Talk:General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea

Name

@Trust Is All You Need: If you keep up your edit warring you will ikely find yourself blocked, now use the talk page to establish a consensus for your changes you want to make.

"Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea" is better then "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea" per WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. The former has 1, 290, 000 google hits while the latter only has 866, 000 google hits.

It is also the official titleApolloCarmb (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@ApolloCarmb: You don't seem to understand. Chairman of the Central Committee, General Secretary of the Central Committee, General Secretary of the WPK, First Secretary of the WPK.... They were all abolished and new posts established. So, either we delete all information regarding the other offices - but then this article would have too little information.. or we name it correctly for all offices.--TIAYN (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WAit until i'm finished editting the article before you judge. --TIAYN (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: You need to provide sources backing up what you are saying.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@ApolloCarmb: Read the article, it even says it.... and again, show good faith, I'm editing the article. Stop showing bad faith. --TIAYN (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Ok I see where you are coming from now.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Kim Jong-un IKS 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2021

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is consensus that the title should not remain the former title of the leader of the Workers' Party of Korea. The followup discussion below may continue. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea → General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea – Name of position changed at the 8th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea. Migs005 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support --Direct700 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Can I propose something else? What about Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea? Chairman of the WPK is not the same as General Secretary of the WPK or for that matter Chairman of the Central Committee of the WPK or General Secretary of the Central Committee of the WPK. All this posts were etablished and abolished—they are not the same. But colloquially they all refer to the leader of the Workers' Party of Korea... In addition it would mean that we don't need to move the page every time the WPK decides to establish a new office for the leader. --Ruling party (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: People know the position as the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and not Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea. I do not think it is an issue to keep changing the page name whenever it is necessary or to make passing references to the previous names of the position. --Migs005 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: But this is where we disagree. The "Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea" is not a previous position. The "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" is a new position. As far as I know there is not a single statement anywhere which calls this a transformation or a change of name of the office. The media calls it an establishment. --Ruling party (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea? --Ruling party (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support --嘉傑 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The official title for Workers' Party of Korea leader, has changed to General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea since 10 January 2021.

---

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

Requested move 3 February 2021

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 22:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea → Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea – I argue moving this article to "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea". It's not the correct formal name, but it clarifies the task of the article. I'm guessing that Kim Jong-un will get a new title at the next congress so it's not really the title that is important. It's the fact that he is the leader of the WPK and wants to inform everyone about it (it has propaganda significance more then it has institutional significance). I haven't read anywhere in North Korean media or other media that these name changes actually alter the North Korean decision-making process and culture in anyway. One can therefore reach the logical conclusion that moving the name of this article every fifth year or move does not improve Wikipedia coverage, it just increases Wikipedia's workload. This is not to say I'm against a formal title when it can be used; Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea (lists general secretaries, first secretaries, second secretaries, third secretaries and ordinary secretaries for instance) could be interesting articles. --Ruling party (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Finnusertop I've pinged you three since you're the only editors I have come across that edit North Korea articles.

• Support moving. --Ruling party (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest--嘉傑 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider to rename "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" and move to "Leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" ?

The post titles for Communist Party of the Soviet Union leader include: Technical Secretary, Chairman of the Secretariat, Responsible Secretary, First Secretary, General Secretary.

Also, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (Chairman, First Secretary, General Secretary), General Secretary of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (Chairman, General Secretary) and First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba (First Secretary, General Secretary)

嘉傑 I don't consider it the same. First, the post of General Secretary/First Secretary was an institution that was built by Stalin and lasted until the country's dissolution. The aforementioned offices of Technical Secretary, Chairman of the Secretariat and Responsible Secretary were forerunner to the office of the General Secretary/First Secretary. In this instance, the name General Secretary also makes sense since it was the name that existed the longest. The same goes for the LPRP. The name of the office was changed, but was anything else changed? If it was just a name change the offices don't warrant their own articles or any discussion really.

As for Vietnam, the office of Chairman of the Central Committee and the office of First Secretary of the Central Committee existed concurrently and are two different offices with different responsibilities. They should not have the same article, I agree. But I doubt the article "Chairman of the Communist Party of Vietnam" is warranted.

