Open main menu

not Ju but ju, title should also be correctedEdit

Title should be changed to Ri Sol-ju following Korean rules. You may see these rules in other Korean names.Egeymi (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the news, “신화통신은 평양발 기사에서 김 제1위원장 부인의 이름을 '李雪珠'라고 썼다.” (→ Xinhua News Agency in Pyongyang wrote 李雪珠, about the names of Kim's wife.) --Idh0854 (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Start of termEdit

I've removed the date "24 July 2012" from the term_start field of the infobox template. There's no indication from the sources of this article that she actually started to be "First Lady" of North Korea (if such an office even officially exists) on that date. Rather, 24 or 25 July was the first time the North Korean media is known to have reported her existence. The marriage is not known to have taken place on that date, nor is that date her first public appearance with her husband on official visits. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think calling her first lady means an office title exists, it's just standard to call the wife of the head of state "first lady", they have be called something just for organizational purposes on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If "first lady" is not an office, then using the "term_start" field isn't particularly appropriate. If one (re)interprets it as referring to the date she became the wife of the head of state, then it needs to be set to the later of the date of her marriage to Kim Jong Un or the date he became head of state. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not standard to call the wife of a head of state "first lady", this would be an example of US-bias (see WP:BIAS). In countries which have a monarchy the wife of the head of state is normally called "queen", and in Britain the wife of the prime minister is not normally known as the first lady. We already have a category "spouses of heads of government" which we can perfectly legitimately include her in, as little is known about the personal lives of North Korean leaders we don't need to create a new office consisting of only one person. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait for North Korea's propaganda unit to come up with a name for her, as they did with the previous consort, who was known as the 'Great Mother' etc.. until she has a son she is isn't fully secure in her position so they probably don't want to push a cult of personality much yet. Also, is it normal to have more than one wife in North Korea? Green Cardamom (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a NPOV newspaper article that describes her as First Lady. See cite. Please discuss and change if necessay. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What one US newspaper is calling her does not clinch the argument. We would be cautious about calling her "Great Mother" or something like that, although we might report that some people were calling her that. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The New York Times article, titled "That Mystery Woman in North Korea? Turns Out She’s the First Lady", says:
Kim Jong-il himself had at least three known wives, but none was ever identified as the first lady. Like his father before him, he also was thought to surround himself with other beautiful young women. For the current leader, all indications so far are that Ms. Ri has no rivals.
Seems weird that they call her "First Lady" in the article, I guess the assumption being she is the only lady or something. Anyway, no evidence what her title is, other than "wife". Green Cardamom (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Later, when we get more info from the DPRK we can change the title or not. Let us work to gether to create a good article with great cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


I added an info box based on the South Korean First Lady article. The info was from the existing text of the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Political affiliationEdit

Editors of this article still seem quite fond of adding unsourced and possibly incorrect information to the infobox. I just removed "Workers' Party of Korea" from the political affiliation field. Does anyone have a source for this? As with the former GDR, the DPRK is nominally a multi-party state; the parties are all allied to each other, but this doesn't mean that that their names are freely substitutable. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Reported vs actualEdit

