Talk:North Korea/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

amnesty international

AI does not rank countries regarding human rights, it is correct to say they have noted serious human rights violations, but not to say that they rank NK as one of the world's worst violators. I am a former AI researcher in the Asia Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.135.87 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"1990s famine"? It continues!

Right now, 6.5 million people are on the brink of death from hunger, silly Wikipedia. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Every country has people on the brink of death. called poverty in the western countries.--Jakezing (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in western nations is nowhere near the level that poverty in North Korea is. Western impoverished people enjoy a pretty high standard of living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtiredofliberals (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have never visited an inner city in the United States. Sorry I have no intention of repeating your ridiculously confrontational username but I am sure you know who I am talking to AreaControl (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks, Wikipedia is not a forum. Take your discussion elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I was intervening to stop this discussion. Secondly, the editors above appear to be discussing the validity of the phrase "1990s famine". That is not in any way a forum discussion. Please do not post warnings on people's userpages randomly AreaControl (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys, when I made that statement, it was meant to be relevant to the article -- not a "forum discussion." I didn't want him to edit it to just say 'poverty,' because the conditions of the impoverished are not the same in industrialized nations versus non-industrialized ones. Iamtiredofliberals (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

AreaControl, clearly you've never been to ANY city in North Korea. But I guess the famine is not as bad it was before (1tephania (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

why is there hanja?

they are no longer used in north korea for any purpose. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not, but if they want to study their history in old historic documents, then they need Hanja. Also some 60% or more of modern Korean vocabulary came from Hanja, so studying it helps Koreans know where the words in their language came from. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, since it gives the misleading impression that these characters are used by North Koreans. Kauffner (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody should just make a comment in the body of the article (like regarding Language in NK) that Hanjia is indeed no longer used in NK. Of course, you'd have to put up something to back it up.Children of the dragon (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Errors, errors, errors

There are many errors in this article. I just had to capitalize "United States" and fix a spelling error (realised > released?). Now I 'realize' that one of the sources is spelled "femine" instead of "famine." Clearly somebody does not know what they are writing. --coolbho3000 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are american, right? Because "realise" is the correct UK english spelling for the word, and the "z" in place of the "s" is american spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.56.26 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody who edits Wikipedia is (or should be) a native speaker of English. If you see a typo, just fix it. Tempshill (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Style Question

The sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the page reads: "Following a major famine in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union (previously a major economic partner), leader Kim Jong-il instigated the "Military-First" policy in 1995, increasing economic concentration and support for the military." The "Following a... following the..." format of the sentence sounds strange, though it looks grammatically correct. I assume that it's meant to say that the Soviet collaspe ---> effected the state of famine ---> which led to a "Military-First" policy, or at least something in that order. A possible solution off the top of my head could be "Following a major famine in the early 1990s, which was caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union (previously a major economic partner), leader Kim Jong-il instigated the "Military-First" policy in 1995, increasing economic concentration and support for the military." But maybe someone can think of something better. --Pepperonibread (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

North Korea gives up nuclear weapons.

North Korea is giving up their nuclear bombs and dismantling their nuclear reactors which make the bombs. George Bush has given North Korea 'his blessing' and has removed North Korea from his 'potential terrorist threats' but with warning. If they don't do what they say they are doing, their will be 'lifetime punishments' for North Korea.

North Korea destroyed the most visible symbol of its nuclear weapons program Friday, blasting apart the cooling tower at its main atomic reactor in a sign of its commitment to stop making Plutonium for atomic bombs. The demolition of the 60-foot-tall cooling tower at the North's main reactor complex is a response to U.S. concessions after the North delivered a declaration Thursday of its nuclear programs to be dismantled. I think this should show up in the main article, under Nuclear Weapons Program, but I don't have permission to edit it yet. Anyone who's autoconfirmed care to do it? Thranduil (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I added some text to the page, but not yours. The text above is directly copied from this article. Even if it's sourced, text should not be copied verbatim into Wiki articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we know that this meant nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.106.125 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korea is democratic?

Why is North Korea's official name called The Democratic People's Republic of Korea? They're commies right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.12.78 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on what exactly you think "democracy" means. North Korea has the forms and institutions of a representative, democratic republic. However, only the Korean Workers' Party (the communist party in North Korea) is allowed to hold effective power. They might argue that since the party represents the interests of the people, this is the most democratic arrangement possible. You might enjoy reading the article on elections in North Korea. --Reuben (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

North Korea is a peoples democracy, it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, this si direct democracy, Long Live The Glorious Leader and His film Collection! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.52.67 (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the two anons here are being childish. The notion that "commies" cannot believe in democracy is dead outside of Alabama (and nobody outside of Alabama cares what Alabama thinks). As for "Long Live The Glorious Leader", well take that somewhere else we don't do party politics AreaControl (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Communists don't believe in democracy. They believe in any of the, to me, equally repulsive versions of communism, which to one degree or the other preach absolute control over society. And there's nothing democratic about that. 201.242.100.181 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is. Communism is a broad spectrum of ideologies many of which believe in democracy. North Korea is probably nothing like a democracy. I simply took exception to the fact that a person would use the word "commies" when trying to establish accuracy in an encyclopaedic article. Very vulgar don't you think? AreaControl (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I manage to communicate my opinion effectively? I don't think I did, because you're not addressing anything I said, except for this notion of yours that everyone but those in Alabama think some communists believe in democracy (which my own opinions, not being a resident of Alabama, disprove). Communists as a whole don't believe in democracy because they seek absolute control over society. Some of them may 'believe' in keeping the forms (elections), but these elections are bereft of much meaning since any dissent against the party line is vilified or quashed, and all forms of social organization are either greatly restricted or intervened by the government. This is the kind of 'democracy' present in North Korea; and, as you conjecture, it is nothing like a democracy.

I think 'vulgarity' is an insulting term for all the wrong reasons: it assumes that being "vulgar", ie as "common" people supposedly are, is undesirable, if not despicable. Your reaction against the person who wrote 'commies' indicates to me that that is your position; you seem to have no problem in belittling anyone you consider beneath you.

Should you seek to respond to this, I suggest you do so on my page. This is not really the place to discuss this. If you answer here, I will answer on your page. 201.242.100.181 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' is the country's official name, so there's nothing wikipedia, as per NPOV, can do but present it as such, whatever I or anyone else may think. Wikipedia can't try to judge; it can only try to present information as per NPOV policy. 201.242.100.181 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the communist countries, the abstract 'Party' is the replacement of a monarch. Everything under the monarch or party has democratic elements. The party like the king cannot be wrong. But as with all things human, white blurs into grey blurs into black. GW Bush's first term in office was not democratic as he took less popular votes than Al Gore. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "democracy" has become a buzzword. Almost every government in the world claims to be a democracy, just like no one claims to be a "terrorist." I'm not saying that there is no objective definition, it's just that everyone ignores it. I know this may confuse a lot of people, but East Germany, when it was a communist country, called itself "the German Democratic Republic." (West Germany was called and all of Germany is now called the Federal Republic of Germany.) Yes, communists have longed claimed to be democratic. Whether you believe that claim depends on your own political views. Usually, but not always, it is least free countries that have the word "Democratic" in their names. BTW, the Nazi Party was officially called the "National Socialist German Workers Party", because at the time it was founded, socialism was all the rage. It was anything but socialist. Its unofficial successor party is called the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany).Bostoner (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bostoner is on to something here. I am always saying that Wikipedia is not a community of political philosophers. There is a case for saying we should only use official data AreaControl (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

North Korea is far from the only repressive state that adopts a name suggesting a greater degree of liberalism than in fact exists - the practice is common in real life and in fiction. There's a partial list of examples [3]. 92.40.41.224 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a huge confusion between the ideologies in communism/socialism and the stereotypes that still exist from the cold war. Communism is literally that every decision should be taken by the commune/community, which is my eyes is a theory more democratic than anything we have in the world at the minute. The problems start then trying to put these ideas into practice; even the Dalai Lama agrees with me that the problem with socialism is the movement is based on struggle. Whether violent or non-violent struggle to begin with, this reflects into most states that claim to be communist as they seem to become dictatorships.

