Jump to content

Talk:North Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dprkstudies (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 13 April 2008 (→North Korea focused Weblogs under External Links.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Often portrayed in the media"

Is total weasle wording - it's almost as bad as tagging "so-called" onto something. North Korea is so widely considered to be a dictatorship there's no need to mention the media at all. --129.67.116.164 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the talk page it seems there has been some comical hair-splitting by people uninterested in reality. To ammend this I've found a number of citations of "non-western" or "2nd/3rd world" sources refering to North Korea as a dictatorship. I've got Nigeriaworld[1], The Times of India ("North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is one of the world's most oppressive, closed, and vicious dictatorships") [2]), and The Journal of Turkish Weekly quoting some Namibian dude saying that NK is a "dictatorship" [3].

All from a five minute search of google news. Except none of these are needed now, as I think it's extremely easly to establish that public opinion in both developed and developing world (with the exception of China) is pretty united. --62.69.37.58 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Economic Growth numbers

Violates NPOV. Kim Myong Chol describes himself as, "unofficial spokesman for Kim Jong-il". The Asia Times article "cited" with a growth rate number was an opinion piece written by Kim Myong Chol, with no citations within the piece. Economic growth numbers must be calculated statistical, not via hearsay. Until a "real" cite is availabe, either an "official" North Korea government spokes person (not terribly credible), or a World Financial institution (more credible), this section should be removed, as it smacks of pro-military-first policy propaganda. 71.228.4.69 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed "government reports 1-2% yearly growth rate". Mis-cited, the cited article has no reference to economic growth numbers except as compared to South Korea in a footnote, in which case it describes a "20 fold gap". This offhand comment is insufficent to determine growth numbers, and more significantly in no way represents "government reports". 71.228.4.69 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edit in the "Foreign Commerce" section. No such information at the South Korean Unification Ministry website, and certainly not at the link provided. Citations, please. 71.228.4.69 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edit under "Theaters built in every city". No cite. Scamiran 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two figures presented for South Korea's (yes South Korea's) military spending???

Could someone please check on the figures in this article and deliver a single number?

Humanitarian Efforts

As I understand it, very few organizations currently are helping North Koreans directly(smuggling food in and smuggling North Koreans out). Aside from LINK, what other humanitarian organizations/efforts are currently in place?

Why is this CALLED "North Korea" When Taiwan is called "Republic Of China" Formally?

Someone just answer me that. I WILL be changing this Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatko (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for Taiwan and for the Republic of China. One is about the island, one is about the state. We could also put the article about the state under the name "Taiwan," which would reflect common usage, but then we would have to find a different way to disambiguate the two articles. In the case of North Korea, we only need one article, and it's under the most common name in English: North Korea. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Reuben 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben, this is ridiculous! Have a look at SFRJ, note how it isnt called Yugoslavia, and people reffered to it as only Yugoslavia, it makes no sense to name North Korea's article after a nickname for the country! Zlatko 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison. "Yugoslavia" is ambiguous (it depends on time period). "North Korea" is not. Rklawton 13:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there is an article at Yugoslavia. If the SFRJ were the only thing under that name, we would move SFRJ to Yugoslavia. But because there were several Yugoslav states, we have one article for Yugoslavia overall, and specific articles for each of those historical states. As you would know if you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we title articles according to the most common name that doesn't conflict with another article. Republic of China has the title it does because there's already a Taiwan article about the island. SFRJ has the title it does because there's already a Yugoslavia article, about the entire history of the country. --Reuben 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DPRK is the current government of the territory known as "North Korea" and is the only government diplomatically recognized as such. The ROC is not widely recognized as the sovereign government of Taiwan. The SFRJ is not a current government. Therefore we have a country article called "North Korea" that covers both the government and the territory, just as we have an article called "Libya" that covers the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and its territory. The name is also easier to type, just like "United Kingdom" is easier to type than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Gazpacho 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dictatorship"

Removed this term from the infobox, due to the longstanding problems of neutrality (dictatorship according to whom) and original research (editors cherry-picking the sources that agree with them). This has previously been hashed out with regard to Category:Dictators, List of dictators, and elsewhere. Gazpacho 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to try removing "dictatorship" from Nazi Germany. Rklawton 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Gazpacho 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, we have the "communist state" article precisely so that the various views about communist states can be treated with some fairness, rather than coming down definitely on "communism = dictatorship."