Ri Sol-ju is still very much a mystery, little is know for sure. Much information is from unnamed south korean analysts reported in western news sources. Her name, age, schooling, family, background etc.. are all reported by analysts and not officially confirmed by north korean sources. I think it's correct to use western media sources on Wikipedia, they are reliable, so long as it's worded to infer there is room for unknown, for example not stating a fact directly rather saying "reportedly". Thus the article reads a bit weasel wordy, since so much of it is coming from analysts, but it's important to clarify what is known for sure vs. what is reported to be the case. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Western media is never reliable, especially when it comes to reporting on countries whose official ideology is not likable. Most of their reports should be considered as "speculations", or more literally, "random guesses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.12.170 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I support saying, "Some commentators said ..." and wait for better sources until more information is given from DPRNK news sources. I support Green Cardamom idea. Let us form consensus to add items based on current reports and update as needed.Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems entirely inappropriate to use unsourced, unevidenced speculation by nameless "analysts" (who may not exist) mentioned in news/opinion reports. These would not be accepted on Wikipedia if put in a WP article by the authors of these reports; there's no reason to consider them appropriate simply because they've been laundered through "reliable" sources (i.e., online blogs!). What makes these sources reliable? Only that we expect them to use credible, named, well-referenced sources. If they don't, then they're not "reliable sources" any more. If we're citing opinions, then we should be able to say where the opinion comes from, so that readers can make up their own mind on how much they can trust it. If we can't say where the opinion comes from -- if the "analyst" is unnamed -- then we should just leave it out.RandomCritic (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It's normal for newspapers not to reveal their sources and just say "security analysts", they do that to protect the anonymity of their source. The sources used in this article are reliable publishers and journalists, not blogs or opinion pieces. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Your prefixing the adjective "reliable" to the words "publishers and journalists" does not automatically make them reliable, at least not in the sense in which the word is used on WP. If they're not citing their sources, then they're not reliable. We should always be able to trace any assertion of fact to its source, documentary or individual. If that source is deliberately concealed, then questions of reliability inevitably arise. It's very naïve to think that "journalists and publishers" would not print information of dubious value simply because they value their reputation as "reliable sources". Take a look at Journalistic scandal for examples of how news and opinion writers have hidden behind anonymous "analysts" and other fictional sources in order to propagate misinformation.RandomCritic (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It is normal and common for journalists to protect the anonymity of their sources. Journalists in the Washington Post, New York Times, and every paper in the world commonly and as a matter of course protect the anonymity of their sources. If you are suggesting there has been an intentional conspiracy by the press to propagate misinformation about Ri Sol-ju, you would need to provide a source for that accusation, otherwise there is no reason to assume bad faith, the cited media are otherwise considered reliable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Another way may be to attribute the claims to the media outlet itself. For example, "The New York Times reports"... or "Yonhap News, quoting unnamed analysts, report..." rather than "South Korean analysts state that..." or something similar. I think doing so would keep in line with WP:RS. So yeah, I agree with Green Cardamom.--RDavi404 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Official photo of Kim Jong-Un and Ri Sol-juEdit

