and not to editorialize. Unless there is consensus that the name "isn't liked", it has no business being in the closing summary. Would you either strike those lines or revert your close for someone else to do so? czar ♔ 06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cumings

(diff) First, per BRD, when your proposed change is contested, the proper response is to bring it to the talk page for discussion rather than reverting the revert. But the source cited is not secondary to the situation. That a diplomat discussed something with Cumings, as written about by Cumings, is a primary source. Another expert citing the diplomat's conversation with Cumings as prescient might warrant inclusion. The sentence also doesn't fit as is without explaining why this opinion was particularly noteworthy, expected, unexpected, etc. czar 06:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A published book by a historian like Cumings is a secondary source, regardless of whether he was part of the discussion or not. He is not writing about his own experiences, but reflecting on the development of the personality cult. By your argument, a report by a journalist who conducted an interview or attended a news conference would be a primary source. In any case, there is no ban on using primary sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New source

Washington Post article on Kim Jong Un's aunty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-secret-life-of-kim-jong-uns-aunt-who-has-lived-in-the-us-since-1998/2016/05/26/522e4ec8-12d7-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

Cantab1985 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag

Should we really have an image in the Infobox called "Fictitious flag representing the three supreme leaders (also three generations of leaders) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"? Readers might think it was real.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is strange.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Emblem

add the emblem of supreme leader as the de-facto coat of arms of kim dynasty. The Chairman of the State Affairs Commission (or former Chairman of the National Defence Commission) is the title of the supreme leader, which are the role of the three leaders.. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wwbread: does anyone else describe or use this as "the de facto coat of arms of the Kim dynasty"? Unless the answer is yes, it's WP:OR. Besides, only Kim Jong-un has ever been the SAC Chairman. The coat of arms was introduced fairly recently and has only been used by Kim Jong-un. The NDC is not completely analogous in competence or importance. For Kim Il-sung, state presidency was the most important formal position he had. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Very biased article

This article is so biased (starting with the title) that it is difficult to know where to start. Political families are very prevalent in the US, not to mention other countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families - list of United States political families), but there is no article about the Bush dynasty (both father and son were president of the United States) or the Pak dynasty in South Korea (father and daughter were leaders) - not to mention the Kennedy family, of whom at least one family member served in federal offices every year from 1947-2011, the Cuomos (father and son were governor of New York), the Browns (father and son were governors in California), just to name a few examples. In addition to this the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and families in both countries - in South Korea, the top 1% have 25% of the wealth; the top 1% in the US have 40%. Unlike any monarchy, all three Kims were/are elected, even if some sources in the West dispute the validity of those elections (although international observers are always invited). Even Japanese officials confirmed Kim Il-sung to be one of the most popular figures from the resistance in occupied Korea (to which I would add, much more popular in Korea than Rhee Syngman ever was), according to Bruce Cumings (in Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History).

I agree that it's problematic. The three Kims were not selected by primogeniture and did not inherit a title. They have not all been not Presidents of North Korea. However, there is a lot of media coverage of this topic, so I think the article will continue to limp on to Armageddon.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with the article: one of the sources that is cited for the claim that North Korea is a "hereditary dictatorship" actually has no such quote from what I could see (I'm referring to "The links between North Korea and Syria Michael Sheridan, Far East correspondent ," which is not available for free online - it calls Kim Jong-il a "dictator," but again, "hereditary dictatorship" does not appear in the article). None of three books cited for this claim (one of which dates back to 1972) are available at any libraries near me, but it should be stressed that even if they do refer to North Korea as a monarchy, they are only expressing their opinion. The other article cited, "Next of Kim," offers this justification for their view:

"North Korea is unique among communist countries in having what amounts to a royal family. The current dictator, Kim Jong Il, inherited power from his father, Kim Il Sung. The personality cult extends not only to them, but to Kim senior’s mother, Kang Ban Suk (“mother of Korea”), to his first wife, Kim Chong Suk (“mother of revolution”), and to his brother, Kim Chol Ju (“the revolutionary fighter”). The picture above shows the two dictators and the mother of revolution. "