As for Cuba, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba is confusing. The Cuban party was established in 1965, and its direct descendant was established in 1961. The general secretaries on that list prior to 1961 are "predecessors"—separate organisations. Fidel Castro was not a member of the pre-revolutionary party and I therefore presume the history, culture and institutional office of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Popular Socialist Party had little if no direct impact on the office Fidel Castro acquired.

In short, what's interesting is the institutional powers of these offices and the legitimacy they granted the officeholders. In regards to the WPK the office in itself seems less important, and its more important who is holding the office - a member of the Kim family. --Ruling party (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party, how about these three articles: Leader of the Chinese Communist Party, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party ? In fact, Chairman and General Secretary existed concurrently in the Chinese Communist Party between 1956 and 1966 (Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping) and 1980 and 1982 (Hua Guofeng and Hu Yaobang). --嘉傑 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

嘉傑 Note that there are two articles and one list.

Both those bodies are also more discussed as well. There are academic articles that analyst the historical evolution of the general secretaryship. But, since Mao's did not believe in a formal legal structure as such, information on the chairmanship itself is scarce. That article can never become truly long, unless if its reestablished. But, as far I know, Deng held the office of Secretary-General of the Secretariat (and not General Secretary). The Korean case is anyway very different: Chairman of the Central Committee had two officeholders (Kim Tu-bong and Kim Il-sung) and the General Secretary of the Central Committee (had one, Kim Il-sung). General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea has had two (Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un), while First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea has had one officeholder. You could make the case that all these institutions are the same, and the establishment and abolishment of offices don't mean anything, but we should keep the name relevant. Again, it just seems like more work. The North Koreans are interested in the Great Leader and Dear Leader and bestows offices on them accordingly. What's important is that they are "leaders".

I'm not saying "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" doesn't work, but "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" is not the same as "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea" and we should not pretend that they are... "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea" would seem to be the easiest title. --Ruling party (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party, Deng Xiaoping was General Secretary (Chinese: 总书记) of the Chinese Communist Party from 1956 to 1966, not Secretary-General (Chinese: 秘书长), the position he held before (1954-1956). During this period, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party was Chairman Mao Zedong, not General Secretary Deng Xiaoping. In this case, could we split into two articles: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (1956-1966) ? --嘉傑 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

嘉傑 I would find that unwise to be honest!

While I accept you're explanation—I am not Chinese while you obviously are—you seem to forget that Deng's office still exists in informal capacity. Wang Huning as 1-ranked secretary has the same assignment. I would rather expand the article Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party and create an article Secretaries of the Chinese Communist Party (this article would include all the members of the secretariat, and Deng's office, and one can of course add the "normal" General Secretary office as well if one feels like it). The office Deng had had a different function than the one Xi holds. For instance, Xi is not a member of the Secretariat. Xi leads the work of the Politburo Standing Committee by setting the agenda. Deng did not have this responsibility, and he wasn't ex officio head of the military and state.

I will stress that Chinese politics are not the same as North Korean. While the institutions have the same names how they perform their duties are very differently. I've never read that Xi Jinping guides the Central Committee, or that the Central Committee members most important duty is to experience the wisdom of Xi Jinping. The reason is, of course, because it isn't. The Politburo Standing Committee controls the agenda of the CCP Central Committee, but the Central Committee is an independent decision-making institution and is respected as such. --Ruling party (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I can see the arguments on both sides and haven't made up my mind yet. I'll have to give it some thought. Pinging @Soman because the original ping in Ruling party's post didn't work (Template:u pings the fist name only). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This issue on renaming to Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea has been discussed and decided on many times already. I don't see any reason why it should be brought up again.--Migs005 (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Situation as of 15 February 2021

@Finnusertop, 嘉傑, and Soman:

