Talk:North Korea/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Creation of North and South Korea

I believe this sentence is inaccurate and controversial: "Both North and South Korea claimed sovereignty over the Korean Peninsula as a whole, which led to the Korean War of 1950." North Korea's out right attack of South Korea led to the Korean War of 1950. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ragincajun (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

But when the ROK army pushed towards the Yalu River on the Chinese border, they weren't doing that to retaliate for the initial DPRK attack, did they? They had Korean reunification in mind. Both sides were intent on reunification and did not approve of the presence of the other state on the peninsula, it just happened to be that the DPRK made the first move. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

True, South Korea did want reunification, but they didn't make the first move which led to war. That's why I think that the sentence can be misleading. 1ragincajun (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The key point here is that both nations could likely not have coexisted. While North Korea made the first move, the division of Korea was opposed by the Koreans from the beginning, so both sides definitely wanted some form of reunification. As the ideologies of communism and democracy (or at the time of division, two authoritarian dictators) have not been compatible thus far, their wish for reunification lead to conflict over the style of government for the unified Korea. Verhalthur (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with OP. What happens after the war starts is entirely irrelevant to why it started, obviously. The statement implies both countries formally declared war on each other before hostilities began, rather than an invasion happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.242.84 (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda and Agitation Department

Propaganda and Agitation Department - Is this a real department, or a name an author has given a department in this country? I have trouble believing that they would give that name to a department of their government even if it seems that is what the department is really doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.83.135 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Highest percentage? Orly?

North Korea has the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any nation in the world, with approximately one enlisted soldier for every 25 citizens.

I don't know... 18% of the populace of Vatican State is the Swiss Guard, where as 1 in 25 is a meeger 4%.

I won't edit the page, but this is worth a thought... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giltintur (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Population of the Vatican is 800. Doesn't seem worth making an issue out of in an article about North Korea. --Brokev03 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vatican is not a country. It's a city state. Even the wiki page for it specifically says so. Furthermore, not one of the swiss guard are citizens of the Vatican City. In fact, it's a requirement by rule. You fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.242.84 (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'you fail' bit serves no positive purpose and pushes novices away.Thedoorhinge (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Chongjin-center-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chongjin-center-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hamhung-center-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hamhung-center-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hamhung Grand Theatre.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hamhung Grand Theatre.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Image reference invalid

A reference for an image North Korea was removed by me which Sean.hoyland had replaced using an archive website. Firstly, the new page doesn't have the image which is shown in the wiki article. I read in some part of that article a mention about this but cannot be considered more than an opinion after seeing the image. So I think, the reference is invalid. Also does archived pages considered as valid links? What happens if it is not there tomorrow? Aravind V R (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.78.12.121, 18 September 2011

In the "Culture and arts" section, there is a dead link where an image used to be. Can someone please remove this, as it makes the section look a bit ugly? 109.78.12.121 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased images?

Given that the North Korean government always try to paint their country in the best possible light, this article needs to be vary careful to represent the real North Korea and not just reproduce the propaganda messages of the North Korean government. It is a challenge to do this, as the most accessible source of information on a country as closed as North Korea is that which the government allows one to see.

I think that the authors of this article have done a good job consulting a wide range of sources to write the text of this article. However, it is even more difficult to gain a varied range of images of North Korea, and on this front I think the article is lacking. Scroll through the article and just glance at each image in turn. You will see: The Juche Tower; a well-dressed DMZ soilder; a western-style food shop; paracetamol tablets; a grand, well-kept metro station; large apartment blocks; a well-dressed school child; a modern looking dentistry facility; and a smart, tall, middle class man cycling in front of a large, nice-looking building.

I am concerned that these images only reflect the show-case put on by the North Korean government when they know there is someone with a camera around, and that this article thus misrepresents North Korea as being a developed, predominantly middle class nation, hiding the fact that the things depicted are unavailable to all but the very richest, most favoured North Koreans.

Does anyone else agree? I know that it would be difficult to do anything about this even if there were to be consensus that this is a real problem and not all in my head, and I don't claim to have any miraculous solutions, but if we can establish that some change is needed then we could begin to brainstorm what could be done to remove this bias. It is probably that lots of people who view this article don't read the majority of the text but do glance at the illustrations, and so come away with a biased image of North Korea in their mind. What do people think? Unnachamois (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do agree- these paint north korea far too positively. A freind of my fathers has visited North Korea, and saw a woman paying high prices for corn starch- and eating it right there and then.

also, how do i put my name and stuff? new to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You can sign your name with four tildes like this: "~~~~". Graham87 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest something? Maybe we should put a kind of disclaimer. For example, "The available images for this article may not represent North Korea effectively. Due to a lack of neutral images, we have to put these somewhat biased images." Just saying. --Agent 78787 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The satellite image of North Korea and surrounding countries at night would help counter the bias. It reveals the lack of electrical power supply throughout the country. -- 12:04, 17 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

the text "HEYYYYY PEOPLE" is in the page, above "culture and arts", and should most likely be removed.

209.118.58.6 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Autarky?

Is this statement strictly speaking correct "North Korea has an industrialised, near-autarkic, highly centralized command economy."? Can an economy really be 'autarkic' if it doesn't actually work and many people are starving? (As would appear to be the case in N.K.) Shouldn't this say that there is a goal of autarky/self-sufficiency, though not one that has been achieved. 86.134.117.81 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but NK is dependent on Chinese energy and food subsidies. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, a quick look in google books shows, somewhat surprisingly, that many secondary sources describe it this way. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolute Monarchy

North Korea is not a monarchy, so I put it forward that it be changed to "Totalitarian Dictatorship". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.224.22 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus has been not to attribute any de facto systems of governments to the infobox. Any attempts to refer to North Korea as a "Totalitarian Dictatorship" (very very POV) or a "de facto absolute monarchy" should be reverted ASAP until they can be discussed here ... and given recent events, it should probably be left as it is for the time being. Peter (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the description of North Korea as a "de facto absolute monarchy" from the introduction into the Government and Politics section. Peter (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not a monarchy at all, a number of generals and high ranking party officials posses most of the power.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Autocracy

North Korea government is relied on one peron not party it should describe as Autocracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.183.32 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section 21st Century, in the final paragraph, where Kim Jong-Il's death is mentioned, he is referred to as "Jong-Il," and not "Kim". Kim would be appropriate here as his surname, not Jong-Il. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.99.207 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"The withdrawal of most United States forces from the South in June dramatically weakened the Southern regime..."