The problem here is that all of these people (excluding Kim Jong-Il, who was too young at the time) - especially Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-suk, but also the others - actually were in fact active in the resistance against Japanese fascism. This was one of the key differences between North Korea and South Korea, and should be recognized more widely - in the North, those who participated in the resistance were recognized and formed the basis of the government and military. In the South, the military and police force were based heavily on collaborators with Imperial Japan. The governments in the South also included collaborators such as Park Chung-hee (whose daughter would also end up becoming leader of South Korea). Also, another problem with that quote: Kim Jong-il did not just inherit power from his father, nor did Kim Jong-un (he attended officer training school before being promoted to Marshall of the armed forces, and was elected to the State Affairs Commissions and Korean Workers' Party's Presidium of the Politburo). I added a POV tag because this is obviously non-neutral.

While that's true, it's not really relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a ref for "hereditary dictatorship". In general, I don't think the article is biased. It's obvious how the case with North Korea is not equivalent to those of the US (Bushes, Kennedys Cuomos) or South Korea (the Park family). We're talking about a (de facto) non-elected leader now in the third generation with absolute power. This is a little different from say, two US presidents out of 45 from the same family with a democratic transition of power to the other party separating their terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

With regards to Kim Jong-un's military titles, it is not common practice for generals or marshalls anywhere in the world to be elected to their post: they are generally promoted (which Kim Jong-un was, again 5 years after finishing officer-training school). With regards to his title in the Politburo of the Korean Workers Party, he was elected to this by the Central Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Central_Committee_of_the_Workers%27_Party_of_Korea), the Central Committee in turn being elected after a party congress (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/world/asia/north-korea-congress.html - the article is critical, but confirms a congress did take place). In North Korea, citizens and delegates vote directly for or against candidates. In 2019, Kim Jong-un did not run for the Supreme Assembly and so was not elected there, but he was elected when he ran in 2014 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kim-jong-un-wins-100-of-the-vote-in-north-korean-elections-9180814.html) - as was Kim Jong-il to every Supreme Assembly election between 1982 and his death. In 2019, the Supreme Assembly did, however, re-elect Kim Jong-un as Chairman of the State Affairs Commission (the Supreme Assembly being similar to a parliament, being elected by all citizens 17 and older - and electing candidates from all walks of life). All of this differs greatly from monarchies which are exclusively hereditary. According to the article in the Independent that I cited:

"In practical terms, however, they [the Supreme Assembly elections] are a powerful tool for the government to check up on the movements and potential dissidence of the population."

This indicates that dissent is possible and contradicts the claim that the Supreme Assembly elections are simply a rubber stamp. If that were true, it would be impossible for them to be used to check "potential dissidence of the population" (if we accept the claim that the elections are used to monitor dissent to be true, which I don't believe they are in a bad way - most elections measure agreement/dissent, but North Korea's elections do so directly by voting for or against). As far as Kim Jong-un having "absolute power," this is disputed even by some critics of the government - an article in the Guardian of 27 May 2014, also very critical, wrote that "even the most avid North Korea watchers are divided on exactly how much power the young Kim wields." Also, the case of the Bushes, Kennedys, and Cuomos are not the only cases of political families in the US (the Wikipedia article about political families in the US I cited in my previous post lists nearly 90 political families just under "A"). Political families thus appear to be much more common in the US than North Korea. User:Incogreader 28/5/2019 (edited 30/5/2019)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mount Paektu bloodline or Mount Baekdu bloodline"