I would appreciate some accuracy; communism or socialism isn't anything to do with creating a dictatorship and neither is it a word associated with the devil. They're simply a set of ideas where (pardon the cheesiness) the millions are in control of the countries rather than the millionaires.

And for the record, I'm not a communist. Although if I had to choose between communism and capitalism, I'd probably go for communism. Ronius (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey come one, why everyone is so confused about communism/socialist with democracy ... It is completely two different system. In general speaking, communism is a system of ECONOMY where the market is being controlled by the government. The opposite of communism is capitalism, where the market are being left free without any government interference ... Democracy, in other point, is a system of GOVERNMENT where there are periodic general election to chose different leader based on the citizens' representative (president or prime minister). The opposite of democracy is dictatorship, where the leaders are meant to be someone already, even for those country with kings (some in Middle East or Asia) are called dictator, since there are no elected-president or prime ministers. Some examples (more or less): Democratic & capitalist: United States ... Democratic & communist: Turkmenistan ... Dictatorship & capitalist: Brunei ... Dictatorship & communist: North Korea chongkian (talk) 12:00, Feb 20 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is more interested in reading about democracy then Text book of 9th grade political science used in india is an excellent source. http://ncert.nic.in/textbooks/testing/Index.htm Select Class as IX, Subject as Social Science and Book as "Democratic Politics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.98.11 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuke Program is Not Accurate

• Before 1996 election Bush Administration's Policy
  • CVID [complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement]. for following 5facilities
  • 1)Yongbyon 5MW Reactor (Can generate Pu for 1Nuke bomb/Year)
  • 2)Yongbyon 50MW Reactor (Can generate Pu for 11Nuke bomb/Year)
  • 3)Taechong 200MW Reactor (Can generate Pu for 44Nuke bomb/Year) **4)Yongbyon Pu Extract Plantsx2line
  • 5)Nuke Fuel manufacuring Plant
  • 2)3)Under construction

• 2007Agreement
  • CVID spoiled to Disable(NK can fix disabled facilities and they can re-start the operation within 6-12month) Actually disable is very similer concept to freeze. Disable is reversible.
  • Most serious the 50MW reactor and the 200MW reactor have not Dismantled/Disabled

• US citizens tired Iraq-war
• Bush-Rise wanted to report citizens ,that they could give NK up Nuke by deplomactic Negotiation.
• Kim John il wanted to avoid self Dismantle of 5Facilities and he wanted to avoid Surgicak Strike to the 5Facilities.
• Japan requested Dismantle of 5Facilities especially 2)& 3), because Pentagon informed Japanese Gov that NK aiming 200 Rodong-1 moval balistic missiles to Japan. And US resercher ISIS announced NK already have 3Nuke warheads for Rodong-1. So Japan scare that NK produce 200Nuke Warhead for 200 Rodong-1 by 2Big Reactor(2)&3)).But Japanese request was negrected.

• Ended up They Just Blast the coolong tower of "OLD SMALL 5MW Reactor" for pretend NK give up Nuke by Bush&Rice's Negotiation.
• But this political show cheating US citizens and carry over the probrem to Next US president. --Jack330 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese

I see it on more Wikipedias, but can't find the reason why. Why is the official name in the infobox also in Chinese? --Jeroen (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because china is china.--Jakezing (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Chinese script used in the infobox is a legitimate Korean script. It is called Hanja, which literally means "words/characters of the Han (Chinese)". nat.utoronto 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hanja has been declared obsolete in North Korea ( and is basically illegal ), so it seems somewhat silly to put it in. It would be like saying that one of the official spellings of England is Englalande. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.42.62 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking rubbish. The Hanja is very relevant to the article and is most certainly not illegal. As for the "Englalande" comment, where on earth did that come from? Be more sensible on Wikipedia please. 78.16.93.188 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hanja are generally obsolete in NK, but they're still taught in school. See Hanja. Including the hanja version in the infobox is arguable, but I think it's helpful to many readers who may have some knowledge of Chinese characters. --Amble (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DPRK Sponsored Terrorism

This section of the article takes the DPRK's "terror" actions out of context. These actions took place during the Cold War, and North Korea was both perpetrator and victim of these terror-like espionage actions. I propose also mentioning the terror actions taken against the DPRK so that readers don't get the wrong idea about this period in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgchao (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How Come..

When someone types in North Korea it is directed to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet when you type in China you are directed to Chinese History and not People's Republic of China. 68.10.204.56 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because the legitimate government tied to the word "China" is disputed between the PRC and the ROC, whereas North Korea is just a synonym for the DPRK.152.1.222.159 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also "China" can refer to any of countless states throughout history of which the PRC and ROC are only the latest; North Korea unambiguously refers to the country on this page. 92.40.41.224 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Official Webpage of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

What's up with this web page? Is it really legit? Looks pretty fake. There is a reference to this page as well in the Foreign relations -> Propaganda towards South Korea section. I think it should be removed, unless someone can assure the page is real? A whois revealed it's hosted in Barcelona (http://whois.domaintools.com/korea-dpr.com). - Jatoo (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hosting in Barcelona means this site is legit. It's probably made by the head of the KFA, Alejandro Cao de Benos. A Spanish henchman of the North Korean governement who (used to?) live(s) in Barcelona.

(source is this sentence from the KFA-article: "The KFA's founder and president, Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les y Pérez, formerly a Barcelona-based IT consultant and since 2004 working full-time for the DPRK government, believes that his web site, although limited, is better than no site at all.") Dre Odz (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sort-of legit. The KFA does have connections to the North Korean government, and presumably got some form of official endorsement for the web site. And some of the material comes from NK government sources. At the same time, it's not clear that the government is exercising any real editorial control over the site. It would probably be better to describe it as the official KFA web site with DPRK government endorsement. --Amble (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cao de Benos claims he is a "DPRK government representative" and that everything from him comes directly from the North Korean government (although there's no documentation to proof that). See this topic at the KFA Forum (last post). This would mean that it's not only the official web presence of the KFA, but also of North Korea. Dre Odz (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but since we don't have much to go on other than Cao de Benos's own word, we have to exercise some appropriate judgement. I'm not saying that he's being untruthful, just that we should evaluate and fairly present the source of the information (as with anything else). --Amble (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Humble passer-by here. I removed the reference under Propaganda along with the entire section - to me it looked badly written and somewhat biased. NK is a touchy subject I know but the same rules of verification apply and that section looked like hearsay. A statement on a DPRK fan club website does not deserve pride of place with its own subsection under foreign relations! AreaControl (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 92.22.187.163 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lame anti-communist smears

In the government box it has been listed as 'de facto dictatorship', this is blatant right-wing propaganda which I am removing. Also the 'single-party state' is also a violation of NPOV, since the aspects of 'one party' are discussed in the article of socialist republic, which I am changing it too. If that tool who keeps changing it comes back, I would encourage him to explain why he enjoys vandalizing this article so much. I got that 'Stalinist' part removed, and I intend to get this 'dictatorship' crap removed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.133.52 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that this article at times looks like a newspaper article, I think you are being a little confrontational. Please don't call other people's edits "crap". However I will look in to getting "de facto dictatorship" removed as indeed the government infobox is not a suitable place for "de facto" speculation however accurate it may be. AreaControl (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that North Korea is a dictatorship is an absolute, undebatable truth. It has had 2 leaders in the 60 years of it's existence, and they have been father and son. If you remove references to North Korea being a one-party, Stalinist dictatorship, they will be reverted, because it is not up for discussion, and is not debated by anyone other than extremist Marxists who are willing to overlook every available fact. Gtbob12 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Gtbob12, North Korea looks very much like it's a dictatorship, and is certainly not communist. If anything calling the country communist is anti-communist; it gives a bad name to communism (not that it could get any worse) Ronius (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

no, you're all wrong. just because it's a one party state doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. is hu jintao a dictator?no he is elected to office. Even Kim Il sung was elected to office, repeatedly, during his time as leader, so it's inaccurate to call it a dictatorship. Also, the term dictator implies that power was seized. Kim jong il was given power, he never seized it. Likewise, Kim Il sung's regime was put in place by the soviet's who liberated korea from japanese rule, they never seized power. To be NPOV, you cannot call it a dictatorship, it's innaccurate and biased.Guitar3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

De facto dictatorship?