Shouldn't this specify June of what year? 1947? 1948? 173.2.45.231 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Page is vandalized

What the hell is this picture doing here on the info box? File:Jacques Chirac trial.png Bleubeatle (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Template vandalism -- nothing pleasant, but nothing exactly "elaborate". I've fixed it. Maxim_(talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This too

http://news.yahoo.com/kim-son-called-supreme-leader-nkorea-military-192655376.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumabyss (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 21 Dec 2011

In section 2.1 (Topography) there are two red links (Hamgyong Range and Gwanmosan). Can somebody please remove those? (Or are those red links supposed to be there? Sorry, I'm new) Agent 78787 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They're there to encourage users to start those articles and help Wikipedia to grow. Mountains and mountain ranges seem notible enough to me, and hopefully we'll see a few stubs starting in the future. So, I think it's best to keep those links. Peter (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks for telling me! I'm such a n00b. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

New Supreme Leader

The new supreme leader is Kim jong-un according to : http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2011/12/19/un-nouveau-dirigeant-meconnu-jong-un-le-troisieme-des-kim_1620395_3216.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2011/12/2011121983719962321.html http://rt.com/news/north-korea-jong-il-dies-111/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

None of your sources refer to him as "Supreme Leader". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un is, most observers agree, the designate "leader" (non-specific). He's not yet the leader, as no leader has been confirmed. I expect a power struggle. It's too early to name any definite leader, and any changes must be reverted. -Peter (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not even the point here; North Korea seems to make up a new title for the (effective and worldly) head of state for every person to be in power; from the Eternal Leader, to the Dear Leader, to the Great Leader, we now get the "Great Successor"... we'll probably have to change the title in the infobox once they've settled on something verbose again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this proof enough for you, poindexter? Or is USA Today not reliable enough? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-24/north-korea-heir/52205464/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.113.111 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we shouldn't use the title "supreme leader". Kim Jong-un has been hailed as "supreme leader" as well as the "great successor"; "great leader" was given to both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, and probably will be awarded to Kim Jong-un as well. The DPRK Constitution indicates the NDC Chairperson as the "supreme leader". I think it is also useful to indicate who effectively ruled North Korea, since all three leaders did that with different titles: Kim Jong-un for now is even only Supreme Commander.--FedeloKomma (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Irony

Doesn't anyone else think this page, and it's subject are indicative of Wikipedia as a whole. A tight-knit cabal of over-privileged nobodies with questionable intelligence, ethics and goals who lord it over the majority using tactics such as exclusion, closed borders and enforced disappearances??

So amusing as I find that this page on North Korea is riddled with inaccuracies, half truths and propoganda yet is locked down in the same way that the real country is isolated from "real" the world, only those in the "party" are allowed to express opinion and even they must follow the "party" line. Classic. More shocking if anyone actually believes any of the stuff in this article when it is n open to any editorial scrutiny save those in the WP-workers party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.37 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Peter (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What parts do you disagree with? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To the IP editor, register, get yourself a user name, make a few constructive edits, and you too can part of the WP-workers party. Membership is free brother. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, they've discovered our secret! Quick, someone inform the Wikipedia Defense Commission chairman! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang's recent edit to infobox

In a recent pair of edits, User:Jiang removed Kim Jong-un from the leading posts on the grounds that he had not officially been appointed to these posts. Given that North Korean media is a about as tightly controlled as it is possible for official state media to be, and that differing from the official line on this matter would be pretty much suicidal on the part of whole chain of command involved in publishing it, and that no statement has since been made to the contrary, I would regard the recent NK media reports that he was announced as "supreme leader of the party, state and army" on December 29 2011 (BBC report) as official confirmation that he had been appointed to both of those posts. Other reports also state that the new leader was acknowledged as such in public in a speech by Kim Yong-nam, in front of a large crowd marshalled by the regime, followed by similar statements by its other major public figures.(New York Times report) What clearer statement could be possible that he is now the de facto holder of those posts, in what passes for official reality in North Korea?

Regarding strict adherence to official announcements: Jiang also removed Kim Il-sung from the post of "eternal president". While I personally regard having a dead person holding the role of "eternal president" is nonsensical, it, as far as I know, is still the official position of the government of North Korea on this matter, and should remain in the infobox as such until we either agree that common sense trumps the official position of the NK government, or that that government has changed its position on the matter.

Accordingly, I'm going to revert this change. If anyone disagrees, can they please present their rationale for this here? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First, "supreme leader" is neither a title nor an office. The Chairman of the NDC is described as the "supreme leader" by article 100 of the Constitution, but this a phrased as a description of his status, rather than as a title as the English may suggest. Given that there is no justification to list "supreme leader" rather than the Chairman of the NDC, I will restore this line in the infobox.

Second, "eternal president" appears only in the preamble of the constitution, so it is not an office, but an honorary title. It is not an official position of the government - not in the same sense as the Emperor of Japan who is powerless but still has an entire substantive section outlining his constitutional role. The Constitution does not provide the presidency with any suspended powers - it does not even have a presidency. Therefore, "eternal president" is an honorific, not an office. If we justify honorifics, then why not add Great Successor, Supreme Leader and Sagacious Leader to the infobox too?

Third, please see List_of_leaders_of_North_Korea#Supreme_leaders for a list of titles Kim Jong-un has and has not been appointed to. The Worker's Party Central Committee must convene to "elect" Kim Jong-un its general secretary. Similarly, the Supreme People's Assembly must convene to "elect" him Chairman of the NDC, which is constitutionally the most powerful position in the DPRK government. See [1][2] "He may be officially named supreme commander of the military ahead of Jan. 8, which is believed to be his birthday, said Cheong Seong-chang at the Sejong Institute in South Korea." So while Kim Jong-un may have been described by the media as "supreme leader of the party, state and army" he has yet to be bureaucratically named to all three offices his father held: Chairman of the NDC, General Secretary of the Workers Party, and Supreme Commander of the KPA. Calling him "the highest leadership authority" does not appoint him to these positions.--Jiang (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: Agh, I unthinkingly used the rollback button to make this change, instead of a commented edit. Please accept my apologies for this mistake. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the important criterion here is "is it 'officially true' to the point that saying otherwise in North Korea get you, and your family, sent to a concentration camp, if not just shot on the spot"? Does anyone think that the "election" is anything other than a rubber stamp, or that he is not currently the nominal holder of these roles? (To what degree any of this means he is "in power" is another question entirely.) -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

When Kim Jong-un is named General Secretary and NDC Chairman, they will undoubtedly announce it explicitly. The rest you say, is of course, besides the point, as we are talking about what goes in the infobox, and not how we describe in the text of who is really in control. The infobox implies an official position, not mere honorary titles and descriptions that are not titles. When someone is of "acting" capacity, we say so, we don't name them to actual offices they don't yet occupy.