This term is itself based on a lie -- according to regime propaganda, Kim Jong Il was born on the mountain, while actually, of course, he was born in Russia -- as the article should make clear. AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear where he was born, but certainly the expression does not refer to him. The bloodline started with his father.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il is the one who was claimed to have been born on the mountain... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

quasi-symbol

As far as I can tell, the closest thing to a dynastic emblem or insgnia is the symbols of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea (the most important office held by all three and only the three), such as File:Generalissimo rank insignia (North Korea).svg and/or File:Standard of the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army.svg (though I don't know when these were introduced)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think they are dynastic emblems?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For the past 65 years or more, the office has been held by all of the three and only the three, and our Flag of North Korea article says: "According to Korea expert and scholar Brian Reynolds Myers, in North Korea, the flag of the Workers' Party of Korea and the KPA Supreme Commander's personal standard are treated with more reverence than the North Korean national flag, with the Supreme Commander's flag ranking highest among the three in terms of reverence." AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What a joke. This unprofessional attitude is indicative of this whole article full of RoK lies and hatred of the DPRK. Pure original research and Koreaphobic slurs. Choson Ilbo as a single source in the lead (the lying RoK press). For shame.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that means it is a dynastic symbol.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible heirs

I'm not sure we should have this section. If we keep it, it needs a lot of work to make it more neutral, less speculative etc. The claim that "power struggles within the dynasty have been violent" is just one view. Many say the regime is remarkably stable.[1][2] I don't think most sources describe the killings of Jang Song-thaek and Kim Jong-nam as "power struggles". We have no evidence either man was trying to take power. It might be better to have a section describing significant other members of the family who are considered part of the dynasty, rather than crystal ball-gazing. Or perhaps integrated into the rest of the text, where other information about family member is.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is for "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" or an otherwise close variant whereof. There is consensus against the current "Kim family" and the proposed "Kim Communist Dynasty". (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Kim family → Kim Communist Dynasty – "Kim" is the most common name in Korea, there are many other prominent Kim families/tribes/clans. This should indicate it is about the Communist dynasty. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, North Korea is not a communist state, in 2009, all references to communism were removed from their consitution, I think Kim Dynasty (North Korea) or just Kim Dynasty would be more appropriate. Charles Essie (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter if the NK constitution calls itself a Communist state or not, since the ruling party is the Communist party, and the Kim family is the dynasty at the head of the party and the state. Kim Dynasty (North Korea) is acceptable to me. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine, but the Workers' Party of Korea is not a communist party, it was, but not anymore, they replaced Communism and Marxism–Leninism with Juche and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism as the official ideology of the party and the state. Charles Essie (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and also oppose the current name. Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and there are lots of other notable people with the same surname, so the title could cause mixups with other families. Also, chuch'e seems to be more prominent than communism in present-day DPRK. The final title should match similar requested move such as Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree#Requested move. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to something, such as "Kim Dynasty (North Korea)". "Kim family" will not do. Oculi (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title as vague. Evidently, the proposed title is at least technically inaccurate so how about the suggested Kim dynasty (North Korea) but with a lowercase d since it is not a proper title of the family? —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

up until 2013, Kim family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was not about the North Korean ruling family. According to Kim (Korean surname), this is the most common surname in Korea, so there are many families that someone might create a tree for, so just "Kim family" is insufficiently precise or disambiguous. Many Kims are notable. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment see Template talk:Kim Jong-il family tree and Template talk:Family of Kim Jong-il for related move requests -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Category:Kim Il-sung family was recently moved to Category:Kim family, which I find a bit confusing. This category title is hardly descriptive, as Kim is the most common surname in Korea, and the family of Kim Il-sung is hardly the most notable. What about 16th century Korean nobles? What about wealthy business tycoons named Kim? Calling the whole thing "Kim family" is a bit counter-productive in my opinion. "Kim Il-sung family" uses the name of Kim Il-sung (the first president within the successing line of three) as a descriptor to firmly show which Kim family it is about. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment feel free to enter a suggestion for the name of this article, since I am assuming someone did a speedy rename based on the name of this article. (though they should not have, considering this requested move is open) -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I fully agree that "Kim family" should not be used to designate the Kim Il-sung family. The category name should either include a reference to North Korea/DPRK or it should be "Kim Il-sung family" since it's his dynasty we're talking about. Coinmanj (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it should be "Kim dynasty (North Korea)", because it has outlasted Kim Il-sung by 20 years, and he's already had two sucessors. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know its very easy to cll this a "dynasty" but seeing as it isn't exactly a feudal or constitutional monarchy, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as a "Family Dictatorship", like the Julian-Cluadian dictatorship in Rome?2600:1002:B025:5FDF:8953:F600:8EBC:BE9B (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Title of Kim Jong-un