I saw that AreaControl removed "De facto dictatorship" from the main page. I'm adding it back in on the grounds that North Korea is usually described as a dictatorship by multiple sources. Here are some sources:

Known as the "Great Leader," Kim Il-Sung ruled from 1945 until his death in 1994. His son, Kim Jong-Il, the "Dear Leader," took over as head of state in 1994 and is now 66. Both father and son have ruled the country as an absolute dictatorship.

— source

Far from being a Confucian or Stalinist patriarchy, in other words, North Korea is that very rare thing, a dictatorship without a father principle.

— this article

Defector says he's fed up with North Korean dictatorship (title of the article)
The Chosun Ilbo, a major national daily newspaper in Seoul, said it received a handwritten statement from Hwang in which he complained about a growing dictatorship in North Korea under de facto leader Kim Jong Il.

— this article

There's three quotes; if you want more, I can find you a whole bunch. Since Wikipedia works based on verifiability and sourcing, I'm going to add it back in with some references. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see my point. I would submit that this is an encyclopaedia not a piece of political writing. We should stick to official names endorsed by world governments. What is "de facto", some would say that "de facto" the United States is a ultra-conservative wild west style firearms ghetto and there would be sources to back them up! I hope you see what I am getting at - just because it's true doesn't make it encyclopaedic. We will look like a newspaper opinion page if we start throwing around de factos and firmly stating the word "dictatorship" AreaControl (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right to a point, but naming is a separate issue. Consider the Provisional Government of the Republic of China. The Wiki article states that it was a puppet state, yet I doubt the country still called itself that. Your US example wouldn't hold here, though, since it clearly violates WP:NPOV. I don't think you could find anyone who would say that North Korea is not a de facto dictatorship. I don't think it's unencylopedic to state it, either; actually, your US example would be far more unencylopedic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the US example was an exaggerated joke but it illustrated a point. I am certain there will be some pro North Korean groups out there that would see us remove it if they could, there are groups pro-everything believe me! I'll leave it in for now but it doesn't sit right with me. AreaControl (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that neither the North Korea article nor the Kim Jong Il article on Encarta use the words “dictator” or “dictatorship.” They only call him “the country’s de facto leader” and say that “North Korea revised its constitution to recognize the chair of the National Defense Commission, a post held by Kim Jong Il, as the country’s ‘highest office.’ ”

Can't this better be written as "commonly referred to as a dictatorship{put some references here}"? If it says explicitely that the DPRK is a dictatorship, then this would possibly violate WP:NPOV, but referring to other texts should be fine. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

The user who referred to EnCarta is absolutely right and I believe his or her comments accurately outline what I have been saying for a while. Buzzwords like "dictatorship" are not at all formal or professional. AreaControl (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

no,it's biased to call it a dictatorship just because it's a one party state. A dictator is someone who seized power. you clearly are biased and didn't read the history books. Kim Il sung never seized power, was elected to his office, and handed power to Kim Jong Il, who was endorsed by the military and government. There is a difference between one party state and dictatorship, and you can't use wikipedia to put forward your own opinion about things. You can't cite someone's personal opinion as a "reference". Is China (PRC) a dictatorship?even thought Mao seized power? but then again, so did the kuomintang before that, and they were internationally recognised as legitimate. Is Hu Jintao a dictator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar3000 (talk)

even though he is elected to office?Guitar3000 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the word means. A dictator is a single individual in whom power is excessively concentrated, especially the power to make laws. It has nothing to do with seizing power. Plenty of dictators have been given power through the operation of more or less democratic institutions - see Adolf Hitler for example. --Amble (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue up for discussion is not whether Kim Jong-Il operates as a dictator which is without question. The problem I had with the issue was that "de facto dictatorship" looked ridiculous and wholly unprofessional. Anyway the issue has been resolved AreaControl (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'de facto dictatorship' has dissapeared from infobox. But now there is 'Government: ... Single-party state'. What's that mean? There is more than one party in DPRK, isn't there? Yes, in the current moment there is domination of WPK (we can read it in the article body or in the related article (Politics of North Korea)). But it is a situational opinion (even if it is strongly motivated), it is not official information - why opinion has placed into official infobox? is it not enough clearly explained and revealed in the text? Well. Let see what we have, f.E., for Russia. 'De facto' we have there the same case as in NK: one dominant partyUnited Russia with few powerless ones. And we see nothing about 'Single-party state' in the russia's infobox. Why? Or this label has reserved for non-capitalist countries only? What for is such biases in encyclopaedia?--Piyavkin (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Korean Workers' Party holds all effective power is not simply the current situation, it's enshrined in law. The law permits only political parties that are members of the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, which explicitly requires them to accept the leadership of the KWP. There is only a single candidate for each parliamentary seat, selected by the Front, which is explicitly controlled by the KWP. This means that the law does not give the voters any mechanism to put another party in power, even in principle. --Amble (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The same with variations we have in Russia (local 'DFRF' here is unformal but clearly visible, voters have no mechanism to put anyone in power, etc.). And questions remain the same.--Piyavkin (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

1. By the way, this also looks like violation of WP-rule Wikipedia: No original research. We have an analysis/synthesis without a proper reliable sources (The article Single-party state has only one link on a derivative source; in the current article there are no references at all).
2. The article Single-party state placed in category Party system (at least in the box on the article page; in the article Party system where the category link leads there is no such categorization at all - it's all a bit messy). What for we place it here in category Government?
3. There is also the article Two-party system and in the article as a 'notable example' of such country with "two party systems" is mentioned the United States. But we don't see any link on the (a bit half-baked too) article in the Govrnment part of the US infobox. Why is such inconsistency?--Piyavkin (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Elections in North Korea. The monopoly on effective power of the KWP is sourced to the North Korean constitution and an extensive description by North Korean officials of how elections are run. In Russia, although there are doubts about the fairness of elections and coverage by the state-owned media, there are at least multiple candidates on the ballot, and multiple parties that act independently. You also seem to be complaining that there's no consistent scheme for deciding how to characterize governments in infoboxes. That's true. The US, for example, could be described as a democratic republic, federal state, representative democracy, presidential republic, two-party system, ... Similarly, there are many correct and valid descriptions that could be applied to North Korea. If you would like to suggest an overall system, please feel free. --Amble (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Amble, I think that in infoboxes must be placed official (self-proclaimed) information only. And all necessary information (opinions, de-facto, etc.) should be placed within the article body in the proper sections - proponents views (if exist), criticism - with proper citations, arguments, and reliable sources. There is no need specially to talk readers what to think.
I have seen related articles, they are not ideal too, but it's not my point.
P.S. You are overoptimistic about Russia. And Russia is nothing more than crude instance of popular western political model. But this is just my opinion. Alas, I have no a Washington Post to turn my opinion into widespread view (it's a joke).--Piyavkin (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this ridiculous phrase is coming back again... its supporters clearly do not realise the argument - I am not saying that NK is not a dictatorship nor is anyone else. The argument is that throwing the words "DE FACTO DICTATORSHIP" is simply telling the reader what to think. We are an encyclopaedia, we should present the facts, not summarise them in one judgemental phrase. AreaControl (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It was added by Cybercobra (talk · contribs) in this edit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then place it in the lead para. "NK is considered to be a dictatorship by X, Y and Z according to this source. Don't insert it in the main fact box! We are not describing absolute fact here... by saying "de facto" we are taking into account all the facts and making a judgement, that is for the reader to make. AreaControl (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like a whitewash