I think for the time being, Kim Jong-un belongs in the infobox as part of a footnote. It takes a few words to describe his real position - this is something that cannot be currently done in table form. Perhaps this could be made clearer.--Jiang (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Making it clearer is what is needed -- at the moment, while these posts are not formally constitutionally occupied, describing them as "vacant" is not really true, either. It's all a bit confusing and opaque, like everything about North Korea. How to phrase it in the infobox, I don't know. Perhaps put the name in, with a footnote saying "publicly announced by leadership on 29 December 2011, but not yet officially ratified"? On the other hand, as you say, we may only have to wait a week and a bit for this to be "officially official". -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We would have looked ridiculous, had Wikipedia existed in 1994, if we had placed Kim Jong-il in the president slot in the infobox when they decided to retire the title for Kim il-sung. The problem with displaying Kim Jong-un as "acting" under these titles is that he may not be organizationally second-in-command. He is a vice chairman of the NDC, but he does not occupy a position to be called acting general secretary. Expect announcements like these [3].--Jiang (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the footnotes are good enough at the moment, and any further disagreements should be reverted, unless of course Kim Jong-un is offially and unambiguously declared the General Secretary of the KWP and given a "Supreme Leader"-esque title. Peter (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the national symbol of North Korea?

These references says "tiger":

• Smith, Ethan; Dauncey, Guy; Goodall, Jane (1 November 2007). Building an Ark: 101 Solutions to Animal Suffering. New Society Publishers. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-86571-566-0. Retrieved 1 January 2012. ... where they are the national animal of India, Malaysia, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal, Bangladesh and China ...
• Mishra, Hemanta; Jr., Jim Ottaway, (4 May 2010). Bones of the Tiger: Protecting the Man-Eaters of Nepal. Globe Pequot. p. 84. ISBN 978-1-59921-491-7. Retrieved 1 January 2012. Five Asian nations—Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, north Korea and south Korea—have honored the tiger with the title of "national Animal."{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

while this article - List of national animals on Wikipedia says Chollima but gives no reference for it.

Can someone please clarify with reliable references? AshLin (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you're really asking. I don't really think the Chollima can be called the national animal, because it's a mythical creature, but it could be considered a national symbol, similar to Scotland's unicorn. You're best playing it safe and go with tiger as the national animal. I've found other sources (not all 100% reliable) saying it's the national animal (check the National Emblem article, it says the Korean Tiger is the national animal of NK), p- Peter (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find reliable references, but the closest I could get to is [4]. Please note, this would be better discussed in the List of national animals article. - Peter (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Life Expectancy Rank

Shouldn't the life expectancy rank be updated to either the 2005-2010 UN number (125th and 67.3) or the 2011 CIA World Factbook number (169th and 63.81)? I didn't want to do it as I'm not sure which list the author used originally, and I didn't want to switch it over from one to the other. Bmeckel (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no rank given on this article, but the figure of 63.81 is given and the source is the CIA world fact book. Peter (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Communist

It is patently absurd for Wikipedia to claim North Korea is NOT a Communist state. Wikipedia is now the laughing stock of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.254.69 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia claim North Korea is NOT a Communist state? (I too am concerned about whether you really understand what the word means.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The DPRK removed all references to Communism in the latest revision to their constitution. According to the available literature, the leadership isn't even particularly aware of Marxist-Leninist dogma. It's a dictatorship that has some practices in common with Communism. 50.46.146.86 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Juche state?

This seems a most unhelpful description since very few readers are likely to know what it means. It is just circular anyway. Juche is NK's official ideology, whatever that might be, and the word doesn't have any meaning beyond that. Is this word even part an actual classification system? I prefer "hereditary dictatorship", which is sourced in the text. Kauffner (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Political science does not have a stable and discipline wide accepted taxonomy of state formations. Given the uniqueness of Juche thought, and its clear and obvious applicability to North Korea, the uptake of this description in the secondary literature, and the decision of wikipedia to base its writing on reliable sources rather than what editor's think, this is an appropriate description. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a Communist state. Wikipedia Leftists dont like the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.254.69 (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The constitution of DPR Korea has no references to Marxism-Leninism, only to 'Juche' ideals. - Peter (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone says "Stalinist", so that's we should have. Kauffner (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the United States media uses "Stalinist", even though Juche has little to do with Josef Stalin and his ideologies. Not "everyone". Just like how the United States media used to follow the claim that a certain Middle Eastern nation had WMDs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to abolish Infoboxes completely so that those simple folk who like simple and simplistic labels are forced to actually write and read sentences about a country's ideologies. But, Juche does have its own article, so we should stick with it. You don't like what that article says? Then fix it! HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the United States isn't everyone? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A description as a "Juche state" could be challenged by a citation from Brian Myers's book, which argues that Juche is an idea designed for foreign consumption which does not guide the actual workings of the government. 50.46.146.86 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Has a political science or sociology of politics field review article accepted Myer's opinion as dominating the scholarship? If not, then it is an unWEIGHTworthy challenge for a single line description. If Myers is in good standing in the academic community then his discussion of the nature of the state should be discussed in the body of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Head of state

This UN document: http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf lists "The General Secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army" as "head of state". According to constitution, there is no office that can be called "head of state"- that title above is the highest official, but role of head of state is de facto vested in president of Presidium of National assembly (he recives letters of credence,...). So, first of all, does anyone know why that document states the title above as "head of state", and- why that does not contain any name- when is more then obvious that Kim Jong-Un is accepted by now?--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

People's Democratic Republic of Korea

Perhaps it's worth a small note somewhere that, seemingly until the 1990's, the country was formally referred to more often as the People's Democratic Republic rather than the Democratic People's Republic. See all the hits for the former on Google (excluding any made after 1990): https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22People%27s+Democratic+Republic+of+Korea%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1990&num=10 --Ismail (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It has always been "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." See here. Kauffner (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that using DPRK is more proper, but you can clearly see that innumerable publications (including, to give just one notable example, the English-language translation of the Great Soviet Encylcopedia) used PDRK. I think it warrants a small mention. --Ismail (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

worlds oldest printing press

The sentence "The peninsula was united by Emperor Taejo of Goryeo in 936. Like Silla, Goryeo was a highly cultural state and created the Jikji in 1377, using the world's oldest movable metal type printing press." currently points to footnote #28, at http://www.digitaljikji.net/digital_jikji/main.asp, which doesn't provide any information on the topic. --89.247.86.145 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

location of infobox "Contains Korean text"

Shouldn't the {{Contains Korean text}} be in a more visible place? It's currently below the infobox, so not many readers will see it. Maybe at the top, next to the infobox? Or in the top-right corner? Rchard2scout (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it self explanatory that a page about North Korea will have Korean text? 210.50.30.133 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all computers/browsers have scripts capable of handling Korean text (and take a look at the Burma article, does the Burmese text look okay there?). The notice tells users that they can download a script to prevent Mojibake (boxes, other symbols etc.).
And to answer the OP: The box is usually placed below the infobox .. I think this is the best place for it to go. --Peter ^{Talk page} 16:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean?

