Talk:North Korea

Communist state

This article should be updated to remove all references to NK as a communist state, outside of historical discussion. The constitution was amended in 2009 to change the political basis from Marxism-Leninism to songun (military first). It is, even by its own description, a military state rather than a communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.216.123 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, for all intents and purposes, still a communist state, whatever they call it in their constitution. To call it a military state because of the Songun policy is just plain wrong.--Atlan (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Militarism and communism are not mutually exclusive; the North Korean 'constitution' itself is little more than a propaganda tool that has little bearing on how the country itself is actually ruled. North Korea is very much a totalitarian, militaristic communist country with an extremely powerful and extensive personality cult around the leader. All these regime-type adjectives are applicable to the North Korean state. The Way (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some logic not to call it "Communist" for several reasons. First of all, a centrally planned economy, authoritarian rule and a single-party system don't make a country Communist. A Communist state is one that defines itself as pursuing Communism through a certain set of organisational ideas or that claims to have achieved it; North Korea is neither of those. Furthermore Juche and Songun could be viewed as Socialist ideologies, but they're not in any case Communist. And finally, not all property in North Korea is public; there are some private enterprises; their society is not in any case classless, and, as I mentioned, their guiding ideologies rather emphasize nationalism and self-reliance than proletarian struggle, internationalism or such. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tourbillon. If they're no longer pursuing the communist ideal, they're no longer communist. Totalitarian socialist, perhaps. --Leodmacleod (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They could easily be qualified as a "Socialist state" under some form, but "Communist state" is definitely not an appropriate definition. Yet we need to wait for other opinions, there could be some debate for this.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should refere the to the country as a former socialist/communist state and presently a dictatorship or a monarch system like government. You can say many things, but these guys were communists, but not any longer. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with dictatorship, but I'd wait until Kim Jung-Il passes leadership to a relative before declaring it a real monarchy. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is "Socialist state". The DPRK has many features of one - strong state control over the economy and an "Iron rice bowl"-type of social policy, as a examples. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article calls it a "Juche" state - that's another made up word self-applied by North Korea. I suspect there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe it as a "communist dictatorship". Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire 'debate' about whether the DPRK is 'communist' 'socialist' 'Jucheist' or 'Monarchist' smacks of an arm chair debate amongst overly subjective & somewhat ideologically defensive leftist theoreticians,and actualy has no place influencing the presentation of fact in an article on a country in Wikipedia.Rather the countries self description should prevail,and separate wiki articles on the political terms used would suffice to cover any 'theoretical controversies'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawablk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much North Korea's position. We, on the other hand, tend to go with reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this debate, I remember reading in the excellebnt "North Korea: Through the Looking Glass", that Karl Marx's works are banned in the country. I doubt you can be described as communist in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea doesn't act like a communist state in several key ways, though it's difficult to overlook the similarities. For example, the means of production are state owned. The state is military-first. Leadership is dictatorial. That much just screams "communist". However, their depiction of Americans as hook-nosed monsters is nearly identical to last century's antisemitic propaganda. This gives North Korea a more national-socialist-fascist (Nazi) aura than anything else. In direct contrast to communism and not counting re-unification goals with the south, state policy isn't expansionist (they have no desire for anyone else to follow their "Dear Leader"). They'd much rather be left alone. North Korea is highly xenophobic (reminiscent of pre-war Japan) and touts the moral superiority of their pure Korean blood (at least internally). These positions are diametrically opposed to communism. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"First armed conflict of the Cold War"

The Wikipedia articles on "proxy wars" and the "Greek Civil War" indicate that the Greek Civil War was in fact the first armed conflict of the Cold War, not the Korean War as this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.199.154 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "first direct conflict between the superpowers of the Cold War"? There were certainly Soviet MiG pilots in the Korean War, and most definitely US troops. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget about China. The U.S. backed Chinese forces fought Russian backed Chinese Communists during and after WWII through 1949. Rklawton (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason for the outbreak of the Korean War

A specific request for a verbiage change and a second point on whether the sentence should be included at all.

The second sentence of this subsection of the article states,

The conflict arose from the division on Korea by the US and the attempts of the two Korean powers to re-unify Korea under their respective governments.

I would posit this is not in accordance with the the first sentence of the History section which states that, "...Korea was divided at the 38th parallel in accordance with a United Nations arrangement...." Therefore, I would propose the verbiage be changed to the following:

The conflict arose from the division on Korea by the UN and the attempts of the two Korean powers to re-unify Korea under their respective governments.