Since there is bound to be an official photo of Kim Jong-Un and Ri Sol-ju somewhere in the DPRK, why not just ask your local DPRK embassy cultural attaché if she has an appropriate open-source digital photo that the DPRK would not mind having posted on Wikipedia.org? Then, the embassy can post it on their website and an editor can copy it and then post the photo to the appropriate article page. The cultural attaché would look good by doing this small courtesy. It is a win for the DPRK, a win for the editor, and a win for Wikipedia.org. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can tell from your suggestion that you have never dealt with the North Koreans before. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
--
Interesting idea. Official DPRK material is all copyright by default, it would require the DPRK to make a special exception. I think someone in the embassy might be reluctant to stick their neck out with something like the beautiful wife of the leader! Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm almost sure we have an editor here who could take a picture, if they have the guts to. After all, they seem to have used Wikipedia's article as a recipe for the bomb. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it would be difficult, User:Fred Bauder, Green Cardamom, and Psychonaut, but it can not hurt to ask. It would be like hunting for the elusive cite to an article that for some reason has no or few citations. See Soraya Tarzi for the end result of the hunting of the cite. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I just called the Mission of the DPRK at the UN and asked. The officer said call back tommorrow. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a promising lead. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Snark hunting is only for the very brave or the very foolish. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I called the DPRK UN Mission back, got the voice mail, and left a message. Hope the Mission can provide the digital photos because it could be part of the DPRK's charm offensive. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"DPRK's charm offensive" .. now I know you're joking. I hope they provide the pictures, good luck on your quest! Green Cardamom (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not joking about the part about the two telephone calls to the UN Mission of the DPRK. I actually did it.
Let's try not to be snarky, at this time, be reasonably respectful because the UN Mission of the DPRK might look at this talk page and think we are not serious about getting a digital photo of the Kim Jong-Un, the son of the Dear Leader, and Ri Sol-ju. I am very sure the Dear Leader would want his son and the son's wife to have an appropriate photograph on Wikipedia. It would be very bad and very disrespectful to deny the birthright of the son of the Dear Leader. Hopefully, the attaches' will have a speed battle to provide the photos. Just my opinion. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) edited again by Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────We should be reasonably respectful. I don't have a lot of trouble with that. Like many observers I'm quite optimistic and impressed by Kim and his wife. But, of course, prepared to be disappointed. We not in any position to remove unfavorable material, but would love to move most of it to History of North Korea. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fred Bauder and Green Cardamom and I will modify my behavior. Thanks for reading between the above and I hope for the best about getting the photos. I understand it is a long shot but someone should do it even if it is a windmill that looks like a giant. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
On 21 August 2012, at 4:02 PM EST, I, again, contacted the UN Mission of the DPRK and explained the search of public-domain photographs of Kim Jong-un and Ri Sol-ju for the purpose of posting on Wikipedia. The officer, that answered, referred me to www.kpna.kp.
Following a modified Lewis Caroll's Bellman's Rule as illustrated by Parhat v. Gates, since I telephoned three times and could not find someone to say the photographs exists, therefore, the photographs do not exist (so, no more calling the United Nations Mission of the DPRK; we do not want to WP:Hound).
However, this windmill is still waving its giant arms and I have another method of possibly getting the photographs on 22 August 2012. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
After contacting various organizations in Washington, DC, for digital photographs, I could not find a copyright free open source. Still undeterred, I went to Dandong in PR of China, which is across the Yalu River from Sinŭiju, North Korea and, at a museum dedicated to the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, all I got was this picture of a picture of his grandfather.[1] So, my quest is ended. I am now focusing on more fruitful pursuits.
Please see the attached photo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC) I struck out the photo on 2 October 2012. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the original copyright still persists in a photograph of a photograph. Unless you had permission from the copyright holder of that image of Kim Il-Sung, then it's not permitted to upload it to Commons and claim that it's under a CC licence. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
ThanksPsychonaut, I appricate it. I am just saying that I could not find pictures of the couple even though I traveled to the border of the DPRK. It seems easier to find a copyright free photo of Kate Middleton's torso than a picture of the Dear Successor's wife, who is wearing Chanel-style clothing. I am just saying as a comment on cultural priorities. I am now focusing on more fruitful pursuits. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Dear Fellow Editores: An IP editor posted links to photos of Kim Jong-un on my talk page. One of the photos says it is uploaded using a Creative Commons lic. What do all of you think? Please see my talk page for the links. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The same image has been uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons umpteen times. The original source of this image is Associated Press. The license on Facebook is not valid. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
How would you know it isn't? Can you prove your claims? --Krawunsel (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have to. It is up to uploaders to prove the provenance of an image and its license. I haven't seen one of these yet that isn't sourced back to any of AP, Reuters, KCNA, or the like where there is no free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course you do. You make a claim, you prove it. When the state attorney indicts you of a crime he's got to prove your guilt too, and it's not you who has to prove that you're innocent. That's the way things work. I think you make things too easy for yourself, making claims which have little or no foundation and you think yourself eligible not to prove any of those claims. That's also destructive and I do not fancy destructive Wikipedia contributors. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Got your proof and destruction right here. Show me the picture mentioned above and I would probably nominate it for deletion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You sound like Hammersoft's sock puppet.... and your remark is most unhelpful. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither is calling people a sockpuppet or destructive. Please read WP:NPA. I echo Green Cardamom; show us a picture you think is free. In all likelihood, it isn't and we'll show you how. Please do so. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you actually think that the Western media has 'rights' to the photos of Ri that they use? Or that North Korea cares?--Jack Upland (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK...All those media sources who use North Korean photos or footage get permission??? Yeah, right. This is one of the most absurd discussions I've ever come across.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you think so. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Newspapers don't need "permission" to use a photo, usually. It's an editorial decision and they may claim Fair Use or simply take the stance of "so sue me". Every news outlet has its own internal policy. Wikipedia internal policy is strict Fair Use, and in this case since she is still alive our internal policy wouldn't allow it, based on a community consensus of how to interpret Fair Use. See WP:IUP (Image Use Policy), WP:FAIRUSE, WP:AAFFD (Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions). -- GreenC 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I went to DanDong again and still can not find a photo of the new Dear Couple. Geraldshields11 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cohen, Patricia (26 July 2013). "Museum Welcomes Wikipedia Editors". New York Times. Retrieved 30 July 2013. Mr. Shields said he generally edited articles on North Korea and on feminism, primarily because few other people do. He combs through the English-language version of The Pyongyang Times for citations, and last year, even spent part of a trip to China trying to track down a photograph of Ri Sol-ju, the wife of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Singing HistoryEdit