“ Kim Il-sung was known as the Great Leader, and his eldest son raised to be his successor, Kim Jong-il, became known as the Dear Leader. [footnote: As of October 2013, Kim Jong-il's son and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had no such official title.] ”

This is a bit ambiguous and unclear. It seems correct that Kim Jong-un doesn't have a title including the word "leader" (or at least I haven't seen any such title in use anywhere), but the wording could suggest that he doesn't have any title at all. He certainly has titles – every North Korean leader has lots of titles. For example, the article List of Kim Jong-il's titles lists lots of different titles held by his father. A particularly popular title for the moment seems to be "Beloved Comrade Kim Jong-un" (경애하는 김정은동지), as seen for example here (official state propaganda: Rodong Sinmun), although "Comrade" (동지) sometimes is replaced by "Marshall" (원수). Also, Kim Jong-il is sometimes "Great Leader" (Great Leader Comrade/General Kim Jong-il, 위대한 령도자 김정일동지/장군).

There is some information about this at Great Leader (concept). The current wording is confusing, but it would be too long to explain everything in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I used that phrasing to go with how the RS put it, but I also just went with the basics. Wouldn't hurt to mention that they have lots of titles if you can find a ref for it. As for the Jong-un part, I meant that he didn't have a "X Leader" title (per what the source said). I changed it to "did not have a similar title", but feel free to rephrase as you see fit. czar ♔ 03:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Main page: Template:Did you know nominations/Kim dynasty (North Korea)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The current article title is unacceptable for several reasons, most of which were mentioned here; clearly, no one in this discussion likes this title and all agree that it should be moved somewhere. According to the consensus here, however, the proposed title fixes very few of the problems with this name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Kim dynasty (North Korea) → Kim dynasty – This is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the current title doesn't even sufficiently disambiguate from the Gyeongju Kim clan mentioned on the dab Kim Dynasty, as Silla also includes some of modern North Korea. No move of the dab is necessary; it can redirect here as {{R from other capitalisation}}. A hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will be sufficient. BDD (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The North Korean dynasty is the primary topic by every conceivable measure. czar ♔ 23:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re RM1 close - User:Czar, sorry but I wish I'd followed this non-admin close and move from to Kim family to an even worse title that wasn't on the RM1 proposal above. I really don't particularly like the title "the Kim dynasty" as jokey and POVy, despite its admitted the use by some WP:RECENT news media "the Kim dynasty", something like Kim succession in North Korean would be better, and the above RM might better have been relisted with the template changed to show the new proposed title.