I know it may seem silly and academic, but the experience is that these labels are like weeds. If they're tolerated in one place, then people will try to spread them to promote their idea of ideological or political balance. Gazpacho 06:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If commmunism = dictatorship, then it would be redundant to add dictatorship and I wouldn't care. They aren't the same thing, however. And in the case of North Korea and Nazi Germany, the term "dictatorship" applies - and most sources support this. By the way, before you go changing Nazi Germany to "Republic", please read WP:POINT. Rklawton 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did it at your request, and applying core policies isn't disruption. Gazpacho 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal President in Infobox

This is crap. It's going.

I'm being bold.

--M a s 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when we make collaborative edits, something more useful than "this is crap" is left in our wake so other editors have the opportunity to improve upon or refute the argument. Rklawton 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to stay. Info like that is what makes the DPRK (and Wikipedia) interesting. Popkultur 19:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is obvious. The man is dead. His importance in the history and psyche of DPRK is clearly discussed in the article. This is DPRK-apologizing and wikiality. Unless, please, name another existing country info-box where a dead person is in the "Government" section. The fact that he is the "Eternal President" is noteworthy and should be in his bio if not the main article, but to put it in the infobox concedes way too much. --M a s 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's another country where the constitution names a dead man as eternal president, so there's no possible comparison with other countries. As for DPRK-apologizing, it doesn't look that way to me; if anything, it looks bad for North Korea by highlighting the personality cult. But that's a matter of perspective (as it should be, since the article doesn't need to be editorializing). --Reuben 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the DPRK constitution, I think you will find that the Presidency is referred to only as an honorary title, like "father of the country" and is no longer mentioned anywhere as a real constitutional office. Gazpacho 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite without any parallel in most other countries. Of course it doesn't mean that Kim Il Sung is ruling from beyond the grave by occult forces. But likening the status of Kim Il Sung in North Korea to the "father of the country" in other places understates things quite a bit. The 1998 revision of the constitution has a preamble that's entirely dedicated to praising Kim Il Sung; it names him as eternal president, and describes itself as a "Kim Il Sung constitution." He's not mentioned outside the preamble. To complicate matters a little bit more, the Communist understanding of a national constitution is not the same as the Western understanding. In the US and many other countries, the constitution is a fundamental document that prescribes the structure and powers of the state, and all laws and government actions must conform to it. Communist countries, on the other hand, usually understand a constitution to be a formal description of existing social and state relationships - it's descriptive rather than prescriptive (but descriptive in light of the goals of the Party). Of course our goal is also to describe, but without any

particular agenda. So the question is, how do we present this information without adding our own interpretation? I think the most natural thing is to take the DPRK's documents and media on their own terms. There are plenty of sources including the constitution in which Kim Il Sung is named as Eternal President. Are there North Korean sources to back up the idea that this should be taken in a symbolic, less literal sense? --Reuben 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this go back in? 202.156.10.12 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Weeding Out the Week

My brother did a project on Pyongyang a while back . . . I don't remember where he saw it, but something said that pregnant women and crippled people are banned from Pyongyang. --Penguin boy93 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading something like that before as well. I'll get back to you if no one else does. ALTON .ıl 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do North Koreans play with Barbie Dolls?

I may like to know if they play with dolls like that over there, and if they ever play with toys over there or not. But to note, that I realzed in a Documentary that they sometimes have elements of outside stuff over there like Red Sox Caps and Minnie Mouse miniature toy or something. So please answer me.

Anyone with the right tools and skills can make a doll or a toy. However, North Korea does not have the means to make and distribute toys on a large scale. Trade between North Korea and the US is prohibited, so Mattel cannot sell Barbie dolls in North Korea.
Foreign aid workers sometimes distribute secondhand items that have US cartoon characters and logos on them. Gazpacho 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they're ronery. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder their play . Korean little girls are as cute as American little girls . A cute doll like The Barbie Dolls will appear in North Korea sooner or later . I hope the amiable Koreans' constructing the national intercourse between Japan and North Korea .----The DQN,macbeth 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Name Change

I think this article should be called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" rather than "North Korea". DPRK is the official name of the country so therefore should be used. It would be like calling the United Kingdom article "Britain" or the United States of America article "America".

This is nothing to do with politics, just common sense. Jamezcd 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. North Korea is the most common way of referring to the country and should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.1 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been partly dealt with before. Check out the contents section of this talk page, number 21. I say North Korea is the common name and should be kept.--Postmortemjapan 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page rendering in Firefox?