The way it carefully avoids mentioning what life in North Korea is actually like, the way it pretends the famine is a thing of the past, the way it avoids mentioning that the country is a brutal and mismanaged dictatorship, ... the article reads like a whitewash. Shinobu (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That the facts are so bad that no one could leave with anything other than a negative view is not the same as bias. Gtbob12 (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm already left with a negative view on the country with the article as it is, but if there's sources that back up the more brutal sides of North Korea than I agree with this too. I remember watching a documentary on UK Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" which included footage of a person being executed for "crimes against the state".... which I believe was something trivial to our society. Ronius (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The necessity of keeping the article free from POV bias, the inescapable facts are: North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship, with over 100,000 people kept in death camps, with difficulty against malnutrition, and virtually no political, social, economic, civil rights. These facts exist attributed to myriad organizations and individuals, and not just groups with a stated policy of anti-North Korea. The claims made counter to these come strictly from pro-North Korean groups and individuals. So, if further information can be found on the North Korean death camps and other elements of life in North Korea, they shouldn't be left out for fear of being biased. Facts aren't biased, people are. LeobenConoy (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I expected much of this article would be dubious about what is said and what isn't, so I was not surprised to have my presumptions confirmed. Some of it isn't too bad, though I do find the economic section in to be unacceptable in its omission of facts. All it amounts to is a list of favorable comparisons between countries using select statistics. It reads as "North Korea at least isn't as bad as x random country. Oh, and look at this semi-relevant statistic! See? The economy is doing great! You believe me, right?" Aside from that there are multiple contradictions in the article, clearly where pro-North Korea and anti-North Korea biased writers argue with each other from paragraph to paragraph. Whoever considers his or her self in charge of the article has a lot of clean-up to do before it will show an objective view of the country. 66.253.213.170 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same filling about the article, especially about the economic section. Ok, it's very hard to get information about this country, but with the information in the article you almost want to live there. The facts are they aren't producing anything sellable in the usual economic ways, they're seriously starving since long time ago, and the infrastructure is a real mess. The link provided [4] doesn't look serious at all. If the International Organisations don't know what is going on down there, well I suppose nobody knows. --Pedro Felipe (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and for the sake of the site, and our sakes, we must avoid any negative (or positive for that matter) comments about any country. We are neutral and must keep up Wikipedia's good reputation by avoiding showing preference to any country. Although life may be very bad in the country, I don't know, we still can't say that in the article. 78.16.93.188 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We can, providing it is accurate and sourced (which it is). 124.169.214.31 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

date formats

The date formats I added to the info box are not very legible. Maybe s.o. who's more familiar with them can think of a way to clean them up? kwami (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Democratic People's Republic of Korea

North Korea is not the official name of the state, its Democratic People's Republic of Korea. While North Korea is the more common name, I think Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be used because its the "real" name and somehow less NPOV-ish. Same applies to South Korea. --Fixman^{Praise me} 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First section of WP:NAMES: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Renaming this to the full DPRK would be aggravating, just as it would be to rename South Korea to Republic of Korea, Russia to Russian Federation, and so on. By doing this move, you'd be going against a very heavily accepted Wiki convention. Nearly all country articles say "(country), officially the (longer official name)", and I don't think this article is the place to start. Take your issue up with WP:NAMES or somewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalist information saturates this artical, and its critics

While there are many errors to the article, it is true that economically the DPRK is not doing well, it is not for lack of trying. The land is barren and cold and needs the support of other nations. Much like the island nation of Cuba, they need help. But the capitalist dogs in the world will have you believe that it is because the country is communist or socialist that it fails. This is not so. If the world would trade with DPRK and Cuba, they would not fail. America as a whole would fail given the conditions these countries face. While it is true that Kim Jong Il is a military dictator, the will of the people to take care of each other like we all should is strong.

But what about Jong-Il's megalomaniac desires? The same thing that happens when you back a dog into a corner. This article will not be unbiased until the people writing it do so from a centered point of view and shed the falsities of the Capitalist pigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commie101 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your nonsense or insults. You're so desperate to think your system would work, you are prepared to overlook North Korea's mismanagement and failure. If the west is so good at keeping it poor, how come it can afford to research and built nukes? How come it can support a million man army? And isn't trade against the spirit of self-reliance? The North criticizes the South for its economic ties to "outsiders", but its right when North Korea does it? Its North Korea that teaches its children that Americans are baby-bayonetting psychopaths. Its North Korea that wants to restrict the free flow of information. Its North Korea that won't let its citizens leave the country. Its North Korea that brainwashes its young school children into worshipping Kim Jong-il. Its North Korea that responds to criticism by publishing insults in its tightly controlled media. Its North Korea that blasts propaganda into people's homes through loudspeakers. Are you really so blind? 92.22.187.163 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More nonsensical is the bias of this article. As an illustration of the editorial bias that pervades this article, consider tha multitudes have right here talked about referring to Kim Jong Il as a dictator, but my edits referring on the Hosni Mubarak page referring to the unelected military dictator with the same term were edited out. My congratulations to this page editors for their bias. Apparently, some Wikipedians will always blatantly showcase double standards, while others of like-minded and deep-seated political persuasions will endlessly tolerate them. 32.178.3.138 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try to influence Wikipedia away from the bourgeois perspective, throwing around terms like "capitalist pig" isn't going to get you anywhere. Having said that, if you want to try to influence Wikipedia away from the bourgeois perspective, you're basically wasting your time. Wikipedia, though in some ways communistic in nature, is a product of capitalist culture and its ideas of non-bias and reliable sources. The best you can do is to try to hold Wikipedia to the claims of non-bias that it makes when discussing the friends and enemies of capitalism. --MQDuck 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ahh another "useful idiot" I love how anything bad about north Korea is of course false but saying the USG killed its own citizens on 9/11 it completely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.228.18 (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, the first poster was at least correct in identifying an ingrained bias in this page. Think about the people who are likely to have created content and edited this page: many of them are very strongly pro-capitalist individuals who, subconsciously or consciously, paint the worse possible picture of all non-capitalist states. Anyone reading this who is from a capitalist nation is likely to have grew up in a culture which accepts anti-communist biases, yet sees these biases as truth. It is true that many people who become aware of these societally-ingrained biases will take on counter-biases, but that does not erase the fact that anti-communist biases are a relic of the Cold War era and truly have no place on what should be an objective encyclopedia. I've noticed that throughout wikipedia, many pages dealing with capitalism and communism were certainly developed by people with an irrational attachment to and identification with capitalism; this is one of them. Right in the intro paragraph, the article says, "North Korea refused to participate in a United Nations-supervised election held in the south in 1948, and this led to the creation of separate Korean governments for the two occupation zones." This is far from a complete and objective telling of why there were separate Korean governments, and any informed, unbiased person knows this full well. Besides, isn't it absurd to say that "NORTH korea" refused to participate in an election IN the SOUTH? You might want to change that to say that certain areas of Korea, including Jeju in the far south, refused to participate in the elections because the socialist parties had been made illegal in the US-administered areas, hence any election would have not been democratic. Why not also mention that the Soviets barely changed anything in their administered areas, as they left the already-existing Korean government pretty much in place, while the US broke up that original government and basically forced the people to choose capitalism or death?

