Wikipedia

Talk:Death and state funeral of Kim Jong Il

(Redirected from Talk:Death and state funeral of Kim Jong-il)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

NPOV? edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article appears to begin with, and gives undue space to the theory that the Kim that died is not in fact the real Kim. It's cited to "an authority on Korea", but what are his credentials and how are those views accepted by other observers and pundits? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article is another fine example of recentism on Wikipedia edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Usual wikipedian logic, "hey it's in the news, there are lots of sources, therefore it needs it's own article". Er no. This article only exists because it is happening now and it easy to pull "reliable" news reports off the web. It must be noted that with the advent of WP, just about every famous person who now dies can have one of these "shrine pages". Ironically for those famous and historical (and potentially more worthy) figures that died before this internet era, that honor will be eternally lacking for them.

It is particularly galling that this article only exists because western sycophants seem to happy to applaud the man, a dictator who is responsible for killing millions of his fellow countrymen, who hypocritically gave his own family a western lifestyle while allowing his own people to starve to death eating grass, for the death camps that operated in his name, and still do et al.

This is all WP:Recentism in a weeks time he will be forgotten and the Wiki-fapping will stop. But now this article is here, will this little homage to a nasty man be removed. Of course not! In comparison maybe it's time we had more articles regarding Hitler and what he did for 1930s Germany. Well that's rhetorical because 1. positive articles would be deleted on POV grounds and 2. Hitler is history so therefore a v.cold topic.

All in all there is nothing notable about this mad, bad dictators death. If anyone really knew anything about Korean history, you would be aware that the more notable death was Kim Il-Sung because Kim Jung-Il was forced to step up to the plate whereas this period of change in NK government has already been mapped out. Hmm but no article on the death of the Great Leader....what an un-surprise there!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.75.60 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you notice we have articles on particular sports matches? Exactly how is this less significant? And Kim Il-Sung didn't have nuclear weapons, but Kim Jong-Il did. And if he did kill millions of his own countrymen, then he's all the more notable, isn't he? Your own argument makes him notable. What, we should only cover good people or something? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
KEEP: Recentism isn't necessarily the disease, just a symptom of the information age. It's pretty undeniable that in western society, Kim Jong-Il is as recognizable as Bugs Bunny, if not more so. The contents of this article are generally worthy of being kept around in excrutiating detail, but it might make more sense to eventually merge this into a historical article about the transition of power -- once the events have solidly unfolded and have become history. 74.85.18.195 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think this article should be summarized and incorporated into kim jong il´s page 200.55.135.211 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Mistakefinder (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sources may be lagging in a big way on the topic of his death. However, if coverage does wind down and the death in itself doesn't seem meaningful enough for a stand-alone article, this could be taken to WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agree. Bigturtle (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Merge into Kim Jung-il edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: I've moved the original discussion onto the Kim Jong-il Talk page. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

International Reactions edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What purpose does the international reactions serve. They pretty much all say the same thing. I came here from the main page and don't think this article should be linked from there in its current state. AIRcorn (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed time and time again, please read the deletion consensus of the 2011 Norway bombing article for the reason why it was kept. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The trouble is they always get discussed right after the event happens when emotions are high. There is a lot of keep it because its there arguments in that discussion plus the circular we have other articles on reactions so lets keep this one. What is the encyclopaedic value of quoting every country that sends its condolences? What is the justification for having a longer international reactions section than details about his death? AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Aircorn to an extent. Countries like Vietnam, Venezuela, Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Mongolia say mostly the same thing: they express their condolences with the North Korean people and/or Kim Jong-Un. Those could all be put in a straight list, as in "Countries that expressed their condolences in letter or public announcement:"

Countries that express messages other than simple condolences might be singled out, as they are now (Sweden, South Korea, etc.). The message sent by Armenia is priceless. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't know about anyone else here, but I found it highly entertaining. Most especially was Bashar al-Assad of Syria: "...a great loss not only to the Korean people but to the people of all countries struggling for freedom, justice and peace... May his soul rest in peace." I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Afalbrig (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:Kim Jong-il on August 24, 2011.jpg edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, can someone tweak the pop up on the image so that it gives some detail. Presently it just says "thumbtimee=" which isn't very helpful. I've just investigated the prospect of adding text to the description on Commons but the image is protected. If this is what's needed I wonder if someone could do it. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