Recent edit tells that "There are also those who reject the view that North Korea is a state communism, instead claiming that the North Korean leadership uses communism as a justification for their rule". What does it mean? This is completely unclear, especially in introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"genuinely communist" does not really explain anything. It is in fact a genuinely communist state (whatever their "dear leaders" tell) according to all sources I read. I am not sure that quoted sources actually support the claim that NK is not a communist regime, and would like to see some original quotation which explains why authors think so. Note that communist state ≠ [communism]]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that what the added sentence is supposed to mean needs clarification by the editor who added it. My change was just a best guess, without having access to their source. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... I ment communist state.. I've added quotations for the claim that North Korea is not communist (as you guys asked; should I add more sources?) --TIAYN (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

None of these quoted sources actually tell that this is not a communist state (meaning a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a Leninist or Marxist-Leninist communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state). According to one of them, Many scholars assert that some communist states, such as North Korea, are simply dictatorships that use the title 'communist' as propaganda to justify actions and policies to the outside world and to their own people. Hence even this source tells "Many scholars assert that some communist states, such as North Korea". Perhaps something like that should be included in the body of article, but certainly not in the introduction of an article about a country. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't be a communist state without believing in communism, just as you can't be a liberal democracy without believing in liberal democracy or being fascist state without believing in fascism... Two of the sources say North Korea doesn't believe in Marxism-Leninism or communism; but that it believes in something else.. Two of the sources plainly assert that North Korea has nothing to with communism, even if the country officially states that it is communist... Again, if you don't believe in communism or Marxism-Leninism (even if the authorities claim to believe in it), you can't be a communist state... Just because its a one-party state doesn't make it a communist state, it could just as well have been a Ba'athist state, a Nasserite state, a Fascist state and soo on.... Myers for instance says that North Korea has more incommon with the losing side of World War II than European or Asian communism; a Nazi is organised, on the outset, nearly identical to communist states - meaning, if North Korea doesn't believe in communism, it wouldn't be totally wrong claiming it to be a fascist state....

Secondly, it should be there; if the bit that North Korea is a Stalinist Totalitarian dictatorship stays, a bit that it may not be communist should be there to.. We can reword the sentence if you want; Many accuse North Korea of using communism as a means for repression. Its biased however to say that one part should stay (that it is a Stalinist hell hole), but remove the party were some state it is indeed not a Stalinist hell hole (not even a communist hell hole), Sincerely --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A "State ideology" section should be written

As mentioned above, a section focusing on the government's "state ideology" should be written... There are many controversies regarding North Korea's official ideology which is not mentioned here at all (with the exception of the badly-written line i added, which was copyedited by someone else...); for instance, there are several scholars who claim that Juche has nothing to do with Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, that North Korea has more likeness to fascism than communism, that it resembles more a form of totalitarian monarchy than communism, that communism died along with the Workers Party of Korea (that is at the last congress held in 1980; since than important party organs have met, only a few times, to hail the "Dear Leader", his family and his son - to reword it, the party has no effective power anymore; this is proven by the fact that it took three years for Kim Jong-il to become General Secretary of the Workers Party, but that he immediately acquired the post of chief of the army... Of course, there is the different view (which is the majority view), which says that North Korea is the living example of a communist hell.....

There should also be created a section on the role of the Workers Party of Korea in North Korean politics (I'll do this and more, but would be nice to get some help)...

I know this has nothing to do with my previous comments, but I believe the only reason why people and reporters claim North Korea is a communist state, is because people in general have no clue what a communist state is anymore because the Soviet Union was dissolved, and the other four remaining communist states have evolved; they have all accepted private ownership... North Korea (if it really is communist) is the perfect example, from our perspective (and from what people in general remember of the "hell" that was the Soviet Union), of what communism "really is"; a hell on Earth.

Sincerely. --TIAYN (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I only noted that North Korea is a communist state (whatever that means) according to nearly all sources. So debating that it not a communist state in the introduction was not a good idea. This is all. My very best wishes (talk)

I omitted all that from the intro, both because it's arguable/vague, and because it's enough to mention it's a single-party totalitarian country. Ideology names have little value after such a classification. And the "concentration" camps estimates stuck up there in the intro are just ridiculous, especially when quoting Amnesty International. Moved everything in the respective sections. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Stalinist" in the infobox

No it isn't. You can look high and low in North Korean media and you will not find references to "Stalinism" as the basis of the country's political or economic system. This dates back to the late 1950s when Kim Il Sung pursued a policy of "anti-flunkeyism" by purging the party of those who dogmatically followed the political line of foreign powers. In fact just this week the WPK addressed the question directly by adopting changes to its bylaws declaring its "isms" to be Kimilsungism and Kimjongilism. The subjective judgements of people in other countries that the DPRK system "seems" like Stalinism do not override the long-standing position of the DPRK leadership that it is something else. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

They can, actually; see WP:THIRDPARTY and more generally WP:RS. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Translated Age Pyramid

I edited the Age Pyramid for North Korea, which was in french, into English, but I don't have permission to edit the article because I'm new. The new age pyramid can be found here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramide_Cor%C3%A9e_du_Nord_(english).png - Could somebody please replace the current french one with this new one? Thanks

Rikeus (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Ravendrop 08:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

remove

Please remove this note because Kim Jong Un was appointed as Chairman of the NDC 1 and General Secretary of the WPK 2 on April 11

^ a. The DPRK Constitution defines the Chairman of the NDC as the "supreme leader" of the DPRK. ^ b. Kim-Jong-un, described as "Supreme Leader of the party, state and army" by North Korean state media on December 29, 2011,[7] was named Supreme Commander of the KPA on December 30, 2011 but has not yet succeeded to his father as Chairman of the NDC and General Secretary of the WPK.[8]

EastArabianWarrior (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

spelling/grammar in the society section, personality cult subsection.

a line reads: "He further explains that the state propaganda paints Kim Jong-il as someone whose expertise lied in military matters"

should be : "He further explains that the state propaganda paints Kim Jong-il as someone whose expertise lay in military matters" lay not lied, but i can't edit this page to correct it as i usual would when spotting a similar error

 Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012 - Grammar issue

Last paragraph in the section "personality cult" has: "rescue portraits from Kim Il-sung and Jong-il from a flood.". Should be "rescue portraits of Kim Il-sung and Jong-il from a flood." Jords12 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --L1A1 FAL (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Name of the Country is Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The following discussion 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.

---

I think this page should renamed to reflect the country's name, with a redirect from "North Korea".

If you look at web sites for the DPRK, as well as for China, you will *never* see any reference to it as "North Korea".

I can also tell you from personal experience (I traveled to Pyongyang) that folks there don't like the term... I was corrected quite forcefully when I called the country "North Korea"

Although folks in the West might not like it, this article should be renamed to reflect the actual name of the country, and references inside of it should be changed to be "DPRK".