Now it may seem as if I'm biased, but that is because, by ignoring these facts, the article is already biased, and I'm suggesting a shift in point of view to include these facts and become closer to neutral. Get it? Like if we were in a car driving straight down a highway and you were swerving to the left into the next lane, I'd tell you to swerve right, so as to recenter. So my suggestions may seem to be "angled" but in reality the article is angled and I'm advocating a re-centering. Thanks for your interest, and have a great day.96.50.66.62 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Arch of triumph.jpg

The image File:Arch of triumph.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of page

Can anyone explain to me why everyday this page is edited by 3+ unregistered IP address which are all mainly vandalism, has this expired or? Thanks--CorrectlyContentious 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done It expired awhile back. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of discussion of Korean War

I'd think the Korean War, which North Korea, by, to my knowledge, every single outside government and organization which operates independently, started, and the same war which shaped North Korean policy and cemented the Korean peninsula as the most militarized, and established the de facto situation of a two-state Korea, and made North Korea here to stay, would be mentioned at least in a whole paragraph in this North Korea article, even under "history", but it is only briefly mentioned, and basically in a single sentence. LeobenConoy (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd add to this that under 'Foreign relations', more could be written about the most important topic here, relations with South Korea. Possibly in the same section. Tempshill (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New Census

"DPRK CENSUS Results of a preliminary census by the United Nations Population Fund were released in February. According to the data, there were 24.05 million North Koreans as of October last year, with 11.72 million males and 12.33 million females. South Pyongan Province was the most populous, with 4.05 residents. 3.26 million people reside in the North’s capital, Pyongyang. This census, conducted by the United Nations Population Fund, was the first in 15 years to be conducted in North Korea." from here

Don't have any better sources right now, but if someone can find the offical census data perhaps update the article, which is still using the 2007 estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Kirk (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New War sources

Considering the Tantrum the DPRK is having, and its threats of war, where would we (or which article?) start finding sources to include this in? [5] hm?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist?...

I noticed when I visited this article that it said in captial letters that it was a terrorist country. Seeing this as obviously put down by a person who was probably messing around, I deleted it. Texas93 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done. You're always welcome to revert clear vandalism like that. --Amble (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

impending launch of a North Korean satellite into orbit

I can't find an article on http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension , is there one? If not there should be Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[6] is about what they will do if we intercept it.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some articles about this issue can be found here dailynk --Czar Kirk (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Place on Semi-Protect

Now that the North Koreans are going to test launch a missle/launch a satelite in the coming days, I propose that the article be placed on semi-protect, vandalism from the far right and way far left wings will be on the rise over the next couple of weeks, we should at least place the minimum ammount of protection on to this page. --Duffy2032 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. They won't protect an article unless there's enough evidence of vandalism to warrant it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism has been increasding, earlier today someone edited the page to say that Kim Jong Il is dead, that has seen an uptick over the past few days and it'll only grow once the object (whatever the hell it is) lifts off of the launching pad. I think that an extra layer of protection is warranted on such a high profile page.--Duffy2032 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to give it a shot over at WP:RFPP, but I'm almost positive that it will be rejected. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, i'll try later.--Duffy2032 (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Waiting until the problem happens, has historically, been a very horrible idea from all sides. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I recall at least a -mention- of the satellite issue on this page. Was it removed or was nothing ever put in? If it was removed, why? Vandalism? 24.2.184.175 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Motto

The "motto" section on the left side of the page is not visable (at least with the latest version of internet explorer). I'm not sure how to edit the page to correct this, could somone help?--Devon DeFazio (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lousy Grammar

Take a look at this section: "* North Korea start the development of Nuke devices from 1980'S.

• 1994 First Nuke Crisis US planned to surgical strike to DPRK's Nuke facilities,General Kim Jon-il vowed to South Korea "If US strike our Nuke facilities, we will burn Seoul by our 10,000canons as retaliation." And President Kim Dae Jung asked President Clinton to stop surgical strike to Nuke facilities. CIA reported "51%possibility DPRK have few hevy Nuke Bombs" at that time. Ended up DPRK agreed to dismantle all Nuke devices and facilities, US agreed Hevy Oil aid for DPRK,Japan and South Korea agreed to construct Light Water Reactor Power Station(KEDO) by free for DPRK, and DPRK could avoid (Bombing)compalsory dismantle of Nuke facilities.
• But DPRK insisted design change of Power Station,(DPRK have Uranium mine,but LWR need enriched Uranium, and enrichment plant prohibited for DPRK by the agreement.Because enrichment plant/or CANDU reactor can use for make Nuke warheds)and it jammed KEDO project.
• 2002 DPRK recognized their Uranium enrichment plant construction project,which breach the agreement. US/Japan/SouthKorea terminated the energy aid."

There are so many grammatical and spelling errors here that it seems certain this section was translated poorly from a foreign language. I think it should be removed until the information can be verified and the spelling and grammar cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.70.247 (talk • contribs) 15:57, April 5, 2009

WP: Bold says you should get off your ass and do it yourself.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavily Biased Article

This article is heavily biased and imprecise. Article should be rewritten by someone who understands history and happenings in North Korea and who is not connected to that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.100.95 (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding somebody who isn't against Korea who is not from the DPRK.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aginst DPRK and am from Ireland. This is an encyclopedia and must be neutral. Bonzostar (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding sources that won;t have a negative veiw. North korea is in the shit right now, there isn't much to be not against. When the opeople who escape the country say it's pure shit, you know what a article will look like--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of NPOV is that the article should be representative of what the "reliable sources" say. The official North Korean view doesn't need to be given "equal time" or anything like that. Kauffner (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When all the sources give a negative veiw, the article will be negative.... there is no such thing as a nuetral veiw on this topic.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say the article is "heavily" biased, but it isn't very neutral either. All of the sources used are english-language, mostly from American organizations and authors, which immediately makes the article biased to a certain degree. North Korean government sources should be used too - even if they cannot be completely reliable (although I should ask "Reliable from which point of view ?"), at least nominally they will represent the other side of any problem. Representing only some Western author's "analyses" is an unserious attitude. There are lots of reliable Russian, German and Chinese sources on North Korea. I will find such and insert the info in the article.

Not all sources give a negative point of view - if one thinks so, he should make serious efforts to escape from his indoctrinated and old-fashioned thinking. - Tourbillon ^A ? 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of a good POV for north korea that isn't from the country itself...[7] is good proof that anything from them will be baised more then our own news.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reason not to present their point of view. - Tourbillon ^A ? 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Their POV is not nuetral.... they say they are the best damn place on earth and everybody hates S. Korea, Japan and The US: we can't include that in the article, anything they say about their country (the stuff they tell their people, aka the news) is fake, we cannot use false information.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you get the point. The US's POV isn't neutral either - we cannot know if it is falsified too, and it represents only one side of the coin. Neutral point of view is required for the article, and it can only exist if both positions on a problem are presented. It doesnt matter if you believe or not what the North Korean government says, nor if what the North Korean government says is either true or false. An article, which presents only the way the United States, England, France, China or Malawi view DPRK's problems is a biased article. I thought a person with serious participation in Wikipedia like you clearly understands this principle. I will give you a fresh example - if you write that North Korea's recent launch was a missile test, and not mention NK's statement that it is a satellite, this is not NPOV. The case will be the same if you write that this was a satellite launch, and don't mention the US's statements that it was a missile test. - Tourbillon ^A ? 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

for that it is ok, for about EVERYTHING else like how the are in poverty, we can't use DPRK sources because they shove down the idea that they are the best: you can allow some but most of any north korean based sources will be insanely unnuetral: more so then ares will be.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is for poverty, that is somewhat relative too. North Korea may have a low GDP, but as a socialized country it can provide most of its population with a job, home, education and free services, and therefore at least some sort of normal living (compare this to African countries with similar GDP per capita, where education and government services are virtually non-existent). It is true that most of what they say is simply propaganda, but this is not an excuse not to include at least 3 or 4 NK sources, since the current sources are entirely of US / Western origin. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be because they talk about the NK nation much more often then the other ones do.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GDP?