This page does not seem to be rendering correctly in Firefox (version 2.0.0.7).

--Philarete 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of problems do you see? Do you mean the article itself, or this talk page? They both look OK to me in 2.0.0.6. --Reuben 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No longer seeing the problem. Philarete 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias with regard to "Juche" and the two Koreas' economies

1. "Juche" in this article cross-references to an "ideology" that is characterized as giving "the people" "independence" of thought, among other things. Since NK is a dictatorship that in fact allows no independence of thought, it is inaccurate to characterize it as "following" the Juche ideology. It would be more accurate to say that the country's government styles itself as following the Juche ideology than to say it does so. I have made changes to reflect this.

2. Someone used the passive voice twice to characterize NK's economic growth rate up to the 1970s as superior to South Korea's growth rate after 1948. This repeated statement is unsourced and seems quite implausible given that SK's current economy is more than 50 times larger than NK's. I have deleted it. If someone can supply a plausible source, perhaps it could be restored, although I am quite confident that the claim is fictional.

Nathanhcr 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)NathanHCR[reply]

Your #2 is quite true. Here's one source, if you can use JSTOR: [4]. Depending on the assumptions used and the method of comparison, South Korea's GNP per capita overtook North Korea's some time between 1976 and 1989(!). --Reuben (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Sub-Section: "Nuclear weapons program"

Can someone clarify this sentence?

(Even US minuteman 500 only & there no 200 US bases or Nuke Missiles in Japan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.198.254 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone possibly redo the entire current sub-section: "Nuclear weapons program"? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe the information used is fact, and, from the way the words are placed, it looks like the writer may be from North Korea. Please. Read this, and you will see how bad it is:

As of October 2006, North Korea aimed 200 Rodong-1 missiles which can deliver Nuke warhead or Chemial warhead to Tokyo.(Even US minuteman 500 only & there no 200 US bases or Nuke Missiles in Japan). And ISIS reserch warn the possibility that DPRK have the 3NukeWarheads which deliverble to Tokyo Osaka Nagoya by Rodong-1 missiles. And ISIS also warned the dangerousness of 2NEW reactors which under construction at yongbyon(50MW/generate Pu for 10warheads per year) and Taechong-(200MW/45warheadthat per annual).

It goes on with no citations, no wikifying, words bolded that shouldn't be bolded, and a propagandous tone.

Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.194.48 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Alice S

  • 1)Pls Discuss &Dialogue before you revert.
  • 2)Pls Discuss based on analyst report or materials. Pls do not discuss based on your personal recognition.
  • 3)I think It is not Fair that you Quote the sentence WITHOUT FOLLOWING CITATION PART. Most of the case report from the analyst more credible than Newspaper, because generalist Newspaper wrighter have less knowledge than the expart analyst. And if you read CNS report ,you can see CITATION that NK is aiming 200 Rodong-1 Balistic Missiles to Japansese Cities. If you read ISIS report,you can see CITATION that NK May have deliverable 3nuke warheads which can strike Tokyo, and constructiong Big new reactors which can generate hundreds of Nuke Warheads. And I recommend you to check former defence secretary Mr. William Perry's bliefing at Lower House on Jan 2007. He warn the dangerousness of Nuke mathproduction Big reactors.
  • ISIS report abt 3deliverble warheads&50MW new reactor
  • Missle of DPRK.Please see TaepodongX 4000km moval balistic missile, from USSR Submarine loanch missile technology. It is already under service
  • 4)I'm not writing from pyongyang. I'm writing from Tokyo. I should confess that I'm not happy the situation,NK's dictator aiming 100-200 Rodong-1 missiles with WMD warhead to OUR WIFES & KIDS. But you & US newspapers should not hide what NK communists doing. In 1980's US helped WestGerman by removing SS20. But 2007 why US negrect NK's 200 Rodong-1 aiming Japanese Cities & NK's 50MW/200MW reactors which will mathproduct nuke warheads for Rodong-1 & Moval ICBM? It may because lackage of informations. Ofcourse I will introduce the left people's opinion for NPOV. My intention is introducing bothside accurate detailed information.

--202.239.229.7 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can just call me "Alice" if you like. Perhaps you would like to register a username? It makes it so much easier, as your IP address might change and there are also other advantages that make discussions easier.