My reasoning as to whether the above specified sentence (and the one following) should be included at all is, if Stalin's acquiesce had to be gained by Kim Il-sung (see last sentence of 'Division of Korean' and second paragraph of History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War) before large-scale hostilities could commence, then that presupposes that Kim Il-sung had seen that re-unification of the peninsula was to be carried forward by military means. Therefore, the division of the peninsula into two distinct (and mutually hostile) political regimes, while laying the setting for the conflict, wasn't the precipitant of the conflict, but rather Kim's desire for re-unification by any and all means. In other words, if Stalin hadn't agreed to Kim's request for large-scale military action against the Southern regime, (theoretically) there'd be no war. Consequently, the sentence's attempted summation of the war's causes is inaccurate, imprecise, overly-simplistic and at odds with other sources on Wikipedia and elsewhere and should be excised. If, on the other hand, the reasons given in the sentence and the following one is correct, then numerous other articles (e.g., History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War, Korean_War#North_Korea_Escalates_the_Conflict_.28June_1950.29 to name a couple) should be edited to align with the reasons given in these two sentences. -- Dasnyderx (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to make sense. Anyone have a problem with this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The North Koreans would have a problem with this. It is their view that they were attacked by the U.S (we might want to mention this if we haven't already done so). But I don't have a problem with the North Koreans having a problem with this. Rklawton (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Leadership Clarification

I made some minor changes to the leadership statements. Officially Kim Il Sung is the President and leader of the state even though he is dead. John Chamberlain (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

System of government

"Single party socialist state"? Given the actual realities of the situation, surely "hereditary absolute monarchy" would be more correct? -- Chronulator (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say no for the time being. However, if leadership is passed on to Kim's son or one of his other relatives, or he officially names one of them his successor, then I would think it appropriate to call it a de facto monarchy, since I'm sure they would still claim otherwise. However, since there no original research on wiki, someone else would still have to make that claim beside ourselves before we could. --Leodmacleod (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to call the DPRK a monarchy. All citizens live equally under the Dear Leader and the Juche system of self reliance. Don't listen to western propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not a monarchy; it's a militaristic, single-party, communist authoritarian regime... it's also, essentially, one of maybe two totalitarian governments (the other being Turkmenistan) in existence today.

I think the heart of the question is: what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to the nature of a government? Rklawton (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They are "totalitaristic" and "hereditary" including elements of "socialism". But for sure they are not a republic. Therefore the description in the article is wrong with "socialist republic". The german article descibes the form of government as "socialist-statist totalitarism". 84.173.253.251 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read socialist republic. It's sort of a term of art in that they indeed aren't republics in any meaningful sense. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A republic is merely any country which does not have a monarch as its Head of State. Republicanism and Democracy are not mutually inclusive, and a country does not cease being a republic simply because it is undemocratic. At the moment, I believe the phrase "crowned republic" best applies to the DPRK, as it is a nominal republic which has a de facto hereditary Head of State. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources, people, sources - what constitutes a reliable source as far as describing the nature of a government? You know, something academic as well as neutral and unbiased? Rklawton (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish the actual form by definition an the wording that is used by the government itself. The definition of a republic is quite clear and North Korea does not qualify for being one. It has already been determined that the form of government is monarch and hereditary. The quality of the english wikipedia would improve if it wouldn't name things which "they indeed aren't". Source: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic], first paragraph, definition. 194.55.1.242 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's just stop beating a dead horse. Without reliable sources, we're not changing the article to include speculation and personal feelings. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Snowcleanerobject, 8 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

please take out the profanity in this page

Snowcleanerobject (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. If I missed any, let me know the same way you did before. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary qualifiers?

I was consulting this article today in light of the DPRK's recent appearance in the news, and I was surprised by some qualifiers that appear to me to be unnecessary and perhaps even misleading. Here are two that I spotted:

1. The satellite photo of the Korean peninsula. The caption says that the disparity in nighttime illumination is cited "by some" as an indication of differing levels of development. The "by some" seems to me to suggest that there is an alternate point of view on this, although no cites to an alternate view are given and it seems beyond dispute that the ROK's level of development is much higher than the DPRK's.

2. The introduction says that "many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship." Again, this seems to imply that media organizations inside North Korea would take a different view and that their view would be appropriate for citation in an encyclopedia. It seems to me, again, to be beyond dispute that the DPRK is in fact a totalitarian dictatorship, and that it would not be appropriate to cite North Korean media reports to the contrary, particularly insofar as the media are state-controlled.

To put this in terms of Wikipedia policies (I am a new user, so I am not sure I have all this right): WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It seems to me that in the absence of reliable sources suggesting that these two points are in dispute, the qualifications ("by some" and "many media organizaitons outside North Korea report") should be removed. Tfolkman (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re 2, per WP:NPOV we have to acknowledge the North Korean point of view. How truthful North Korea's official news agency is is questionable, but since they're the only media in the country, there isn't really an alternative; and obviously, they uphold the socialist republic fascade. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay--I'm sure this has been hashed out by folks who have been involved for a long time, though I'm not sure I agree in such an obvious case. But regardless, under WP:NOR, should there not, then, at least be a citation to the DPRK newspaper that makes the claim? That way, readers could at last see where it is coming from. Or, since the article say that the DPRK is "officially" a socialist republic, perhaps the citation could be to the country's constitution or another "official" source. Thanks, in any case, for responding to me.Tfolkman (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re 1, Even North Korea has admitted in the last few years that South Korea is more developed than they are. With both sides in agreement, I see no challenge to removing the qualifier. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, as no one has chimed in with a different view, I will make the change (I'm not sure how long it is appropriate to wait to see if there are dissenters, so apologies if this is too speedy!) Tfolkman (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)