Dear Fellow Editors, Should we move the singing text to known, instead of reported, becasue there are at least two NPOV references and many Youtube videos showing her singing? Please discuss.Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What videos? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Click on the Time Magazine reference (number 29) in the article. Scroll to the words "former singer" highlighted in blue. Click on the link. It goes to YouTube videos of the Dear Successor's wife singing. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Reference No. 26, dated Sep. 21, 2012, 9:10 AM, seems to have a screen capture of the You Tube video seen in reference no. 29.Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi sorry for the long reply. I found the video Time magazine linked as being Ri Sol-ju. This source says "North Korean media suddenly announced that the singer, Ri Sol Ju, was the wife of the country's young leader, Kim Jong Un." Is it true that NK media announced "the singer, Ri Sol Ju", has NK media acknowledged she is a singer? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the long time to reply but I was adding meaningful content to non-Pokémon articles. The Japanese newspaper[1] and Time magazine say she was a singer. I do not know of a DPRK source that says she is a singer because there was a report that the DPRK was destroying the CDs and other items. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Two daughters?Edit

Do we want to report on this unnamed source that says Kim probably has two daughters, probably with different women, the first daughter born in 2010? [2]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is reported then the text of the two children should be added to Kim Jung-un's article. Since Denise Rodman and the unnamed source in Bejing are both (two sources independent of each other with independent reasons) reporting a baby daughter of Ms. Ri, then just her baby should be discussed on her article.
Also, Green Cardamom the source you discussed confirms Ms. Ri's singing career, so I again suggest moving her singing career to Known.Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Watch of North KoreaEdit

Dear fellow editors: Since more capable editors are creating text for the Economic Watch of North Korea, I decided to focus on the reaction of the non-North Korean parts of the planet on the effect Ms. Ri has had. A great artice is by Draudt, Darcie.[1] I created a new section based on this article. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Draudt, Darcie (3 March 2013). "Ri Sol-ju Goes Viral: What Social Media Reveal about the DPRK's First Lady". SinoNK.com. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
See:[3].--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Death by firing squadEdit

I recently reverted this strange edit, but decided to investigate further and found this source that concerns recent breaking news/rumor about, well, you can read it. North Korea is like some sort of real life Opera. Anyway, do we include this here, or somewhere on Wikipedia? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to excution by mortar barrage of a DPRK general. Sad but noteworthy. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Nam Jae-joon, the chief of the South Korean intelligence agency, said, on 8 October 2013, he was aware that “about 10 members of the Unhasu Orchestra were executed for involvement in the scandal.”[1]
I suggest one sentence with wiki links to the persons allegedly executed. As of 21 October 2013, also, why is there a sentence just saying Ri was not at an execution? I found a better cite to support the text but it is strange that an editor wants to add that to an encyclopedia. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated the articles of some of the alledged excuted and thier article's infoboxes. Please countinue to update as more reliable source become known. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to remove all but a couple sources, currently there are 11 sources for a single sentence, which is too much, the article is getting citation bloat anyway which will become a maintenance problem down the road as links begin to disappear (like everything else in NK). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree and like how the text reads now. The text is now balanced. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that we know Hyon Song-wol (named as being executed) is still alive, this whole story is discredited. Should it be removed, or does someone want to modify it in some way?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The text has been modified. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It shows there's a lot of disinformation regarding the topic and particular attention should be paid to verifiability. Why there's an "unknown" section full of gossips is beyond my comprehension. It reads like a tabloid. White Anunnaki (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NORTH KOREA NEWSLETTER NO. 282 (October 10, 2013)". Yonhap News Agency. 10 October 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.