On the side bar it lists the GDP as $1,700 per capita but in the Economy section in the second paragraph the GDP is said to be $4,058

Can someone find out what is the correct GDP per capita? They all seem to have come from reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.129 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They're both correct, technically. The article says that the GDP published by the UN until 1998 was $4058; since then, they've had to estimate it, it seems, and that's the $1700 per capita. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the decreased estimate? Also, I assume you're from the Republic of Korea HelloAnnyong? ;) I have some Korean. Bonzostar (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I get that quite a bit, but no, I'm an American. My username is a reference to a TV show. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because when you have a country that is isolationist: and doesn;t have the infastructure or what have you to support that kind oif veiw, you get a decreased GDP.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No personal theories, please. The GDP issue is important - it isn't noted if the value given by the UN is a PPP or a nominal. Sometimes the difference between PPP and nominal GDP can be very sharp, therefore if the two values are made up by different measuring systems, then it would be incorrect to say that it is declining. The best variant is to write "stagnating", since there is no drastic positive development in the last 20 years. - Tourbillon ^A ? 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a personnel theory: thats damn logic that if you are isolationist and have no economy on the home front you will have a bad economy. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is not known if the value given by the UN is a nominal or a PPP GDP, so you cant say if it was declining or simply stagnating. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Satellite" Launch

I've looked all over wikipedia, and I can't find a single mention of it, whereas less than 3 days ago I was reading an entire section on it. What happened? Why is the truth being blotted out when there are literally hundreds of reliable sources detailing this issue? 24.2.184.175 (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Bias... It Never Happened.... surprise surprise wikipedia does a lot of this 72.10.215.230 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal Bias"? What the hell does that have to do with anything. RANDOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.35.70 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack332's edits

Can someone else comment on these edits? Aside from being very poorly written to the point where I can't really copyedit without a fear of something being lost, it seems to be a synthesis of materials. Does anyone else have anything to say? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this inserted text has been reverted at least once as POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I should note that most of the information the user adds has not yet been included under any form, and it would be useful if we keep it. The problem is that it's written in an uncomprehensible manner. I really have no idea how to solve the problem, but I will ask the user if he wishes to create his own sandbox and write it there, after which me or somebody else will edit it in such a way, that the text will still carry the same information. - Tourbillon ^A ? 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's exactly true. I think a lot of what Jack wrote is included on the subpages like North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. To that end, maybe Jack's edits should be better integrated there? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, if he is willing to co-operate. x) - Tourbillon ^A ? 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I respect NPOV,I wrote chinse goverment person's comment which support DPRK's satellite Rocket--Jack332 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HelloAnnyong that this information should be incorporated on the specific pages. Most of what Jack332 added consists of quotations and statements from various sources. The country's main article should just summarize, including a summary of major points of contention as appropriate. We should make sure that the North Korean and Chinese claims about the launch are included in brief, and that the full quotations make it to the subpages. --Amble (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Annyong's Edit

I think this person stick this article and Breaching Cited article besed on his one side of View. (Breaching an inconvienient truth) "Annyong" is Korean Language does he North Korean Guy? I believe Wikipedia should not be a propaganda board.--Jack332 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Just for full disclosure: my username is a reference to Arrested Development. I'm an America, and I'm not Korean. And if you think that I'm trying to push pro-North Korea POV, you couldn't be more wrong. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Armistice

The current article states in the first section that "On May 26, 2009, North Korea unilaterally withdrew from the armistice". Even if the source given is correct, this is not what it says - but rather that North Korea considers that South Korea has broken the armistice! In fact, both is obviously political big words, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.213.242 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics

In the paragraph entitled 'Human Rights', I think the author means de rigueur and not de facto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.163.56 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Government

Please, can we edit this? Why can't we? It's as POV as POV can get. "Hereditary autocracy Juche political religion"? What tard pulled these terms out of their ass?

A single party socialist republic is fine, or even single party communist state, as wrong as it is, it's much better than that autocracy Juche tomfoolery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.240.77 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Backed hard, this load of bullshit is propaganda meant to demonize the people's republic and, as the previous poster said, POV to the max.

Big thanks to whoever edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Economics

It is claimed that North Korea and Cuba have the only remaining economies which are entirely state-planned and owned. Yet in the entry for Cuba, it is written that "By the year 2006, public sector employment was 78% and private sector 22%." Clearly, Cuba's economy is not entirely state-owned. Perhaps this comment should be rephrased to indicate that NK's and Cuba's economies are primarily government owned, as opposed to entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.238.159 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some figures for NK's economy that parallel Cuba's, but I doubt that this is possible. The CIA Factbook mentions that the government of NK did begin to allow some private farming, but also indicates that this ceased sometime around 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.238.159 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be published by someone else; simply taking info from the CIA site and drawing a conclusion is a violation of WP:SYN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is well and good, and the suggestion wasn't to take the Factbook as authoritative. The reference was intended merely to add what little information I could find about this subject. I honestly don't know what, if anything, can be found in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.238.159 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Juche

The statements here on religion and Juche seem like they could use some revision.

- "the majority of Korean population could be characterized as irreligious." - WP:WEASEL and/or POV

- "It should be noted that the promoters of Juche describe it as a secular and ethical philosophy, not as a religion. However, from a sociological viewpoint it's overtly and clearly religious. Thomas J. Belke has written a book describing Juche as the newest world religion"

• "should be noted" is "instructional and presumptious language" discouraged by WP:STYLE
• "promoters" is probably WP:WEASEL and/or POV and/or impolite.
• Who are said "promoters"?? How about a cite or two?
• "it's overtly and clearly religious. Thomas J. Belke has written a book" - Okay, that's his opinion. Are there any others? (For example, the opinions of those "promoters" who describe it as a secular and ethical philosophy, not as a religion.)

- This article, Juche, and Religion in North Korea somewhat contradict one another. Juche seems to describe Juche as a political philosophy akin to Stalinism or Maoism, but with one section stating "Political scientist Han S. Park ... and theologian Thomas J. Belke ... liken Juche to a religious movement." (My bold) I.e., that Juche is "like" a religious movement rather than that it is a religious movement.

- Religion in North Korea, as far as I can tell, doesn't describe Juche as a religion.

- Our article at Cheondoism gives also the versions "the Cheondogyo religion" and "Chondoism". Religion in North Korea gives this as Chondogyo. Any chance we could come to some sort of agreement on our style for this?

-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Golly, didn't even see you had written about this before I put the section in a few headers down! I totally agree with you...I think this whole Juche-religion thing is a POV insert and probably needs to be removed altogether. (Not to imagine that I am some sort of pro-Juche person...a system of government that only allows glowing reports about the leader to be published certainly strikes me as pseudo-religious! But it doesn't belong in the article.) Thanks for bringing it up, WordyGirl90 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article a huge propaganda museum?