As to this move RM2 Oppose - the RM1 is bad enough already, RM2 is making it even worse. In encyclopedic usage the "the Kim dynasty" + Silla (or Shilla) refers to "Silla.. the cradle of the Kim dynasty" "the Kim dynasty was soon established in the mid-fourth century" "the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, backed by Tang China" "The Korean peninsula was first unified in 668 ad by the Kim Dynasty of the Shilla Kingdom" "the Kim dynasty of the Silla Kingdom began with King Naemul (356-402)" "Kim Alchi, the founder of the Kim Dynasty of Shilla, was born in this forest in 67 A.D. "..... and so on. It will not harm modern readers with little knowledge of the peninsula to know that Korea was first united by a real Kim dynasty in serious academic sources, not just 3 communist leaders who are now being called a dynasty by their critics. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also if this (awful) proposal goes ahead a hatnote to Kim (Korean surname)#Gyeongju will not be sufficient - that half paragraph is a tiny snippet of the ko.wp article and that barely gives any information. By "Kim Dynasty" what is meant is later Shilla, and the hatnote would be to the Kim kings in Silla#Later_Silla. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the other dynasty is Kim dynasty (Silla) not "Kim dynasty (North Korea)" since "North Korea" is capitalized with a capital North, not a small Kim dynasty (northern Korea). -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support I see no persuasive suggestion of a better name, and this name seems appropriate to me. I do think that some people may imagine a royal dynasty, which is is not, but the political situation in North Korea is called a dynasty in significant sources. In ictu oculi is correct that misunderstanding will happen but I still feel this is the best option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kim dynasty is not sufficiently recognizable. There are many dynasties. There are many Kims We all know the Nth Korean Kim dynasty, but only in the context of Nth Korea is it significant. Maybe South Korea and Japan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• I reverted Red Slash's closure in dispute of the summary and not the actual closure. The editor reverted my revert and asked that I give a longer comment than was in my edit summary. The current title is "unacceptable"? I don't see how there is consensus for that conclusion in either this discussion or the one from a month ago. "Clearly nobody likes this title"? A single editor's claims were "persuasive" even though no one else responded to them? I think it's fairly straightforward that these are (unsupported) opinions by no means summative of the discussion. I don't have an issue with the closure, just the summary given, and I think a single revert should have been enough to ask the closer to revisit their language. czar ♔ 06:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Who likes the current title? I didn't see anybody saying "yes, this current title is the right one." Nobody responded to Iio's well-written, clear and logical arguments, which makes them more important, not less. I don't mean to be rude at all and I apologize if I have come off as rude. Red Slash 04:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who likes the current title? #Requested move 25 December 2013. Regardless, the job of a closer is to judge consensus and not to editorialize. Unless there is consensus that the name "isn't liked", it has no business being in the closing summary. Would you either strike those lines or revert your close for someone else to do so? czar ♔ 06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cumings

(diff) First, per BRD, when your proposed change is contested, the proper response is to bring it to the talk page for discussion rather than reverting the revert. But the source cited is not secondary to the situation. That a diplomat discussed something with Cumings, as written about by Cumings, is a primary source. Another expert citing the diplomat's conversation with Cumings as prescient might warrant inclusion. The sentence also doesn't fit as is without explaining why this opinion was particularly noteworthy, expected, unexpected, etc. czar 06:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A published book by a historian like Cumings is a secondary source, regardless of whether he was part of the discussion or not. He is not writing about his own experiences, but reflecting on the development of the personality cult. By your argument, a report by a journalist who conducted an interview or attended a news conference would be a primary source. In any case, there is no ban on using primary sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New source

Washington Post article on Kim Jong Un's aunty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-secret-life-of-kim-jong-uns-aunt-who-has-lived-in-the-us-since-1998/2016/05/26/522e4ec8-12d7-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

Cantab1985 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag

Should we really have an image in the Infobox called "Fictitious flag representing the three supreme leaders (also three generations of leaders) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"? Readers might think it was real.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is strange.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Emblem

add the emblem of supreme leader as the de-facto coat of arms of kim dynasty. The Chairman of the State Affairs Commission (or former Chairman of the National Defence Commission) is the title of the supreme leader, which are the role of the three leaders.. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wwbread: does anyone else describe or use this as "the de facto coat of arms of the Kim dynasty"? Unless the answer is yes, it's WP:OR. Besides, only Kim Jong-un has ever been the SAC Chairman. The coat of arms was introduced fairly recently and has only been used by Kim Jong-un. The NDC is not completely analogous in competence or importance. For Kim Il-sung, state presidency was the most important formal position he had. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Very biased article

This article is so biased (starting with the title) that it is difficult to know where to start. Political families are very prevalent in the US, not to mention other countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families - list of United States political families), but there is no article about the Bush dynasty (both father and son were president of the United States) or the Pak dynasty in South Korea (father and daughter were leaders) - not to mention the Kennedy family, of whom at least one family member served in federal offices every year from 1947-2011, the Cuomos (father and son were governor of New York), the Browns (father and son were governors in California), just to name a few examples. In addition to this the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and families in both countries - in South Korea, the top 1% have 25% of the wealth; the top 1% in the US have 40%. Unlike any monarchy, all three Kims were/are elected, even if some sources in the West dispute the validity of those elections (although international observers are always invited). Even Japanese officials confirmed Kim Il-sung to be one of the most popular figures from the resistance in occupied Korea (to which I would add, much more popular in Korea than Rhee Syngman ever was), according to Bruce Cumings (in Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History).