• The article has been changed. Migs005 dislikes this version—claiming it is "incomprehensible", but I find his criticism "incomprehensible" (he still hasn't said what is incomprehensible specifically). Do you agree?
  • • The current version includes the predecessors of all WPK organisations (and not just the Nort Korean Branch Bureau and the Workers' Party of North Korea). I thought it was weird that we missed half of the predecessors. Kim Il-sung served for a short while the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Korea, and Pak Hon-yong served as the Chairman of the Communist Party of Korea and the Communist Party of South Korea (CPSK). Also, the CPSK would merge with other parties (similar to the Communist Party of North Korea) to found the Workers' Party of South Korea. The WPNK and the WPSK then merged on 24 June 1949 to form the current Workers' Party of Korea. I don't understand how mentioning only half of the predecessors is a good thing. Surely all should be mentioned?
  • In addition I've created the article Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and General Secretary and Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea.
  • Both these articles were on my to-do list, but I will admit I added "Chairman and [...]" and "General Secretary and [...]" because of this article.
  • This means we have two articles on the offices and one list of leaders of the Workers' Party of Korea, similar to the Chinese Communist Party which has General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and Leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
    • It is true that the structure is not exactly alike, but that's because I don't think we can produce a separate article for "First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" or "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea", As far as I know no scholars have studied these offices, and as far as I know the North Koreans aren't that interested in studying the institutions of the leader (they are more interested in studying the wisdom of the leader).

Otherwise. I still support moving this to "Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea". Even more so because of the two new articles. --Ruling party (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Regarding the article's recent restructuring

Pinging Ruling party as he is the main user involved in this article's recent restructuring. I understand your enthusiasm and good intentions to edit and restructure the article. But, in my opinion, the article had become unreadable ever since you began restructuring it in comparison to the version prior to it. The restructured article feels difficult to read, has inconsistent parts such as Hyon Chun-hyok being claimed to have led the party, has irrelevant parts such as listing the leaders of the Communist Party of Korea and the Workers' Party of South Korea, and has poorly formatted tables. My suggestion at the moment is to have this article reverted back prior to the restructuring and update it to reflect the recent change to General Secretary. Migs005 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: I disagree. I feel like the tables in the former version were bad and the picture to big. I copied the tables from the WP:FL General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

I am not claiming anything. That is what the sources say. Hyon Chun-hyok was elected the First Secretary of the North Korean Branch Bureau upon its establishment. He was assassinated early and replaced by Kim Yong-bom. The North Korean Branch Bureau changed its name to the Communist Party of North Korea in 1946, and merged with other parties to form the Workers' Party of North Korea.

The North Korean Branch Bureau was established by the Communist Party of Korea, in which Kim Il-sung served as a member of its Politburo. The Soviets originally supported maintaining one party per the principle one country, one party but when it became clear that the country couldn't be reunified they broke of.

The Workers' Party of South Korea was the remnants of the CPK and it merged with the Workers' Party of North Korea to form the Workers' Party of Korea. Without the WPSK there wouldn't be a WPK. Andrey Lankov makes contends in his book From Stalin to Kim Il Sung: The Formation of North Korea, 1945–1960 that the WPSK and the WPNK were more or less the same party in practice from 1946–49 (many WPSK members served in the North Korean government).

I am not claiming anything, that is my point. Everything is sourced by reliable sources.

Things can of course change, and should. I don't own this article so we should be able to find common ground. --Ruling party (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

But to clarify my problems with the old version:

1. A table should be able to sort columns. By having headers everywhere you are removing that possibility.
2. This is a list and not picture collage. The pictures were taking to much space and the table looked weird because of it.
3. It destroyed the sortable function by focusing too much on terms (therefore it has its own section now). Some terms were also incorrect (Kim Jong-il served one term).
4. By focusing so much on terms it was difficult to show the duration of leadership. This version now shows that Kim Il-sung's leadership lasted 45 years and 14 days. Since there are two tables it also shows how long, for instance, the 6th term Central Committee was (35 years and 208 days).
5. In short too much was going one so as to make it more difficult for readers to get information. That is key.