Just last month, this article was fine. Suddenly, I find that the article is populated with images of development. Has a North Korean government official edited this article in favor of North Korea?

For example, in this article, there is an image of grandiose North Korean apartments. As far as I am concerned, the average apartment in North Korea does NOT look like the example shown. This article also shows an almost busy airport. From what we know, There are only 3 international flights weekly from Sunan, and as far as anyone can tell, half of the planes in the image shown might not even be working models.

If all of wikipedia were to follow the same model as in this article, we could show a concept American car in the U.S. article, and give the misconception that all US citizens drive amazing concept vehicles (because the average american probably drives a 2004 Toyota Camry). We could also give the misconception that all americans eat nothing but hamburgers by displaying an image of a hamburger on the American Culture article.

I am not trying to be biased myself, as I am a Korean American. However, beleive that by adding a slew of overstated images on this article, we make the information a bit more deceiving than it should be. Is that not what wikipedia aims to be; a repository of unbiased, yet accurate information?

Thegoldbar (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point - there really are a lot of pictures that would seem to place undue weight on things like skyscrapers and the airport, when, as you say, that isn't how the vast majority of North Koreans live. Is there a consensus to delete some of the photos? Dawn Bard (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the point made. We could replace some pictures and have a balanced view of the country, keeping a NPOV. I suggest some pictures of social issues, as well as famine, etc. Uirauna (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea - those pictures might be harder to come by, but they would certainly be appropriate. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Democratic...is there a typo?

I don't know if this caught anybody's eyes before, but why in the first line of the whole page it says Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I don't think I'm first amongst the wikipedia who's heard about the reality of this particular country. I'd succest to change the description to dictatorship (or communist at least). Don't anyone agree?

Edit: Oops, sorry, it was explained later on the chapter. Not too clearly, but it's there anyways.

Jim 57.154.114.93 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Juche as a religion

Hello everyone! In the section of the article discussing religion in North Korea, this sentence is popped in: "It should be noted that the promoters of Juche describe it as a secular and ethical philosophy, not as a religion. However, from a sociological viewpoint it's overtly and clearly religious. Thomas J. Belke has written a book describing Juche as the newest world religion, with "more adherents than Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism or Zoroastrianism."

Ignoring the unencyclopedic writing ("It should be noted...), POV, etc., why is this important? There are two refs for the statement, but...the first is from a website about the world prevalence of various religions. They classify Juche as a religion, and cite Belke's book for their reason. The second reference is to the book itself. I haven't researched the book, but it looks rather unimportant to me. The sentence strikes me as a simple insert of one person's non-notable opinion, especially not for North Korea's main article. By the way, the article's verbiage is also partially lifted from the online reference. I would like to trash this section, but am not feeling particularly in the mood to get somebody mad at me today, so have brought it here for discussion.

Now that I write this out, I think experienced Wikipedians would agree with me, but ah well

Thanks everyone, WordyGirl90 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking the Juche article itself, this same book (plus another) have been cited as criticism of Juche as a secular philosophy. It is tagged for weasel wording. WordyGirl90 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the references to Juche as a religion place undue weight on that theory, and also, as you noted, "it should be noted" is not encyclopedic language, and, with only one source, the sentence shouldn't state that Juche is "overtly and clearly" a religion. I think that there might be some conflating of Juche and the Kim Il-Sung personality cult, if that makes any sense. The Belke source doesn't seem to NPOV, given that it is written from an explicitly Christian POV, and I can find it doesn't seem to be widely cited or covered by independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the section now. If anyone doesn't agree with this move, they can discuss their concerns here--I've got the page watchlisted. Thanks! WordyGirl90 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Military section weight

Kay, I'm really concerned about the Military section of this page getting too long. This page doesn't really seem like the best place to have four paragraphs on North Korea selling missiles. Wouldn't it be better placed in Military of North Korea, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, or North Korean ballistic missile program? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I was actually going to post the same thing here when I noticed the most recent addition to that section, but you beat me to it. I would support moving much of the content of the Military section to the articles that you mention. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just went to go move it, and I realized that most of the text was just copied from North Korea and weapons of mass destruction# Exports. So.. I just removed it from this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Totalitarian North Korea

Why the article doesn't mention properly that the North Korea is totalitarian dictature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.220.124.198 (talk • contribs) 20:13, December 2, 2008

Because that's a POV. It's possible to mention what is possible and impossible by law in North Korea. Knowing the restrictions, a normal western person would conclude that North Korea is indeed a totalitarian dictature. But "fans" of the "DPRK" would start to complain that in their POV the "DPRK" is a nice democratic summer holiday destination, not a totalitarian dictature. Dre Odz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The "useful idiots" would be up in arms. 92.22.187.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Might be for the same reason that the US is not described as an imperialist nation on the United States of America page. Just a guess. 32.178.3.138 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia, not some kind of blog for uneducated Americans with guns. Before anyone says anything I am not a supporter of North Korea, I would just rather not see wikipedia reduced to a low brow blog using blindingly obvious labels like "DICTATORSHIP!!!" and words like "commie" as one contributor suggested. AreaControl (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with User:AreaControl. You could say America is undemocratic? North Koreans probably think of Capitalism as stupid, which of course it is in some ways... Kausill (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You say POV? It's obvious that North Korea is a totalitarian state and wikipedia should not avoid the facts even if they make some ignorant people disgruntled. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 20:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that North Korea is a dictatorship is an euphemism. In fact it is the most terrifying, the most bloodthirsty regime on the face of the Earth. Cuban regime is a paradise when compared with the North Korean regime. We cannot tell the truth because the truth offends the left-wing editors of Wikipedia.Quinacrine (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Religion section

Hi everypeoples. I am just in noticing an contradiction at Religion article. Says at one place: "Christianity: 406,000 adherents (1.69% of population)" , but afterthis new paragraph stateing: "Official government statistics report that there are 10,000 Protestants and 4,000 Roman Catholics in North Korea" This total makes 14,000 Christians - far too lower than 406,000 including if we allowing for Christians not of Roman Catholic neither of Protestant. Just trying to make pieces press together. Sorry for English if unintelligible. I have good spell check, but notgreat grammar. :) CarmenAutre (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Found among more mistakes: Section Demographics opening paragraph:

"According to the CIA World Factbook, North Korea's life expectancy was 63.8 years in 2009," But then later after in section Health Care: "North Korea had the 117th highest life expectancy of any country in the world, with an average life expectancy of 72.2 years at birth" Does there be just one example, inrather of two? CarmenAutre (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the demographics bit. The religion descrepancy is the difference between official gov't statistics and those of Religious Intelligence, so there's no contradiction. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

de facto dictatorship

"Nominally a socialist republic, North Korea is widely considered by the outside world to be a de facto authoritarian/totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship."

This sentence was removed by another user because it is supposedly not NPOV. I hold that it does comply with NPOV because (1) we're not ourselves saying the DPRK is a dictatorship etc, just that the outside world mostly considers it such (2) the statement is well-sourced, citing Freedom House/The Economist, the New York Times, and the Indian Times (to show this is not a Western bias), which are quite reliable sources. Now if someone want to rework the sentence a bit, that's fine. And if there are reliable sources saying the DPRK is a wonderful happy democracy, I'd very much like to see them and would then be quite open to a more drastic rephrasing. However, leaving out this information entirely seems like we're whitewashing the article. Put your sources where your mouth is. :-) --Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. And to sources that say the contrary, I think we'd have to look at WP:FRINGE and see if they're really worth including. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to these two references, North Korea is a happy socialist Democracy with freedom for everyone and Jews did 911.