I agree that it's problematic. The three Kims were not selected by primogeniture and did not inherit a title. They have not all been not Presidents of North Korea. However, there is a lot of media coverage of this topic, so I think the article will continue to limp on to Armageddon.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with the article: one of the sources that is cited for the claim that North Korea is a "hereditary dictatorship" actually has no such quote from what I could see (I'm referring to "The links between North Korea and Syria Michael Sheridan, Far East correspondent ," which is not available for free online - it calls Kim Jong-il a "dictator," but again, "hereditary dictatorship" does not appear in the article). None of three books cited for this claim (one of which dates back to 1972) are available at any libraries near me, but it should be stressed that even if they do refer to North Korea as a monarchy, they are only expressing their opinion. The other article cited, "Next of Kim," offers this justification for their view:

"North Korea is unique among communist countries in having what amounts to a royal family. The current dictator, Kim Jong Il, inherited power from his father, Kim Il Sung. The personality cult extends not only to them, but to Kim senior’s mother, Kang Ban Suk (“mother of Korea”), to his first wife, Kim Chong Suk (“mother of revolution”), and to his brother, Kim Chol Ju (“the revolutionary fighter”). The picture above shows the two dictators and the mother of revolution. "

The problem here is that all of these people (excluding Kim Jong-Il, who was too young at the time) - especially Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-suk, but also the others - actually were in fact active in the resistance against Japanese fascism. This was one of the key differences between North Korea and South Korea, and should be recognized more widely - in the North, those who participated in the resistance were recognized and formed the basis of the government and military. In the South, the military and police force were based heavily on collaborators with Imperial Japan. The governments in the South also included collaborators such as Park Chung-hee (whose daughter would also end up becoming leader of South Korea). Also, another problem with that quote: Kim Jong-il did not just inherit power from his father, nor did Kim Jong-un (he attended officer training school before being promoted to Marshall of the armed forces, and was elected to the State Affairs Commissions and Korean Workers' Party's Presidium of the Politburo). I added a POV tag because this is obviously non-neutral.

While that's true, it's not really relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a ref for "hereditary dictatorship". In general, I don't think the article is biased. It's obvious how the case with North Korea is not equivalent to those of the US (Bushes, Kennedys Cuomos) or South Korea (the Park family). We're talking about a (de facto) non-elected leader now in the third generation with absolute power. This is a little different from say, two US presidents out of 45 from the same family with a democratic transition of power to the other party separating their terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

With regards to Kim Jong-un's military titles, it is not common practice for generals or marshalls anywhere in the world to be elected to their post: they are generally promoted (which Kim Jong-un was, again 5 years after finishing officer-training school). With regards to his title in the Politburo of the Korean Workers Party, he was elected to this by the Central Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Central_Committee_of_the_Workers%27_Party_of_Korea), the Central Committee in turn being elected after a party congress (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/world/asia/north-korea-congress.html - the article is critical, but confirms a congress did take place). In North Korea, citizens and delegates vote directly for or against candidates. In 2019, Kim Jong-un did not run for the Supreme Assembly and so was not elected there, but he was elected when he ran in 2014 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kim-jong-un-wins-100-of-the-vote-in-north-korean-elections-9180814.html) - as was Kim Jong-il to every Supreme Assembly election between 1982 and his death. In 2019, the Supreme Assembly did, however, re-elect Kim Jong-un as Chairman of the State Affairs Commission (the Supreme Assembly being similar to a parliament, being elected by all citizens 17 and older - and electing candidates from all walks of life). All of this differs greatly from monarchies which are exclusively hereditary. According to the article in the Independent that I cited:

"In practical terms, however, they [the Supreme Assembly elections] are a powerful tool for the government to check up on the movements and potential dissidence of the population."