AbsencesEdit

Reportedly she hasn't been seen for 7 months. Last year it was 6 months. I'm not sure that we should include these reports because it's not clear what the significance is and it's not clear how accurate the reports are.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed. The source is not a journalism article and makes many extraordinary claims. -- GreenC 01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Beg your pardon? The Independent is a newspaper. Well, not paper. Huffington Post is reporting it too [4] Ribbet32 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't scroll down past the Flash at the top, thought it was a click-bait. The article contains original investigative reporting and looks reliable, at least some of the statements. -- GreenC 02:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the key part from the Huffington Post is:
Ri Sol-ju last attended an event with her husband on March 28 in Pyongyang, according to an analysis of North Korean media reports by South Korea's Yonhap News.
She accompanied him to events 18 times in 2012, 22 times in 2013 and 15 times the year after. But she only popped up seven times in 2015 and three times so far this year, according to Yonhap.
From this I conclude: (a) she has not appeared in this time in the North Korea media (but she might have appeared in public without it being reported), (b) her appearances in the media have been relatively rare in 2015 and 2016. I think we could say: "Since 2014, she has appeared in the North Korean media infrequently." The length of time without a sighting might be newsworthy on a slow news day, and might excite a flurry of speculation from North Korean watchers, but it is not encyclopedic.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The most interesting part of this piece IMO is the opinion that Mr. Kim is not very politically skilled compared to his sister who is the power figure. That would make sense in explaining a number of things. It could be documented on Wikipedia somewhere, as an opinion, though not this article. -- GreenC 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have combined the sources to say something about Ri's public appearances. I think this is notable in that it is one of the few things we know about her.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Good news! She has now "reappeared". I have updated the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2017/03/31/0401000000AEN20170331007200315.html "Kim's fashion-conscious wife Ri Sol-ju appeared in only two outings while Kim's only younger sister Yo-jong did not join any of them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.94.62 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Two outings in three months seems consistent with the pattern set in 2015 and 2016.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Since 2018, she has been appearing a lot, and the article reflects that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Date of birthEdit

The Date of birth is reported across a range in different sources. There is no reliable authoritative source that is better than other sources. They give conflicting dates. This section is for discussion since editors keep setting one date or another instead of a range of dates. Please discuss here before setting a specific date, explain why your source is better than other sources. -- GreenC 14:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No source suggests that “First Lady” is a thing in North KoreaEdit