This introductory sentence is just plain wrong:

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Chosŏn'gŭl: 조선민주주의인민공화국), abbreviated to DPRK or PRK, and commonly referred to as North Korea

Here are some background links:

• http://www.korea-dpr.com/
• http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
• http://www.dprkstudies.org/
• http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/dprk.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujinyan (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)

What is it about the introductory sentence that's wrong? You said it was called the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - isn't that what's in the lead? Is the Korean language part incorrect. Or is it the abbreviations that are wrong? (I don't read Korean). Please let us know right away so we can fix it. Since it's commonly referred to as North Korea (by most of the people permitted to read this article), so that can't be the problem, right? And why is it you care what the North Koreans call themselves - that is - why do you care that the rest of the world doesn't commonly use this name! So many questions! Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sujinyan, we have a common name policy on article names which reflect their usage in reliable sources. As you can see, North Korea is the most popular between the two names.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is most popular or not should impact the correct name of the country. Also, Bombay is a very popular name for Mumbai, but it is called Mumbai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujinyan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I take exception to the comments left by Rklawton. An encyclopedia should be about disseminating knowledge, not trouncing on someone who brings a differing opinion... and, one, I might add, backed by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujinyan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korea is clearly the common name for this country as an overwhelming number of sources show. Strongly oppose renaming the article. On wikipedia the article is located at the most common name, almost all countries are not at their full official name. France Is not at "French Republic", Germany is not at "Federal Republic of Germany", and the United States is not at the "United States of America". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem - The Republic of the United States of America". :-) Rklawton (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

America is actually one of the few countries in the world that does not actually have republic or kingdom in their official full name. But it just goes to show common name is what is important. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected - thanks Rklawton (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we get more specific than "an overwhelming number of sources show"? The country refers to itself as DPRK... shouldn't that be taken into account?

Also, China, which has almost 20% of the world's population -- with about as many of them speaking English as there are people in the US of A -- refers to it as DPRK.

I've mentioned official sources and have not seen anything information in response.

One other thought... take a look at the Name section for Burma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma#Name

There is no such section in this document. Sujinyan (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, what the country refers to itself as is irrelevant to where the article is placed, their position must be reflected in the article by stating what the official name is. But they cannot determine what is or is not the common name for their country used in a certain language. They can only set the official usage.

The official position of the Chinese government does not give them a right to speak for their entire population. But if it comes down to it.. the English speaking population of China would still be clearly outnumbered when stacked up against the USA, Canada, Australia, and the UK in terms of numbers.

Again the official position of the country is irrelevant to the title name, i will get you some sources in response to this shortly though.

In terms of a naming section, i would not oppose one existing, although in the case of Burma it is slightly different with that country changing its name, whilst the west still refers to it as Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a few examples, mostly of media.. which use North Korea. This demonstrates why it is the common name for the country. BBC, CNN, CIA, Sky News, Fox News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Guardian, New York Times, and i could go on and on. All these organisations which are heavily used to source the English language wikipedia news sources.. ALL use North Korea. How many English Language orgs like news agencies use DPRK rather than North Korea? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We should also note that from time to time editors representing North Korea visit this article with the intention of having it reflect North Korea's view of the world. These editors invariably leave disappointed. I just hope they and their families don't suffer repercussions in real life for their failure to make these changes. Rklawton (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't really aware of the chosen(?) name for the country until I visited there a few years back. I certainly wish that I had been... got a nice but direct lecture from my guide. This has been reinforced during the last five years I've lived in China as well. Just bothered me that we would continue to refer to a country by a name they clearly didn't like... at the same time trying to get them to change policies.

I do think having a Name section would be a good first start... I'd like to approach the folks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryo_Tours to see if they'd be interested in writing it. If they do, should it be posted here for discussion? Sujinyan (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it does not seem fair to use a name that a country itself opposes or does not use, but we simply have to go by English language reliable sources, and they demonstrate (as shown in my little list above), that North Korea is the main name used. On the issue of a naming section need to see what others think on here, it is going to be more complicated than the situation with Burma as the partition will have to be mentioned when dealing with the name too, so need to avoid repeating things too much. It might be against Wikipedia rules such as WP:CANVASS or Meatpuppetry by specifically encouraging people from there to write it. Lets wait and see more opinions of others here, but i can say with certainty theres far greater chance of a section on the name or a additional paragraph on it being put somewhere, than this article title being changed, so focusing on that might be easier BritishWatcher (talk)

Why do we need a "Name" section? Doesn't the article lead already cover this? I mean the first name listed is DPRK, with a following mention that the common name is NK. It really is not a capitalist conspiracy or anything:

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Chosŏn'gŭl: 조선민주주의인민공화국), abbreviated to DPRK or PRK, and commonly referred to as North Korea..."

Personally, I think that covers the issue quite adequately. In addition, South Korea is not a redirect to ROK, so I think it's fine as-is. WP:COMMONNAME--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can refrain from using terms such as "[i]t really is not a capitalist conspiracy or anything"? I'm giving input as someone who has actually visited the country and is familiar with their rhetoric. @BritishWatcher... thanks. Sujinyan (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be a little less dismissive of me? You didn't even address my comment that the lead (in my opinion) seems to explain things fine.

By the way, its sarcasm and its a part of my style. I was not intending for it to offend you.

Not that it would happen, but for the record I would strongly oppose having a representative of the tourist group write anything for this article, as they have a vetted interest in how the country is perceived (read: conflict of interest)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Good point about your comment. I think what I was looking for is just some background on what the people in the country actually think. Sujinyan (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not gonna happen. One of good things about the commonname-policy is that it avoids prominently parroting stupid propaganda-names. What if Saudi Arabia renames itself "The only most greatest country where real human beings live free of Infidel-whores, Kikes and other Jew-scum"? We wouldn't care, commonname still says "Saudi Arabia". And that's a good thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm supposing that you're Jewish. :) I am. Again, as I mentioned above, I think some sort of note saying how the people refer to themselves, and that they think -- at least the ones that I've spoken to -- that the term "North Korea" is offensive. I think this could add to the encyclopedic value of the article. Sujinyan (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you've spoken to some an they perceive the name as offensive, it counts as your own research which is forbidden in Wikipedia. And on top of that, I do not see how a geographic description (= northern part of Korea) is offensive. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See below. Again, I didn't research it... I actually visited the country. They are offended by the term "North Korea"... the folks in the south don't particularly like that term, either. Again, an encyclopedia should be about disseminating knowledge. Sujinyan (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be said (again - this isn't an original point) that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" isn't so much an alternative name, but a formal name. Clearly, the short name is intended to be just 'Korea'; because the DPRK at one point/still claim the whole of the Korean peninsula. Now as said, it's not common policy to name countries by their long, 'official' names. We have Sri Lanka, not Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. We have Jordan, not the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are simply the most common names. As in other cases where two states claim to control each others territory (East vs West Germany; North vs South Vietnam; South vs North Yemen; the PRC and ROC, although that's changed...), the common name is to distinguish the two states by 'North' and 'South'.
We're just using the common name of the country, like every single other Wikipedia article. The OP seems to have the idea that the article is disputing the name of the country - it's not. I'm strongly opposed to any rename. Not that it's ever going to happen. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 14:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we have a policy, WP:COMMONNAME and it works. There is no reason whatsoever to change the article title. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article name is utterly stupid and has nothing to do with the real life or politics. Media examples used as "proofs" are pathetic. The article should be renamed, AS WELL as article about "South Korea" should be renamed to the "Republic of Korea". The chinese and russian wikis supports this, only english-speaking minority tries to be "smart"195.22.173.200 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What happens at other wikipedias is unimportant to en-wikipedia. Please read WP:COMMONNAME it is all quite clear. If you don't like that we follow sources you are not going to like editing here much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see this quote:

   The statement, however, included another gaffe: It failed to refer to the countries by their official Olympic names, causing 
   organizers to reissue the statement using "Republic of Korea" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

   http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Olympics/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0725/Flag-faux-pas-at-the-Olympics-angers-North-Koreans

I think at very least there should be something in this article that:

- The official name for North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. - People in North Korea have been known to take offense to the country being referred to as North Korea.

The above article, from the Christian Science Monitor, as well as the four official links I sited above could be sited. Sujinyan (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone who doesn't believe that "North Korea" is the common name of this subject can check this Ngram or Insights. The name issue belongs in a name section. The opening should be a simple sentence that defines the topic, not a list of name variations. There should be only one English-language name in the opening, plus the local language official name, per WP:LEAD#Separate_section_usage. The name used in the text should correspond to the title. So the article should open something like "North Korea (Korean: Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk)...." I had assumed that North Koreans would be sensitive about being called North Koreans. So when I ate at a North Korean restaurant, I was careful to say just Korea/Korean. But each time, the waitresses corrected me: "No, I'm from North Korea". Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please look at my above comments? I've got direct experience from visiting the DPRK, as well as a link to a recent article from the CSM about the usage of "North Korea" from today.

As the one who originated this thread, I've also said that I don't have a problem with a Name section. Sujinyan (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is correct: per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be named "North Korea". It's the same reason why Saudi Arabia isn't actually named "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" and Russia isn't "Russian Federation". Oh, and your personal experience doesn't count as anything reliable, sorry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. I was referring to what Kauffner said. And, regardless of what you may or may not think about my personal experience, I *do* think that an article from the CSM (and multiple other sources) regarding the official name of the country is at least worth a Name section.

The personal attacks I've been suffering trying to get this updated have been enough. People using the terms "jew" and "kike", talking about a capitalistic conspiracy, and telling my opinion doesn't count. Enough. I'm gone.

Sujinyan (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So you never give up, demonstrating some "rules" as they were written by some divine beings and there cannot be exceptions or they cannot be changed. But trying to be smartasses is not helping you. Because the example of Russian Federation is laughable. As with many other examples. Did you read all the constitutions of mentioned countries? As a lawyer I did, at least several. And there is basically stated that Russia has two interchangeable names - "Russia" and "Russian Federation". Same, for example, is with Lithuania - "Lithuania" and "Republic of Lithuania" and many others. BUT DPRK DOESN'T HAVE "NORTH KOREA" IN ITS CONSTITUTION. The same with Republic of Korea. Think before speaking and don't pretend to be smarter than you are.195.22.173.200 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

CMOS recommends the World Factbook as the source for "country names," and reference works generally follow this style. Who uses constitutional names? Kauffner (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the name they chose is patently a lie, as North Korea is not a democratic republic. A true name might be the "Hereditary Totalitarian Monarchy of North Korea". Incidentally, just about every nation with "Democratic" in the name isn't, just like "Honest Ed's Used Cars" isn't honest (if you really are democratic or honest, you don't feel the need to repeat it at every opportunity in the hopes that people might believe it). I'm surprised they didn't change their name in the 1980's to "The Pacifist Antinuclear Democratic Republic of North Korea". :-) StuRat (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (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.

Active Troops

I can't find anything that says DPRK has 9 million active troops like the article states. The 2011 World Almanac gives the number at 1,106,000. I'd edit it, but I don't have authorization to. 66.66.201.22 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You may edit that information, however be sure to cite your source. It would be helpful if additional sources were consulted also. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 9 million figure is for the combined total of active and reserve troops. But I have inserted the figure for active duty personnel also, as I think it makes it easier to compare with other countries. Amazing that a country of only 25 million would have an active army of 1.2 million--only about 15% smaller than that of the U.S., and bigger than that of Russia or the UK! EMP (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A note on recent North Korean news

See "Exclusive: How Reuters Sources Keep Getting It Wrong on North Korea" September 26, 2012 "The recurring problem with the Reuters North Korea “exclusives” is that they lead to extensive re-reporting by major outlets, analyst responses, and on occasion, even comment by government officials and agencies", to say nothing of Wikipedia... User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Telephones subject

The last sentence in the Telephone section should be moved to the Mobile Phone section or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.11.130.247 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Just wondering, if there were multiple discussions to move the page, why is it still referred to in its opening line as " Democratic People's Republic of Korea"? Surely it should be "North Korea, known within its borders as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea..."? Or something or along those lines? MisterShiney ✉ 08:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Many countries have official names that are very different from their common names. We don't restrict their descriptions to "known within its borders as..." I note that you're from the UK, known within its borders as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mobile phone subscribers in North Korea

A November 22, 2012 report by independent internet research firm TeleGeography says that by December 2012, there are 1.7m mobile subscribers. Source: http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/11/22/north-korean-cellco-to-reach-1-7m-subscribers-by-the-end-of-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyneRich (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you bothered to actually read the page you cited, you would have realized that TeleGeography merely parroted information from an interview between Forbes and the Egyptian entrepreneur investing in the venture, and conducted no research other than typing a synopsis of that interview.50.147.26.108 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coining a scholarly diagram of the 21st Century "News Source." :) Twillisjr (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Missile vs. space program