This indicates that dissent is possible and contradicts the claim that the Supreme Assembly elections are simply a rubber stamp. If that were true, it would be impossible for them to be used to check "potential dissidence of the population" (if we accept the claim that the elections are used to monitor dissent to be true, which I don't believe they are in a bad way - most elections measure agreement/dissent, but North Korea's elections do so directly by voting for or against). As far as Kim Jong-un having "absolute power," this is disputed even by some critics of the government - an article in the Guardian of 27 May 2014, also very critical, wrote that "even the most avid North Korea watchers are divided on exactly how much power the young Kim wields." Also, the case of the Bushes, Kennedys, and Cuomos are not the only cases of political families in the US (the Wikipedia article about political families in the US I cited in my previous post lists nearly 90 political families just under "A"). Political families thus appear to be much more common in the US than North Korea. User:Incogreader 28/5/2019 (edited 30/5/2019)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mount Paektu bloodline or Mount Baekdu bloodline"

This term is itself based on a lie -- according to regime propaganda, Kim Jong Il was born on the mountain, while actually, of course, he was born in Russia -- as the article should make clear. AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear where he was born, but certainly the expression does not refer to him. The bloodline started with his father.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il is the one who was claimed to have been born on the mountain... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

quasi-symbol

As far as I can tell, the closest thing to a dynastic emblem or insgnia is the symbols of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea (the most important office held by all three and only the three), such as File:Generalissimo rank insignia (North Korea).svg and/or File:Standard of the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army.svg (though I don't know when these were introduced)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think they are dynastic emblems?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For the past 65 years or more, the office has been held by all of the three and only the three, and our Flag of North Korea article says: "According to Korea expert and scholar Brian Reynolds Myers, in North Korea, the flag of the Workers' Party of Korea and the KPA Supreme Commander's personal standard are treated with more reverence than the North Korean national flag, with the Supreme Commander's flag ranking highest among the three in terms of reverence." AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What a joke. This unprofessional attitude is indicative of this whole article full of RoK lies and hatred of the DPRK. Pure original research and Koreaphobic slurs. Choson Ilbo as a single source in the lead (the lying RoK press). For shame.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that means it is a dynastic symbol.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible heirs

I'm not sure we should have this section. If we keep it, it needs a lot of work to make it more neutral, less speculative etc. The claim that "power struggles within the dynasty have been violent" is just one view. Many say the regime is remarkably stable.[3][4] I don't think most sources describe the killings of Jang Song-thaek and Kim Jong-nam as "power struggles". We have no evidence either man was trying to take power. It might be better to have a section describing significant other members of the family who are considered part of the dynasty, rather than crystal ball-gazing. Or perhaps integrated into the rest of the text, where other information about family members is.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Title Change

While the Kim family do effectively act as a dynasty, the connotations of the word implies that North Korea is a form of monarchy. The phrase "the Kim dynasty" is often used to describe their cult of personality within the county. Surly it would make sense to rename the article to the loess presumptuous name the Kim family similarly to the Roosevelt family or Nehru–Gandhi family.--Kappasi (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Kim family (North Korea)" would be better.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Kim family (North Korea) → Kim dynasty (North Korea) – The page was moved without broad consensus or requested move procedure about a year ago by Kappasi with an edit summary that read: "Current title uses wording that has negative, biased implications". "Dynasty" had been the title since this page was first created by Czar back in late 2013; as highlighted by the category name Category:Kim dynasty (North Korea) and the template {{Kim dynasty (North Korea)}} (which was also moved by Frietjes after the undiscussed move here [likely as pro-forma]).