Firstly, may I welcome you to our great project - if nobody has done so previously. Secondly, you make some very good points which I will try and respond to in the order you have made them:

  1. You make an excellent point that it is usually better to discuss edits in a co-operative way before you revert them. In this case, I deliberately did not use either the revert or undo tools but merely remarked out your text so that it could be improved upon and amended. I recognise that you added some useful material - unfortunately it was so novel in its English usage, etc that we can't let it appear until it has been copy edited, etc.
  2. I concur. My suggestion is that we work on the proposed text to be added together. Perhaps we can discuss that together here?
  3. You are absolutely right that good sources are vital. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy (unreferenced material is subject to being removed, so please provide references); Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics like this one. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, we should declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed and contine to hammer out details on this talk page and follow dispute resolution if necessary.
  4. I don't live in the US or read too many US Newpapers and I don't have any strong US bias and I do agree that US influences (both on and off Wikipedia) can be overwhelming at times. That's why I would like to help you put your material into better English, etc - even though I'm a newbie myself.

Please consider creating an (anonymous?) user account now so that we can continue to improve our article. For the avoidance of doubt, I have reverted your revert today - not because it was made with poor intentions but for the reasons I have alluded to above. Hope to see you back soon with your brand new user name! Alice✉ 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: there are a lot of unanswered messages for you at your user talk page, here!


Hi Alice

  • sorry late reply
  • Thanks Your advise & I create my account
  • Because US Newspapers should overview all over the world,I think sometimes US newspaper drop/run through the detailed information about Far East regional news
  • "Russia& USA aiming 500-650 ICBM to each other. And DPRK aiming 200 Rodong-1 MRBM to Japan,Japan does not aiming any balistic missiles to DPRK."
  • "DPRK does not spending their money for replacing their Old border gurd Tanks and Air defence fighters ,but they are spending huge money for strategic attacking tool Rodong-1 MRBM and Nuke Program" And this information is proofed by some analyst reports. I think it is NOT the question of NPOV. I can understand the disire of Unification of the people,who live in devided countries. I feel anxiety and sadness about the doom of Far East countries but I'm just introducing the accurate situation& information at NPOV.

--RightLiberalJap 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Welcome aboard!
You might like to place a note on your old IP user talk page, here giving details of your new account. If you don't know how to do that, just post a message at User talk:Alice Alice✉ 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not dictatorship

I changed it to democracy earlier today, but someone changed back to dictatorship. Well, of course it is a democracy, it is even in the country's name. It is not called "Dictatorial Dictator's Dictatorship of Korea", or something. Helpsloose (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government type reflects the type of government currently in place. It is not intended to reflect what the government calls itself. Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But North Korea is so isolated, can we be sure it is a dictatorship? Maybe the best source on what kind of government it is, is government itself. Helpsloose (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're trolling, aren't you? Rklawton (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to take the authoritative sources and turn them into an article. Here are some authoritative sources that describe North Korea as a Dictatorship or refer to either Kim as a Dictator:
—Noah 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal choice of 3 words to describe the governmental system would be Juche Stalinist Dictatorship.

Juche is important because it is one of the uniquely notable features of the professed governmental system and may give a clue to our readers that we are dealing with a very bizarre and unique kind of regime; Stalinist because it might encapsulate the cult of personality and corruption of socialist principles that results in widespread economic mismanagement, imprisonment and a police state; and dictatorship for those of our readers that might not understand the other two words.

However, Noah is right; it is not our own respective opinions that count; we need to provide a balanced and unbiased summary of the authoritative sources. And we can't do that adequately in a Userbox. We explore the different standpoints in our article but the infobox is not big enough and there will be endless arguments and edit wars. That's why I suggest that we just stick with "Juche" for the Infobox and describe the DPRK's horrible dead-end system fully in our article.

PS: Personally, I'd appreciate editors not assuming I'm an ignorant Bimbo and pasting personal comments on my talk page - here is the place to discuss what our article says. (For the record, neither the government of the DPRK nor any academic commentator since the days of McCarthy would describe the administration of the DPRK as "communist") - for one thing, the state shows no signs whatever of "withering away" as in standard Marxist theory in the DPRK!Alice✉ 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to warn/block anyone harassing you on your talk page. Next, as you point out, the article explains the subject in greater detail. I think we should label the government type with whatever is most commonly used by reliable sources. Have you any idea how the various academic geo-political journals refer to NK? Given the views you've expressed above, I would hazard a guess that no country in the world's history has ever been "communist." So I think your definition of "communist" needs some work. Lastly, I'm curious, what government type would you list for Cuba? Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was forced to actually have this field in the infobox (I think it's impossibly misleading to have such a field in an infobox. We don't have a field called "culture" (otherwise there would be continual edit-warring as to what to put in the USA's between "popcorn" "superb" and "imperialist") and I don't think you can usefully encapsulate "government type" in one (or even three words) I'd pick "siege socialist" for Cuba.