--Ruling party (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

After rereading Korean Communism 1945–1980: A Reference Guide to the Political System I agree that Hyon Chun-hyok should not be included. He served as the Vice CHairman of the Provisional Political Committee under Cho Man-sik and was apparently nominated to be First Secretary of the North Korean Branch Bureau but was assassinated on 28 September 1945 before he could take office. But the sources are quite confusing. Some say that Hyon was elected (impossible) and some say Kim Yong-bom and Kim Il-sung were elected.. So I'm picking Kim Yong-bom. --Ruling party (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

My comments on your restructuring:

1. Why is the WPK Chairman emblem on the infobox? It's no longer used and so far, there isn't a General Secretary emblem yet. That is why it is placed under the Gallery section prior to restructuring.
2. The walls of text at the start of the article is just too difficult to read. The pre-restructured version had an intro and history sections to it, which showed a flow or progression in the article. The restructured version feels like it is leading to a list article, which is not supposed to be the case.
3. I don't understand why you totally removed the pre-restructured tables. Admittedly, it could be better, such as removing the focus on terms. However, I don't get why you want it to be sortable since I rarely see articles with tables listing leaders that are sortable. In fact, the previous table is just a copy of the format used in other leadership articles.
4. Overall, this article does not feel it's about the General Secretary position, but rather, it feels like it's being set up for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea you have been trying to propose, which has been already discussed several times previously and has not been agreed to. I am still opposed to the move largely because we usually talk of what the title being used at the moment of writing, rather than Leaders of the WPK which I do not understand its rationale - whether it be in terms of logic, based on Wikipedia article naming policy, or search engine analytics.
5. This article traces the historical roots of this position, yet includes mentioning the leaders of the Communist Party of Korea and the Workers' Party of South Korea, which are generally irrelevant for this article. I suggest if you want to discuss them, do it on the CPK and WPSK related articles and not here. The CPK North Korea Branch and the CPNK is generally agreed to have been on its own from the very start.

I am still suggesting for a revert back to the pre-restructured article. I could've done it now but I have other commitments I have to attend to. As much as I also understand your rationale for restructuring the article, I also have mine which I also feel should be put into consideration in this.--Migs005 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: Well... this article is about all the leaders of the WPK... That is why all the leader of the WPK are included.. Right? If not we should remove Kim Il-sung's term and just leave the term of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un if its only about there term.

That was one of the major flaws of the last version, the intro and the chapter. I do not approve.

Sortability = more accessibility.

"Overall, this article does not feel it's about the General Secretary position, but rather, it feels like it's being set up for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea you have been trying to propose, which has been already discussed several times previously and has not been agreed to." Hasn't this always been the case? You're version listed the "Chairman of the Central Committee", "General Secretary of the Central Committeee", "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea", "First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea", "Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea" and "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea".. That is five offices.. So its fine two include five offices in an article, and explain those offices badly, but its wrong to include these offices in an updated table with an historical accurate text... Because it then feels like a different article?

The WPK Chairman emblem can be removed if you really want. But its relevant enough. The office of General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and office of Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea are more or less identical changes. The press statement from the 8th Congress said it was a change of names (and not anything else). We can keep the logo until a new logo is made.

"This article traces the historical roots of this position, yet includes mentioning the leaders of the Communist Party of Korea and the Workers' Party of South Korea, which are generally irrelevant for this article." This is rather subjective and weird. The former article contained the leaders of the North Korean Branch BUreau and the Workers' Party of North Korea (two predecessors which you believe is fine is included), but you're against having two other predecessors included? Well I won't support a version of this article that does not contain all the predecessors. It's all a incomprehensible position to take (only some predecessors can be included,others cannot).

This article is a list. It can never become a GA or FL since the WPK Rules are never made public (so how can you analyse an office which we don't know the rules about)? In addition, its not like the NK is very institutionalised. i don't see how this can be anything else than a list.

All reverts will be met by reverts. We have to discuss this. As far as I know the former version was bad in every sense. --Ruling party (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I’m withdrawing from any further involvement in editing this article in the foreseeable future. Good luck. --Migs005 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: Can I propose creating the articles "Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and "Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea"? Then we will have what you want.. Articles that don't focuses on the offices but the individuals. --Ruling party (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the reason why there’s no separate articles on what you’re proposing is that it’s too insignificant to have it’s own articles. It’s better to have them discussed on this article since these offices are related to the current one. What I have been trying to say to you is I was hopinh that this article could be structured in the same way as how General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is formatted. I believe that’s a well-written article and shares the same issues as this one. Try to compare your restructuring to how that article is written. Migs005 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: I was WP:BOLD and just did it: Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. It's of course notable (such lists are everywhere in scholarly work on North Korea). I created the article Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea a couple of days ago. I will restructure it and make it similar to the Secretary article.