Sources in the article such as the ones below highlight the aspect of the "dynasty" nomenclature:

• Grzelczyk, Virginie (Winter 2012). "In the Name of the Father, Son, and Grandson: Succession Patterns and the Kim Dynasty". The Journal of Northeast Asian History. 9 (2). Northeast Asian History Foundation: 35–68. Archived from the original on 9 January 2014. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
• Martin, Bradley K. (2007). Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-0699-9.
• Buzo, Adrian (1999). The Guerilla Dynasty: Politics and Leadership in North Korea. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-86064-415-3.
• Lintner, Bertil (2005). Great Leader, Dear Leader: Demystifying North Korea Under the Kim Clan. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. ISBN 978-974-9575-69-7.

And if ngram is considered both usages are upto par with each other.

Also see Commons or for that matter other language wikis as well, even the Korean wiki which though uses Kim Il-sung family as a title says "Internationally, it is called the Kim dynasty."

This move request is to gauge consensus on the topic as the last move was undiscussed, I am not strongly with any title even though I titl towards the proposed one. Gotitbro (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose — "Dynasty" heavily implies monarchal rule. The authors provided above (not all of whom are scholars) use the term "Kim dynasty" because they argue that North Korea is a de facto monarchy. Prominent viewpoints on the subject should be featured in the article, but they should not inform the title of the article, especially when assigning labels. "Family" is the neutral name and, in my opinion, the more appropriate one as it avoids the needless debate of whether the common de facto designations regarding North Korea should be used over the de jure ones. Yue🌙 22:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Oxford simply defines a dynasty as "a series of leaders of a country who all belong to the same family". Dynasty does not imply monarchical rule, here in the U. S. you'll here "Kennedy dynasty" or "Bush dynasty", even though neither family held monarchical rule. Plus, there's the show by the same name that certainly is not about monarchical rule.

Moreover, this article focuses primarily on the three leaders of North Korea and the potential successors of the present one, rather than the whole family as is covered by the Kennedy or Bush articles. Estar8806 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Also just now realizing the page was in fact called "Kim family" in the past but was moved to dynasty by consensus here, so the move from dynasty here was certainly questionable. Estar8806 (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Wikipedia does not have an article entitled the "Kennedy dynasty" or the "Bush dynasty". Use of the term "dynasty" in an encyclopedic article implies there is a fully formed monarchical system with a law of succession or something similar. We should avoid promoting speculation and exaggeration.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose only monarchies have dynasties. I do not believe authors making use of "Kim dynasty" are seriously implying that the family should be considered a dynasty and not simply using an exaggerated prose for their works. Super Ψ Dro 13:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Dynasty is a heavily laded term, and the use of the terms "Bush dynasty" and "Kennedy dynasty" certainly does not justify it-- both "Bush dynasty" and "Kennedy dynasty" are informal terms, primarily used disparagingly, and suggest that the two families are essentially monarchies. Freedom4U (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - procedurally, the article should have been moved back and an RM started to move it to Kim family. I agree that the term "dynasty" is loaded and non-neutral, and we should avoid it if a more neutral example exists. However, I think bringing up the Kennedies or the Bushes is a false equivalence: the 2016 election cycle proved that despite some families wielding influence, rule in America is not a de facto monarchy; on the other hand, North Korea is a de facto monarchy, and nobody seriously suggests that Kim Jong-un's successor will be outside the family (indeed, there is serious speculation that the leadership will eventually go to Ju-ae, his daughter). Sceptre (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm suspicious of the Google Ngram result linked in nominator's rationale, and believe this is more representative of actual usage. JSTOR further proves that the North Korean presently ruling lineage is overwhelmingly more referred to as "Kim family" than "Kim dynasty". Furthermore in favor of "Kim family" is that it is less ambigous than "Kim dynasty" due to the fact there were many more (notable) historical ruling Korean lineages (conventionally speaking, 'dynasties') than there were families unbelonging to these. A quick Google search reveals only two top results for "kim family" unrelated to Jong-un's. In conclusion, "Kim family" is the WP:COMMONNAME for Jong-un's lineage; Jong-un's lineage is the WP:PTOPIC for both phrases; "Kim family" is less ambigous. -Vipz (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.