Yes, you're right, I can't think of a government that you could unequivocally label as either communist or a democracy - with the possible exception of Switzerland.

We should not "label" but discuss at length so as to inform rather than mislead our readers. Alice✉ 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What about simply writing "Republic"? Helpsloose (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very helpful, since the DPRK displays some of the characteristics of an hereditary monarchy. Perhaps we could delete the field altogether or refer readers to our article body at that point? Alice✉ 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


To Noah: you used CIA a a proof? It is a government agency! Why do you mean we can trust that government and not the North Korean one? Helpsloose (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the great majority of editors on Wikipedia would consider the CIA World Fact book a reputable and reliable reference source especially when backed up with other sources for verification. —Noah 20:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there's quite a lot of good information available about North Korea, both from North Korean sources and others. Obviously, you have to be careful about some things: it may not mean much that a country describes itself as "democratic," and speculations about who will be the next leader of North Korea in western media can't be relied upon. Some things are simply secret, like the number and type of nuclear devices. But you can find out a lot about everyday things that affect a lot of people. We know what North Korean media are like, because they are available outside the country and anybody can see them. We know what the education system is like. Where politics are concerned, the motivations and ideas of the leaders are sometimes mysterious, but the structures, procedures, and institutions are pretty well documented. The system is similar to many other communist-led countries: there are parliamentary elections, but the slate of candidates is selected by party organizations. Individual citizens can only vote "for" or "against" the party's nominees, and do not have the option of choosing between several candidates. Ordinary citizens do not have a voice in selecting the candidates, because the party controls its own membership, which is difficult to attain. There's nothing controversial or subjective in this description of the electoral mechanism - North Korean and foreign sources pretty much agree that's how things are done. You can find out more in Elections in North Korea and the sources therein. I don't care to argue about the Infobox in the article, but I just want to point out that even though North Korea is isolated and relatively closed, there is a lot that we do know about it, even in considerable detail. --Reuben (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for your consideration: former South Korean leaders such as Park Chung-hee are described as dictators, even though they would never have used the term themselves. Should we call South Korea a democracy from 1948-1988 because it was formally democratic? Or characterize the reality based on the consensus of outside opinion? --Reuben (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should précis and summarize what the sources say in the body of our articles and refrain from applying misleading and simplistic labels in Infoboxes which can never really encapsulate the nuances involved. Alice✉ 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

"North Korea is often regarded by First World media as a Stalinist dictatorship" is misleading. It implies that the media of the first world are the only ones that view them so. Virtually every free country across the globe views them as a dictatorship (or at least a cult of personality), as does virtually every reputable political science department across the world. It's weasel wording to narrow the view down to only one group, the first world media, that possesses it. Suggest change to "North Korea is often regarded by outside sources as a Stalinist dictatorship". That way it's far more accurate to the actual perception of the country across several reputable groups, yet the North Korean censors with nothing better to do then come on here and tame their page down (like it makes a difference in how they're precieved) can still point out that they claim otherwise.

Firstly, I'ved changed the level of your section heading to make it a sub-section of the previous section (generally, new sections go at the bottom).
Secondly, it's better if you sign your contributions on talk pages (NOT on articles).
Your substantive point is valid. However, to make it on Wikipedia, you will need to find non First World media sources that categorise the DPRK as a "Stalinist dictatorship" and either cite them and discuss them here before you make the changes or just be bold and risk reversion. Alice✉ 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalinist

This is totally POV bias, 'Juche Stalinist Dictatorship' is obviously just some far-right loons attempt at humor, and will change it back to what it properly should be, 'socialist republic', it's listed as such in the 'List of socialist countries' wiki article and it makes perfect sense. Juche is far too subjective, and simply refers to state policy of autarky (self-sufficiency) in economic, military and political spheres, and 'dictatorship' is just absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.26.19 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree, 'Juche Stalinist Dictatorship' is quite fair. Any quick research of North Korea will describe something out of George Orwell's 1984. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four Dan (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

Can someone translate the motto? I can't. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page right now, the motto is something that means "We rule with an iron fist." I'll fix it... --Reuben (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Human Rights Section

The Human Rights section contains typos, conflicting arguments, and does not site any of it's sources or provide adequate evidence for either of those arguments.