I'll revert it back to space program, the ballistic missile program claim is made by only a handful of countries and is not neutral. In fact, the whole introduction is now much more obscure and concentrates almost exclusively on political matters. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect! Their program is widely recognized as a weapons development program. Fixing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Widely recognized" by whom ? Insisting that an obvious orbital insertion is actually a "ballistic missile" launch isn't neutral. At all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that an orbital launch supports ballistic missile program development objectives; as the testing of common components and the validation of engineering useful for ballistic and orbital rocket programs supports the development of dual-use technologies. What is your thesis? That the North Koreans are developing this capability to support some kind of commercial capacity?50.147.26.108 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First, ballistic missile testing includes several stages that are not present in a space launch, most notably a re-entry of the third stage/warhead. Second, virtually any rocket development in any country can be considered a "ballistic missile programme", but an orbital insertion is simply not a missile test. Also note that satellites can have a number of military applications as well. I don't have a "thesis", I'm saying that politically motivated statements made by the governments of certain paranoid countries cannot be considered neutral information (or accurate, for that matter). There's plenty of academic research and analysis on North Korea's space capabilities available online, and those are much more reliable sources than the opinion of a foreign office. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So we've gone from people aren't allowed to enrich uranium to they aren't allowed to have a space program? You know if my public school education serves me right there were two countries in the 1960's that engaged in space activities solely for PR purposes. The truth is that any actual intel that shed light on a possible North Korean nuclear program is so highly classified that there is no way you or I, much less Wikipedia could faithfully say whether the rocket launches are nuclear intentions or just intentions for other power projection. The people that have come out and said things are all heavily biased.Outcast95 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea that there is no public information regarding NK BM development is nonsense. Governments release previously classified information constantly for political purposes, and NGO's such as FAS and BAS publish intelligence analysis products all the time. Rocket development by a country engaged in nuclear weapons development and proliferation is the definition of dual use technology. NK has BM's and orbital capabilities. In the most militarized country on earth, the assertion that it is unfounded to assume that these programs are sharing technology at the very least is ignorant. Regarding enrichment of uranium, NK absolutely engaged in that to the end of producing nuclear weapons, so I think your argument is nonexistent. North Korea doesn't project power beyond blackmail via a threat of invasion of South Korea.50.147.26.108 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ICBMs are not needed to attack South Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Transport

The current article includes this sentence:

Private cars in North Korea are a rare sight, but as of 2008 some 70% of households used bicycles, which also play an increasingly important role in small-scale private trade.

Well, when I was there in 2012 there were a few cars, but I don't think I saw a single bicycle, and I travelled the length of the country. Sure, there's a citation, but I question the accuracy of this. In addition, the term "private" is a weasel word. Given the nature of the DPRK, many people may use cars due to their position in the military or other public office. The cars are not privately owned. However, it seems that these people are using these cars for private purposes. They are not military jeeps or official limousines or anything like that. They are cars that would be considered private cars in any other country.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to challenge the material in this article, but you need to provide sources to the contrary. Your experiences while visiting North Korea constitute WP:Original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm talking about the truth, not sources. The problem here is you could easily summon a hundred sources by people who have never been there and including information that is totally untrue. You challenge me to find a source that is equally without basis???

The source given doesn't concern cars, in any case, so I think it's justified to amend the text slightly. As regard to the statistic on bikes, this appears to be a guesstimate based on chatting to a few people. Together with the comment on trade, this seems a case of developing a sociological analysis based a couple of anecdotes.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, original research is often more reliable than published sources, but the readers don't know that. Considering Wikipedia already has a reputation for being untrustworthy because it can be edited by anyone, it makes it even more important to cite sources that are reliable, even if they are not 100% accurate. It's a little backwards, but in the interest of publicity and public reliability, we have to use reliable sources. Want to change it? Publish a study on cars and bicycles in North Korea. People are more likely to believe something that is written down and presented professionally than just "I was there, and I didn't see any!" I went to France in 2003, and I saw no one wearing a beret, or eating a croissant, or carrying a baguette, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Anyway, find something that backs your argument up or make an official study yourself, but it has to be published to be cited here. Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 17:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to rewrite the article based on my very limited experience; I was just saying the information is questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Songbun

I added this to the article, but it was removed as "strange" and "out of context":

According to historian Bruce Cumings, however, "the Korean revolution, after polarizing the population into good and bad classes at its inception, soon pursued an inclusive, all-encompassing mass politics", symbolised by its symbol of hammer, sickle, and writing brush.

My purpose in adding it was to show that the Songbun theory is just one interpretation of North Korean society. It's clearly a violation of NPOV to have this kind of unbalanced material in Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This detailed document provides comprehensive information about Songbun from a reliable source and you could find many more sources. Songbun is not just a theory of some analysts; it is an existing classification of people. Documents describe the 51 Songbun categories and how people are to be treated according to their Songbun. 89 out of 100 North Korean refugees said they are aware of their personal Songbun and many refugees reported about the influence of Songbun on people’s lives. Of course foreigners in a guided tour in Pyongyang (where citizens are privileged anyway) will never get to see or hear anything about Songbun. The quote by Cumings is more a historical remark on the situation in the 1950’s than information about Songbun today. And “the Korean revolution . . . persued an all-encompassing mass politics symbolized by its symbol of hammer, sickle, and writing brush” sounds indeed strange, more like a KCNA propaganda quote than a neutral analysis. --Gamnamu (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The quote from Cumings is accurate and it refers to the decades after the 1950s. It is Wikipedia that refers to the 1950s. Cumings is one of the major American historians of Korea and his book cited above doesn't mention Songbun. This is why I say Songbun is just one interpretation. You cannot delete information just because you don't agree with it.

2. I have not used a guided tour as evidence against Songbun. I have in fact travelled the length of North Korea, and didn't notice such a great gulf between Pyongyang and the rest, but I don't pretend to have any detailed sociological knowledge based on that. However, I find it hard to take that people are accepted as experts who have never been there.

3. I cannot access that document, but it hardly counts as a "neutral" source. It is being supplied by an advocacy group opposed to the North Korean government and apparently cites the testimony of refugees who are by definition very unhappy with the government. Defectors are not necessarily reliable sources, as was shown with Iraq's WMDs.

4. Your comments imply that you accept that the NK government denies the existence of Songbun, but this is never mentioned in the article. No one reading the article would know that the existence of the system was contested in any way. They would assume that it was openly acknowledged, as caste systems would expected to be.

5. The theory of Songbun seems to be a recent one, arrived at by a pastiche of selected refugee testimony and a few DPRK documents from the 1950s. The statistic you give undermines the case. 9 in 10 refugees said they knew their "social origin" which is what Songbun means, or something like that. 1 in 10 didn't have a clue. And this is an entrenched caste system??? Songbun is hardly an established fact by any reasonable standard.

6. You have not addressed the NPOV issue. The above discussion amply demonstrates how non-neutral the presentation of the topic is.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Cumings is irrelevant to the topic and you are using it to engage in original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ad 1. You are providing the questionable interpretation of one single historian (Cumings), “left's leading scholar of Korean history”, writing “apologetic on behalf of the DPRK” (just quoting two out of many reviews), known for an uncommon point of view. That he does not mention Songbun is no evidence, so what is the relevance of this strange quote?