When it comes to the CPSU General Secretary, it was not like that when it was nominated.

Coupleof things on the CPSU General Secretary list which is similar. It is the same table and coding on the tables. It does not sort —because of the offices—and has a short historical text on all the leaders. I also think it has several failures. How long did Stalin hold the office? Why is Term of office one column? I wish that article had a column "age upon death" and I don't understand why birth and death date are not sortable. It would make it much clearer for the reader that a generation (between 1915-32) produced no leaders because of the Brezhnev stagnation. The sizes of the pictures are good. All in all an OK table. But I don't want the headers.

Question. You wrote above "Overall, this article does not feel it's about the General Secretary position, but rather, it feels like it's being set up for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea".... But you do understand that by adding labels over every leader about which offices they held that article (and the earlier version) feels even more about the leaders and the offices than the General Secretary? --Ruling party (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Do what you want with this article or whatever article. Don't really care anymore. Migs005 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: The thing is—maybe I am a bit difficult—but at least I am trying to discuss. You just seem to be saying "My way or the highway" and, to be honest, I don't really under what "you're way" really means... I will be here and wait for you if you're ever interested in discussing this. --Ruling party (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell you. The version prior to your restructuring was readable. Yours is honestly not. I would've appreciated additional info on the article but the problem is that you have restructured the article in such a way that it's just a total pain to read it. Check your restructured version compared to similar articles here in Wikipedia and tell me if it's easy to read. Also, I don't understand why are you so obsessed with removing headers and making tables sortable. Articles containing lists of leaders rarely have sortable tables, unless if what you are focusing at are specific aspects such as their names, age, tenure length, etc. For this article that only aims to show who is the General Secretary now and who has been his predecessors and what title they took, there is little logic to have sortable tables here. Also, the prior table, as I have said before, is mainly a copy of the format seen in articles containing tables listing leaders. Again, we both agree it should be readable and show as much info as possible. But, I have to totally disagree with you that your restructuring of this article is in any way readable. For the final time, compare your restructured article to similar articles. Migs005 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: And this doesn't make sense to me. Here are the following reasons:

1. You're version made it impossible for readers to distinguish between the "North Korean Branch Bureau", the "Workers' Party of North Korea" and the "Workers' Party of Korea". You treated it as it was one organisation. This in fact it was not. If I'm nice the earlier version had the following; simplifying history to such an extent as it becoming false.
2. You're version had gigantic pictures (never seen so large pictures in a list before).
3. Otherwise everything is simpler. Instead of having everything in one column, I've divided the information on more columns since we have space for it.
4. The election table did not make much sense either. Since they were elected by plenary sessions to be specific.
5. For some strange reasons the signatures of every Kim was included... Why was this needed?
6. And, to the contrary of what you accused me off, you made the article "General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" exclusively about offices. Kim Jong-un's tenure as leader is divided into three time periods because of office changes...
7. And I don't understand how, for instance, having a separate section that lists all the leader offices in a separate section makes that unreadable. A reader will rather think "Okay, I will that here and that there".
8. As for the lead. You say it is terrible, but you haven't given me one example of an incomprehensible sentence. Just seems to dislike it personally because its not you're version. This breaches WP:OWNERSHIP. You don't own anything here on WP. --Ruling party (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Never said I owned the article. All I'm saying is that the restructuring you did is not good and there's just way too many points here on why. I'm not gonna revert it since you'd obviously just revert it back to your version, and I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit war. Do whatever you want here or on any NK-related articles. On my end, I'm just keeping in mind what the consensus has been on these sort of articles. Good luck. Migs005 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Migs005: Okay. Can't really be much of a consensus on this article when the only person who objects is you.

Thank you very much for you're time. The only thing you've written to me today is "My version better!" I ask why? and you reply "Because you're stupid!". Frankly one of the worst discussions I have ever encountered. When I created articles, referenced by reliable sources for "General Secretary and Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea" and "Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea" you became even angrier and became even more accusative. I will also note that the first rationale you had for reverting the current changes were "Reverting back to last edit on 2021.2.8, 18:51 due to unsourced info" (when you're one was entirely unreferenced) which makes me believe you never really wanted to discuss this article at all. --Ruling party (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)