Johnnymonicker (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I was wondering, if you should mention a section on "Human rights" here, shouldn't one be included in the article on the United States, especially with regards to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? 202.59.73.50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashers

You may want to review this article since some members of the KFA has been in here, as they self say, improving and removing lies.[5] Just see the democracy-debate above. Time to restore relevant information again? --Boongoman (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the information should be put back. The KFA's position is that they accept the official word of the government of North Korea, and as a result they remove what they consider to be "lies", even when there is evidence to support the information given. They even go so far as to say that refugees and defectors are paid or coerced into giving accounts against the government and therefore can't be used as sources of information. If the KFA disagree with something in the article and see it as lies, then they should provide evidence to the contrary from unbiased sources. Deleting information supported by evidence because they don't want people to see it is wrong, and any KFA edits without discussion or sources should be treated as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.235.58 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds bad

Can't Wikipedia allow edits for simple things like grammar and usage? For example, this sounds terrible: "This, compounded with only 18 percent arable land..." There's a remote antecedent (pronoun reference problem) and a nonstandard preposition. It would sound better to write "The famine, compounded by..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.82.69 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Industrialization Rank

Does this make sense? It was also considered the 2nd-least industrialized nation in Asia, after Japan. Japan is the least industrialized nation in asia? What about Bangladesh? This must be second most. I'm going to modify this. Dan (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV-check

Hi everyone. I'm quite interested in North Korea in general (been there recently), and I'd like to contribute to the article. Maybe we could work together and first try to remove POV to get rid of the POV-check tag. I'll list what I think is POV-oriented and my proposals to fix it (forgive my english, not being a native speaker), please do the same if you can.

  • Birth of North Korea : "This arrangement was the creation of American leaders of the time and the dual occupation was done without consulting the Korean people." I suggest removing the sentence, this "arrangement" was between US and Soviet leaders, most probably without asking the Koreans
  • Economic evolution : "In the aftermath of the Korean War and throughout the 1960s the country's state-controlled economy slowed down at a significant rate. It may also have once been considered the 2nd-most industrialized nation in Asia, after Japan." Seems contradictory. From my knowledge, the NK economy in the 60s was not declining (I'll look into reliable sources). Could someone with a better english than myself propose a rephrase of this sentence?
  • Economic evolution : "In the 1970s the expansion of North Korea's economy, with the accompanying rise in living standards, came to an end and a few decades later went into reverse" again quite contradictory with previous sentence.
  • Economic evolution : "Collapse of large state-owned enterprises (which formally still exist but have neither raw materials nor customers) released a huge amount of workers who engage in cross-border trade with China." needs source of has to be removed
  • Human rights : "The system changed slightly at the end of 1990s when population growth became very low. In many cases where capital punishment was de facto replaced by less severe punishments. Bribery became prevalent throughout the country. For example, just listening to South Korean radio could result in capital punishment. However, many North Koreans wear clothes of South Korean origin, listen to Southern music, watch South Korean videotapes and even receive Southern broadcasts although they are still prohibited — in most cases punishment is nothing more than a pecuniary fine, and many such problems are normally solved "unofficially", through bribery." while I enjoy reading the source for this (Daily NK) it's a bit biased and this whole sentence would probably benefit from being a bit less affirmative.
  • Foreign relations : "Despite the foreign troops, Kim Jong-il has privately stated his acceptance of U.S. troops on the peninsula, even after a possible reunification. It is claimed by US sources that if North Korea and the United States normalize relations, both Koreas would wish to maintain the presence of US troops out of fear of China and Japan but North Korea strongly denies that and demands the removal of American troops (see North Korea-United States relations)." Not POV but somehow redundant
  • Military : "Annual military spending is not available, compared with South Korea's $24 Billion (2.7% of GDP)" again not POV but weird
  • Economy "In the aftermath of the Korean War and throughout the 1960s and '70s, the country's state-controlled economy grew at a significant rate and, until the late 1970s, was considered to be stronger than that of the South" while probably true and again completely contradictory with previous statements, needs sourcing or has to go