Ad 2. As said before, there is much evidence, documents and testimonies about Songbun. The DPRK authorities know very well to hide inconvenient truths to foreigners, who are only allowed to travel to desired places accompanied by minders. Foreigners will also not see any human rights violations, prison camps, famine, executions, refugees and so on (and the DPRK government denies all that). So do you think all such testimonies are lies?

Ad 3. Why can’t you access this document? I can access it without problems. On over 100 pages the document explains all aspects in detail, providing many further sources. I think reading it would also convince you, so please try to download the pdf somehow. It is compiled by a human rights organization, which criticizes the DPRK, but still I think it is a very reliable source (definitely more neutral than e. g. Cumings). The refugees may be unhappy with the government, but I don’t think they invent false information.

Ad 4. The DPRK government denies all somehow negative news about their country. According to them there are no human rights violations, all people are happy and wholeheartedly support the leadership. You could add a sentence “The DPRK government denies the existence of the Songbun system”, if you find a reliable source for that (I did not find sources contesting the Songbun system).

Ad 5. The classification system exists since the 1950s. Maybe it was not named Songbun in older sources, but e. g. “politically determined classification system” or “discrimination based on family background”. You can find hundreds of documents about this. Here are just some few more:

• KINU White Paper on Human Rights in North Korea 2011, p. 219 – 224
• Human Rights Watch: North Korea, Discrimination in Education, Jobs, and Health Care
• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kongdan Oh: Political Classification and Social Structure in North Korea
• Dr. Andrei Lankov: The Repressive System and Political Control in North Korea
• Sarah E. Kirsch: Effective Immobilization: Social Classification within North Korea
• Daily NK, Hwang Jang-yop: North Korea's Concentration Camps for Political Prisoners

Ad 6. Your discussion only demonstrates that you do not believe in this information, while you have not read the comprehensive documents and not searched for more information. This does not prove any NPOV issue. The topic was added nine months ago by some other users and not challenged since then. The existence of a classification system and a strong influence of family background on North Koreans’ lives I think is widely accepted. But feel free to search for a reliable source providing evidence that Songbun does not exist. --Gamnamu (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cumings quote is relevant, as it presents a different view of DPRK society. The point is that Songbun is just one theory, which is not supported by all sources, whether it is true or not. I note Adrian Buzo's Guerrilla Dynasty doesn't mention it either.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, original research. Failure to mention something is not an argument that it does not exist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don’t you read the reliable sources first before repeating your far-fetched arguments? Even the 2013 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK (p. 23) describes Songbun: “Division of society into three different groups of allegiance to the regime, which affects the citizen’s level of enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including access to food”. Songbun is an accepted fact and not a theory. Not everything that you do not believe in is a theory. History books have a different focus and do not necessarily include all social and human rights topics. I suspect you even misunderstood Cumings, because I guess your quote is generally about working classes, while Songbun is about loyalty classification. --Gamnamu (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to this on the Songbun talk page as it seems more appropriate there.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Title of the page

Given that the country's official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, why isn't this upheld in this page? I realize that "North Korea" might be a common name, but that's about where it ends, and it seems very strange to label a country with an official title by it a slang reference. I realize the same occurs for United States, but that actually adds more to the issue given that the most common international name is "America" and not "United States" (which is mere slang). Thoughts? STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it is the common name. When searching for water, you don't end up at a page titled, "H₂O," the page is called "Water." It's in the interest of user-friendliness, rather than being absolutely, 100% correct, 100% of the time. The article gives the full, proper name, if a user wanted to know. And I believe Democratic People's Republic of Korea redirects to this article. Besides North Korea and the United States' article names, I believe this is the case for all countries, as the Russia article is not titled "Russian Federation." Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I gave the example of United States being much, much more commonly known as "America" which you seem to have glossed over. It is also the case in various other languages begging the question of exactly who decides what is and is not a common name? There seems to be some sort of double standard-- intentional or unintentional. And for the record, some countries do in fact have the full title listed (such as Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo who actually share a very similar situation to North/South Korea, not to miss Federated States of Micronesia, Dominican Republic, etc.).

It's also worth mentioning that Google Adwords keyword search functionality shows that "America" returns three times more results, and is more popular than the "United States" counterpart. There seems to be significant amount of inconsistencies regarding this de facto naming convention that has been adopted. STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a double standard, just an individual approach per article. There is no shorter, common name for the DRC or Rep. Congo, or the Dominican Republic. And America is primarily a land mass (so that Google search is a bit moot). "North Korea" isn't ambiguous, it is NPOV, and is a common name, so we use it. NB: I think the article "United States" should be at "United States of America". But that is actually commonly used as well as officially, whereas "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" really isn't. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 02:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I just found out strange. Especially from the perspective of a foreigner, "America" seemed to be the rational choice, and the research does support it given that it's even stated as such in the Etymology section of the Americas page. But yeah, I understand. Thanks for your insights STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your "America"-argument is an epic fail. America has more than one meaning, whereas North Korea has only one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

And "United States" has many meanings, given that it is just a unification of states and not a historical or internationally common reference. It is mere slang that even people who are proficient in English but have not had first hand experience with American media would not understand. It seems that you are the one that had an epic fail given that the Oxford dictionary defines the usage of "America" without context to explicitly refer to the US, and it is also agreed that a fitting term for the geographical land mass is "Americas" given that it is two continents. STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times. There doesn't seem any point revisiting it. However, it should be made clear in the introduction that both the DPRK and ROK ("South Korea") claim to cover the whole of Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"United States" is most definitely not slang. In fact, I think it is the official short form of the name of the United States of America. Iapetus (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, this article is appropriately titled. We've been through this before. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Verb "participate"

The three political parties participates in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland led by the Workers' Party of Korea.

Should be changed to "participate". I.narinder (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! I.narinder (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please address North Korea article, research needed, add currently incomplete

The North Korea presentation must include the fact that North Korea has illegally made a threat against the U.S. with its nuclear weapons just last week. The article fails to make the point that North Korea is in rogue status in dereliction of nuclear test bans as guided by U.N. accords and international law. And, the U.N. laws prohibit North Korea from voicing intent to make war on the U.S. And, the article fails to make the notation that when North Korea attacked Pyongyang in 2010, there were two civilians and two South Korea military personnel killed. This article must contain this evidence, and the attack of South Korea in 2010 must be noted as hegemonic, unjustified, prohibited, and illegal in international law. eligiuswachter@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.164.182 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those dastardly "north Koeans", attacking their own capital city and killing "south Korean" military personel .. wait, what were they doing in the capital of the DPRK. Sorry, you make no sense, also, do you not realise that the Korean war never actually ended? The US still has a military occupation in Korea. Ecadre (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)