List of Funeral Committee members edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - I'm just checking to see whether I'm the only one who thinks the list of funeral committee members adds nothing to the article, and should be deleted. I think it's more than enough to mention that the committee is headed by Kim Jong-un and comprises many high ranking officials, and it's arbitrary to list the people there now given that there are 232 people on the committee. This list tells us absolutely nothing about the funeral. Also, in my opinion, the details of the funeral should be paraphrased instead of simply printing the entire statement from the funeral committee (via the Korean Central News Agency). I think these changes would greatly improve the readability and style of the "Funeral Service" section. Thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What the funeral committee list does is it gives people clues about the pecking order in North Korea, something which is otherwise difficult to discern. See this article for instance: Clues from Kim Jong-il Funeral List. See also this BBC article which says "His name is first in the list of members of the 'national funeral committee' published by the main North Korean news agency, the KCNA - something observers say is a good guide to individual rankings in the Pyongyang power structure." Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Minute of silence at UNGA edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To my knowledge, a minute of silence is not often observed at United Nations General Assembly for a particular person's death, more rarely is it boycotted by most of the delegates. Should this act be mentioned in the mourning section? Some internet sources claim the 17 delegates that attended the moment of silence are from PR China, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Vietnam, Laos, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, but I am unable to find a reliable source. Perhaps it is noteworthy that most of these countries are socialist states or formally socialist states.--Venerer (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kim Jong-il was a sick bastard who was respected by NOBODY, be it socialist or former socialist countries. So I seriously doubt that such ceremony was ever held and that delegates from those countries attended. So before mentioning those countries are socialist, let's start with finding the source to prove such travesty happened at all. Nomad (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Parties edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

We have a section for states and individuals, I think it might be profitable to a have a section for foreign parties, such as the Workers World Party, Communist parties of Lebanon, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, ANC youth League and many other lefts parties and ngos that sent messages of condolences and solidarity. What do ya think? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see what some people are saying about a party being a de fact govt. organization in some cases, but then you have cases like the ANC, or ever Frelimo, ZANU or MPLA, that are theoretically just governing parties in a multiparty system. I think it would be best to put all parties in one place, because it varies from country to country when a ruling party is part of a govt. and to what degree.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why do we need all these samey-looking diplomatically-worded messages of condolence? Is each of them notable in some way? bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Per what I said in the section below. I think we need to be careful on this one. I note the case of the Canadian Communists - they got 0.067% of the vote. TIs such a niche organisation's opinion really notable or is KCNA's propaganda machine in full swing publishing as many press releases as possible to make it look like the world is in mourning? Pit-yacker (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dialy NK neutrality edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I hate North Korea with all my heart but so does the source of the information about people being punished for not mourning enough over KJI's death. Daily NK is fully anti-North Korean "newspaper". Their point of view is as neutral as Holocaust. Do we really need this paragraph? Nomad (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

It appears details of this were mentioned twice, one of which has been removed. However, it seems the "Daily NK" story has been reported by numerous sources in the west including CNN, The Daily Mail, ABC News and Franced 24 to name just 4. It was even serious enough for KCNA itself to issue a denial. At least in the UK, one of the most discussed issues of the death on the news was how genuine the public mourning was. If we can find reliable reports that it was staged, or that mourners were playing to the cameras, then balanced coverage of the subject should cover the fact. As far as DailyNK goes itself, I guess we dont need it as more reliable sources have re-reported the story. However, the same questions of neutrality, relevance and accuracy could be made about the 25+ uses of Korean Central News Agency as a source. For example, when I look at "Parties and organizations", what proportion of public opinion do the various western communist parties represent? Looking at Canada the party concerned got 0.067% of the vote in 2011. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Financial markets reaction edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I seriously doubt the death of the leader of one of the poorest countries in the world could cause all that turmoil that's described in the article. With the currect economic situation in the world, it could have been just market fluctuations. North Korea had and is having NO influence on the world economy. Nomad (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are correct that North Korea is one of the smallest enconmies in the world. However, perhaps the point you miss is that it is one of nine nations known to have nuclear weapons. It has the capability, and has repeatedly threatened, to strike against Japan. Japan is the world's third biggest economy. Do the maths from there. A nuclear strike on Japan would make the present economic crisis look tame. Regardless, the source (BBC News) is probably one of the most reliable, and that attributes the fall to the death. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Death and state funeral of Kim Jong-il. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Death and state funeral of Kim Jong-il. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Split proposal edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose splitting the Reactions section, tagged as too long, into an article called Reactions to the death of Kim Jong-il. We have many reaction articles both in general and for deaths specifically. Unlike many reaction sections/articles, this one is fairly interesting because it is not diplomatic platitudes. Even countries with diplomatic relations with North Korea took the opportunity to criticize not only the man but also the state and its political system. On the other hand, some countries and organizations offered praise. There were many news stories not only about the individual reactions, but about the reactions as a whole. With some countries and organizations, the reactions are still coming, almost ten years after the fact, because of annual commemorations. I don't think keeping the content here in this article and trimming it is a good option. All voices are important because the death was seen to have major geopolitical ramifications the world over. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

!vote Support, too long section and big category Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Kim_Jong_Il&oldid=1206909136"