I'm not doubting the fact that North Korea is a Dictatorship, its just that it does not comply with WP:NPOV, and no source will ever be reliable with WP:RS. I think it would not be a bad idea to put that same paragraph on the section about politics, human rights or foreign relations, but no comment like that will belong to the header of the article. --Fixman^{Praise me} 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no, it doesn't work like that. Your first source is the official DPRK site, and the second is a conspiracy site which violates WP:FRINGE. You're also removing three reliable sources, which include a source from Freedom House and the New York Times. Both of those are inherently reliable. Here's some more sources if you want:

• Washington Post: "The Bush administration removed North Korea from the list of terrorist states last year as part of an unfulfilled commitment by the dictatorship to dismantle its nuclear weapons program."
• AP: "North Korea may be preparing for its third nuclear test, a show of defiance as the United Nations considers new sanctions on the dictatorship"
• ABC News: "The deeply secretive dictatorship..."

That's just some of the 949 news articles listed on Google. There are plenty more if you'd like. It doesn't violate POV rules since it's not a minority voice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The one about Jews is totally and obviously fringe and the other one clearly says "Official webpage of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)", and thus does not qualify as being part of the "outside world", so it's not even relevant to the sentence at hand; I don't think anyone disputes that the DPRK itself claims it's democratic. We're not passing judgement ourselves (it's not like we're putting "dictatorship" in the Infobox), we're just stating what other reliable sources think and couching it as such. I fail to see an NPOV problem. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:NPOV, I would probably change "nominally" to "Though the country styles itself as [or perhaps 'claims to be']". But the rest stands. It's not a minority view, it's sourced, we mention the opposing view, it's just 1 sentence, and we present the view as a view, not a fact in itself. If you want to drop one or two of the adjectives, I'd be open to that. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be amenable to that. I'd like to see what we'd change it to before actually enacting the change, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, by "you" I meant Fixman as the main opposing party in the discussion. But yeah, consensus is of course necessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Fixman undid my last edit anyway. So... that causes a problem here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision: "North Korea claims to be a socialist republic, but is widely considered by the outside world to be a de facto totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship."

Note: referencing has been improved with quotes & some format tweaks.

Fixman, your opinion? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; I hadn't seen Cybercobra's comment when I wrote this.) <---(undent)I agree that the version that the sentence in question (NK is widely considered by the outside world to be a de facto ...) is appropriate and does not violate NPOV. As HelloAnnyong stated above, the sentence doesn't state as fact that NK is a de facto stalinist dictatorship, etc., it just says that NK as widely viewed as such, and then provides the reliable sources to back that up. It is in no way controversial to say that this view exists. Here's another source, from the Bradley Martin book already listed as a reference in this article - page 236, "North Korean mind control surpassed in thoroughness all other twentieth-century totalitarian political movements". Dawn Bard (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding that I agree with Cybercobra's proposed change. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I any way feel uneasy about the Stalinist term, I think it belongs to the Politics section (google gives more than 1.250.000 hits for "north korea" dictatorship, but less than 3500 for "north korea" "stalinist dictatorship"). Stalinist is a highly NPOV term, and most sources consides Kim Jong Il's dictatorship to follow a different path of that of Stalin's. --Fixman^{Praise me} 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you, where are these supposed sources? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Stalinist" is problematic, as it has both descriptive and pejorative uses, and no single fixed meaning. North Korea is described as Stalinist, often with pejorative meaning. It also has specific practices and structures that have been analyzed by historians as originating in the Stalinist period of Soviet history. It is also Stalinist in the sense that it never underwent any sort of de-Stalinization as the USSR did. Which sense do you mean to communicate in the proposed version above? By the way, some care should be exercised in using the korea-dpr web site as a source. It is written by Western supporters of North Korea, not by the North Korean government itself, despite the "official webpage" title. --Amble (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of North Korea, I believe the policy/practices meaning (e.g. propaganda for a cult of personality towards the leader) is meant by the sources. Although I don't doubt the sources' word choice probably took the negative connotation into account; but most of the world doesn't think of North Korea positively, so we're also accurately describing their POV in using the term. In any case, the Stalinism article is linked to and deals with the ambiguity. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Amble both regarding the ambiguity caused by the use of the term "Stalinist" and also with their thoughts on the korea dpr website as a source. In short, Stalinism is entirely the wrong term to use here - the most obvious reason being the vast differences between the so called "Stalinist" movement in the USSR and North Korean politics. Authoritarian - yes, Militarist - certainly, Dictatorship - without a doubt, Personlity cult - well just take a look at some of the propaganda; but Stalinist? I think the use of this term seriously "dumbs down" the article. North Korea has no sister nation, no other country has ever operated a system of government quite like that of North Korea - Stalinist just doesn't properly describe it! To use the term Stalinist is to over simplify the article through the use of buzzwords and soundbites (which coincidentally was my objection to the horrific misuse of the term "de facto") AreaControl (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: are there any '.gov' or '.gov.uk' etc sources or perhaps an NGO source that actually uses the word "Stalinist" or are they all news or tabloid media? AreaControl (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In North Korea it is a crime to look at a foreigner, and a capital crime to talk to him. North Korean regime is so extreme that we lack vocabulary to describe it. Calling North Korean regime "Stalinist" is unfair to Joseph Stalin. Calling it "Orwelian" is an euphemism. I would describe it as a concentration camp supervised by insane slaves. Quinacrine (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) I personally only came across news media use in my original search, but we do consider them reliable sources, so I don't see the problem. I'll have a go at finding an NGO description. I would say it is not ours to judge the appropriateness of the news media's description (unless it's completely off the mark), our place is merely to report it. I don't find it misleading, since you yourself listed several ways the two are significantly similar; it's a pretty good, although of course not perfect, parallel, and it's used in multiple reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The point I am making is, stalinist is a media buzzword. It is not used in academic sources, NGO or Western government publications because these organisations understand that Stalinism is a somewhat different concept. It is similar to the frequent use of "Nazi" to describe certain far right groups, a good comparison but not an accurate description. North Korea in my view (and as I have said) has some elements very similar to stalinism and can be effectively compared to Stalinism but that is not the same as to say North Korea is Stalinist. I do not see why we cannot simply outline the facts (authoritarian/totalitarian/militaristic dictatorship) and allow the reader to draw his own historical comparisons with Stalin's Russia AreaControl (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But we're not stating it as a fact. We're stating that others view it that way as a fact. Quoting from the lede (emphasis mine): "North Korea is considered by many in the outside world to be [...] Stalinist". --Cybercobra (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, many in the outside world looks like weasel words: we need to say who is actually saying this. I actually want the article to point out that the official "democratic republic" is not the case in fact but we need to do it properly. I think to do so we need to give specific names who are saying these things in the main article. Finally, Stalinist just doesn't sit right with me - if I am entirely in the minority the fine, we'll leave it, but I think it dumbs down somewhat. I'd like to perhaps say: "though officially a democratic republic, North Korea is frequently described by Western media (source) and governments such as the United States (source) and United Kingdom (source) as a totalitarian dictatorship" that way we would be making clear exactly who was making the statement and we would strengthen the statement by providing named individual sources in the main article. AreaControl (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with attributing to media specifically, but "Western" wouldn't be accurate; we have an Indian newspaper among our sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The specific term Western wasn't the main point I was making, I think if we could get a few prominent organisations that have described North Korea as "Totalitarian" and the like. Then we could list them, I think if we listed the United States government, some other government and a specific media source rather than "many in the outside world" or just "in the outside world" it would give a lot more credibility to the description. I think this is particularly important as even though we are referencing outside sources, we are in effect challenging the NK government's (warped) description of itself and our wording must be watertight to do thatAreaControl (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)