That's it I think, can you help? Do you see other required changes? Mthibault (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody here? :) Mthibault (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From your comments, I believe your English is excellent, and the points you raise should not be controversial. Please be bold in improving the article! More specifically, I agree that North Korea's economy was not declining in the 1960's, so that claim should be removed or corrected to refer to a later decade, with an appropriate source. Some of the other sections you mentioned are indeed speculative or based on limited information. That's sometimes unavoidable in an article about North Korea, but we need proper attribution. "It is claimed by US sources" is too vague. Similarly, the text about capital punishment can hardly be based on large-scale studies. If the information comes from anecdotal evidence, that should be clearly stated. As for military spending, we used to give an estimate that seems to have been removed. Perhaps you can find a good source and restore it. --Reuben (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the 60s to the 80s (perhaps mid-80s) in regard to the slowing economy would make it accurate in that regard. As far as punishments for listening to ROK broadcasts, etc., Daily NK has a POV but is generally considered accurate, vice Good Friends, which grossly exaggerates. You can say all defectors are biased, but they are the source or realistic information, as opposed to what Ted Turner said after his 2005 visit. The statement about the economy of the 60s and 70s is accurate, and again the change recommended above would make things flow better. I may have time soon to look over this. As far as econ refs, either Cumings (who I hate to use), or Noland should be good. Dprkstudies (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea as a Single party state.

In North Korea it is illegal for other political parties to meet and take part in elections. Why is it when ever the phrase Single Party State is added to the article it is deleted? North Korea does only haee one legal political party and that is the Worker's Party of Korea. It even says in the article "Politics of North Korea" that the DPRK functions as a single party state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDespot666 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated than that. The political system is formally open to several parties, and a few others do exist, but they must stand for elections as part of a united front that's controlled by the Workers' Party. So North Korea is a single-party state in the sense that only one party is permitted to hold effective power, but a multi-party system in the sense that there are other parties. See Chondoist Chongu Party for example. --Reuben (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea focused Weblogs under External Links.

This needs to be discussed by the larger audience of editors and North Korea watchers who participate in Wikipedia. First there was some back-and-forth with arbitrarily deletions of my blog (which had been there for a couple of years prior) under the “External Links” and “Weblogs” header, then the deletion of the entire sub-category of “Weblogs.” I’ve restored these links myself a few times, but several others have also recognized the anarchic nature of the deletions and restored them. Mthibault is responsible for most of the deletions and has apparently taken it upon himself to judge that these blogs are either spam or promoting something other than analysis of North Korean issues. Note that these are *not* links or references to blogs being placed in the main article, but clearly under “Weblogs” in “External Links.” The blogs listed are in fact very serious, for the most part written by specialists, and well read among Korea watchers, which makes them particularly pertinent to this page. Let’s hear your thoughts, please. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the whole section of "weblogs" once and your blog another time following Wikipedia:EL. I propose we take it to mediation :) Mthibault (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a case at requests for third opinion : Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Mthibault (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been requested to provide an admin opinion on this matter. This is thus only one admins thoughts, to be taken on that basis. I concur that outside comment is likely necessary for the resolution of the inclusion of weblogs in this article. Opinion on North Korea is often very heavily politicised, and weblogs are frequently the product of unreviewed opinion and perhaps subjectively referral to facts. To have such a potentially biased source provided within an article - not withstanding how it is categorised there - requires continuing consensus. If the WP:3O is not to all parties satisfaction I would then suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment. During these processes, and where there is no agreed consensus, I strongly suggest that the weblog is not included in article space. I hope that this helps move the discussion onward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the Third opinion request - this dispute seems to involve more than two editors, so I'm not sure it's a good case for 3rdOp. Although only two editors had commented here (at the point the request was made, prior to LessHeard vanU's helpful comments), further editors had commented on Dprkstudies' talk page, and another editor has become involved in reinstating the blog links. I agree with the suggestion that a Request for comment would be more suitable, and also that the weblogs section is removed until the dispute reaches consensus. I have also asked Dprkstudies to consider removing the wikipedia-related post on his blog, per WP policy on recruiting allies in content disputes. Eve Hall (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the weblogs section has been moved here from the article page until discussion reaches consensus:

Hello Eve; Per your request and the cited policy, I have edited my blog post/title to remove advocacy but have left it up as there are incoming links and comments, including a relevant comment from Mthibault that I have quoted from below. Dprkstudies (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion as to what the External Links Policy (Wikipedia:EL) actually states. Please see item four (4) of the External Links policy under both, “What should be linked,” and “Links to be considered;”

  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
  • 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Concerning blogs, note they are listed in item 11 under, “Links normally to be avoided,”

  • 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Mthibault has stated (in a comment on my blog) that, “links to blogs (of any kind) should be avoided,” which I believe misinterprets both the letter and spirit of the policy, and is more of an opinion. It should be noted that this did not start as the entire section (which had been there for a couple of years prior with no issue, including my own blog) being deleted, but one blog being arbitrarily singled out and deleted, for which an explanation was asked for a few times but never provided. I was under the impression that justifying such deletions, i.e. answering direction questions concerning them, was the norm. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the blogs listed are not entirely relevant to the topic of North Korea (under what should be linked). Even if one considers the blogs not to be “reliable sources,” they are definitely from “knowledgeable sources,” at least for this topic (under links to be considered). Also, there is no prohibition on linking to blogs in the External Links policy, unless you ignore the word “normally” in the heading for that section of the policy. The key here concerns, “those written by… recognized authorit[ies].” One could argue that the general public doesn’t know who, for example, Joshua Stanton or Richardson are, but most of the public won’t know where Pyongyang or Wonson are either. However these blogs are recognized authorities on North Korea within the Korea-blogosphere. The question to ask is this; what would be beneficial to the reader. Since the main article is not meant to cover closely current events (e.g. related to diplomacy, security, economics, human rights, etc.), linking to blogs that do should be beneficial to the reader looking for just such external links. Dprkstudies (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fourth opinion: First off, all the links added in this diff don't belong on the page at all. I'd also remind User:Dprkstudies that it seems a little COI for you to push for the blogs to be included, given that your blog is one of the ones listed there. In terms of the argument raised above about reliable sources, my response would be: what makes Joshua Stanton or Richardson notable within the "Korea-blogosphere"? Are they scholars who have published articles in notable magazines or books? If they're just some guys sitting in their apartment who are recycling links, then no, they shouldn't be included. On a side note, the entire external links section here needs a lot of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate; why don’t those clearly North Korea focused blogs belong? Under the External Links policy there is nothing to prevent the links being added, and the implication of the items I note above would in fact point towards inclusion rather than exclusion. If you are not familiar with the Korea-blogosphere, perhaps those who are should comment. As to COI, I did not originally add my blog under the “Weblogs” header, but I did add it back after I noticed it and only it had been removed after begin there for about two years. Neither Joshua Stanton or myself – or many of the others – are just some guys sitting around recycling links. The About pages of either of our blogs speak to our credentials if you care to examine them, though I consider substance to be more important than credentials. I’ll steer back towards the overarching question; what would be beneficial to the reader. Dprkstudies (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But there is Wiki policy against those links being added, and it's at WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." By recognized authority here, it means someone notable, as I said before - a scholar, an informed political figure, someone like that. There are a number of reasons why blog/personal web pages aren't allowed, but one of the big ones is that it's a potentially unreliable source. One of the links in question is http://www.xanga.com/linkorea, a Xanga page. Are you kidding? Why are we linking to their blog, where http://www.linkglobal.org/ is run by the same group and is an actual website? The Korea-blogosphere is irrelevant here; recognized authorities should be recognized outside of their own element. And in any case, Wiki policy trumps all. The burden is on you to to prove that the people are recognized authorities. As to your last question: what would be most beneficial to the reader would be content within the Wiki article, backed by verifiable secondary sources. Not links. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First the policy in NOT against adding such links, unless you omit key words. If you think that policy should be changed, that's a different matter. Second, please provide an official definition of “recognized authority,” if there is one. Have you bothered to look at credentials? Also, as shown above, item 11 of “Links normally to be avoided” is in this case in conflict with items four (4) noted above. Wikipedia articles have many links to obviously relevant blogs and this is just such a case. Again, comments from someone actually familiar with the Korea-blogosphere would be particularly helpful. The opinion that the opinions from that group of Korea watchers is irrelevant is not particularly helpful. And I’ll restate that content is more important than credentials to avoid the fallacy of appeal to authority, and again point to the question of what make a more useful article, or an external link in this case. Dprkstudies (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Korea&oldid=205358588"