By explicitly calling Ri “First Lady” AND wife of Kim Jong-un, the article currently implies that there is such a status in North Korea (that goes beyond being the spouse of the ruler.) There is no source to suggest anything of the sort. Yes, the Times article calls Ri “First Lady”, but clearly does so as the common American shorthand for “spouse of the head of state.” That’s quite different from an encyclopedia mentioning “First Lady” AND spouse side by side. I’m deleting the reference to First Lady. —ThorstenNY (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, saying both spouse and first lady turns the later into something more than spouse, and there is no evidence she has any role outside the family hierarchy (at least known). This source says there is a "tradition of the North Korean first lady not taking a formal rank in the state hierarchy" so it's a good assumption she is wife and only wife. If NK had an official title that would solve the problem but they don't really. The former first ladies had various forms and titles of respect: "Respected Chairwoman", "Respected Mother". But Ri Sol-ju has yet to have a "Respected" title. The other problem is first lady is not universally used, though it does have broad usage in many countries, it's usually associated with an American origin, which could be partisan applied to NK. -- GreenC 03:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Some sources might use the term as a shorthand, but it is misleading to use it here, as it implies there is such a status. Also, Kim Jong Un is not the President — that is arguably Kim Yong-nam — nor is he the Prime Minister, so she doesn't seem to fit a conventional definition of first lady.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Right on cue: "Kim Jong-un elevates wife to position of North Korea's first lady". They must be reading this forum lol. -- GreenC 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A media mention doesn't make it an official title.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
According to this media report, "analysts say [it] is a major boost to her status". What analysts say matters. No, it's not an official title, and we don't say it is. It's an unofficial title. The very article First Lady begins: "First Lady is an unofficial title". I think we should retain it here, based on what the Guardian says. I'd prefer lower case "first lady", though. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
A "media mention" from official state media in North Korea is as good as it gets. -- GreenC 14:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove "the First Lady of North Korea" from the first sentence since it indicates a position of importance and it's better than merely being the wife of Kim Jong-un. First Lady is also a proper noun since it's the name of a position, thus, has to be capitalized. KingAndGod 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The source does not use capitals is why I changed it to reflect the source. The term first lady is somewhat informal. The announcement from North Korea came over television. If we can get official North Korean state media in written form, in Latin text translated by North Korean sources, that would help clarify how they do capitals. Failing that, use the best English sources I think. -- GreenC 18:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it was on TV, does that mean it was in Korean? If so, they wouldn't have used the term "first lady". What was the Korean term they were translating??? Who exactly chose the title "first lady"???--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
They used the term "respected first lady" according to our current best reliable source. Please do read the Guardian article carefully and feel free to research it further. Also it only makes sense as this is occurring when she is about to attend an international meeting with other heads of states and first ladies. -- GreenC 19:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but if they were speaking Korean they didn't use the term "first lady". Source is unclear on this point. It's also badly written. "North Korean media previously referred to Ri as “comrade” by the North’s state media. It’s report of her ballet outing was the first time since 1974 that the title of first lady has been used, when it was applied to Kim Song-ae, the second wife of the country’s founder, Kim Il-sung." It sounds like there's a Korean term being used, but we don't know what it is. Hopefully, we will find a better written and more informative source. For the time being, I think the opening sentence is wrong. It should say that Ri is Kim's wife. Also, the expression "first lady" is used in relation to a country. For example, Melania Trump's page says she "is the current First Lady of the United States and wife of the 45th U.S. President Donald Trump". The current wording is strange and could imply that Kim has many wives... Also it's wrong to say her title was elevated from comrade to "respected first lady". Everyone is called "Comrade", including Kim himself. And the source doesn't say that. And it is only one media mention so far. I think this is undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This is a more in-depth source. It calls her first lady throughout the source but isn't clear about the etymology but has some other information. There are now many other sources calling her first lady in English, Google "first lady" and her name (example), it's not undue weight. Feel free to edit any mistakes. I don't think "current" first lady is right because there hasn't been one since 1974 and there may not be one after, it's not a continuously held position, which current suggests. The Comrade came from a different source, Daily Beast 2012. This is a promotion in status as detailed in a couple sources, she was previously only called comrade by state media. -- GreenC 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The NK News article calls her "first lady", it indicates that the North Koreans have called her "Respected Lady". This article by the same author says that Kim Song Ae was called "Respected Chairwoman" in 1974.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
At the same time, the same author in the same article is repeatedly calling her "first lady" so he seems to be going with that meaning. Clearly there are some translation issues, and just social ones. Every language uses different words for "first lady" they are not all literal translations of the words, but the meaning is the same or at least translated into English the same. -- GreenC 15:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, this is the kind of source I'm looking for: the English version of the Rodong Sinmun calls her the "First Lady". This confirms that North Korea does indeed call her that. Western translations do not confirm it!!! The point is, if we say North Korea uses a specific term (in quotation marks) we should quote the specific term, not a loose translation provided by foreign media. Otherwise it's inaccurate and meaningless. In this case, it is true to say North Korea uses the term "First Lady" because their English-language press does. If we are going to make a big deal about her title, we should provide the Korean term with an accurate translation. But at least this is accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove distinction reported v actual?Edit

Given that we now have a lot of verified information, should we remove the division into separate sections? While there is still reason to include speculative information, I think this could be folded into the verified information, as it is with most articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jack Upland. This is not a good way to organize any article, let alone a BLP. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to reorganise the article. I have combined the motherhood information with everything else, as she is principally significant as a wife and a mother.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I broke it out into a separate section as it's confusing to follow when spread across multiple sections and paragraphs mixed in with other things this should be a core. Also doesn't fit well with early life pre-marriage or public life, family is private life. -- GreenC 15:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is confusing for a woman to have babies in the middle of everything else she's doing. I think it is best to use chronological order. If "Public life" is a problem, then use a different heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright I took a look at Elizabeth II (featured) and births are integrated. I think there were two problems: the section is called 'public life' but includes private life, and the section is too long when including the births. Basically need two sections there, and it should start with the marriage (moved from the end of the early life section) -- GreenC 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
How about that? And I don't think we need the "Biography" heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Ri Sol-ju" page.