Talk:North Korea/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Category:Communist states

I believe that Category:Communist states should be removed from the article. North Korea is not presently a communist state, since its constitution contains no mention of communism, as the article notes ("The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism"...) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. A state can't cease to be "communist" (or anything) just because a word is dropped from its constitution. In any case, the previous 1998 constitution only used the word twice, talking about building "socialism and communism" (Articles 29 and 40) and talked about a "people of a new communist type" (Article 43). (In Marxist terms "communism" refers to an idyllic future society which is stateless and classless: see Communist society. The USSR did not claim to be "communist", nor has North Korea ever.)The current constitution remains full of Communist jargon and concepts. The ruling party, the Workers Party of Korea, remains affiliated to the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. There has been no dramatic change in North Korea's politics, society, and economy. Definitions of "communism" usually centre on property being held in common, which is still true in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that a state cannot cease to be communist because mention of communism is removed from a constitution? Why would personal opinions about that, or about the definition of "communism", even be relevant? If these arguments for retaining the category are just your personal opinion, then they are totally unconvincing as such; we need to base things on reliable sources and proper understanding of the category itself. Its category description states, "This category collects on states that communist parties monopolize ruling power." In its infobox, the Workers' Party of Korea is described as currently following the ideologies of "Juche" and "Songun", with "Communism" and "Marxism-Leninism" listed only as past positions. It seems obvious that the category does not technically apply to the article. I stand by calling for its removal - though I'm happy to wait for more people to express their views before removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

name the reliable secondary source you are using to say it's no longer communist, Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Shifting the burden of proof, are we? A very quick web search revealed this, and before you tell me that it's a blog, I might point out that "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control", per WP:RS. Doubtless more sources could be found. In any case, as I mentioned, North Korea does not really meet the description of a communist state given in Category:Communist states, given that it is not ruled by a communist party. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are recent RS: 1) "more than two decades on, communist regimes continue to rule in a diverse set of countries including China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam." Steven Saxonberg, Transitions and Non-Transitions from Communism: Regime Survival in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam (2013); 2) North Korea "remains the most extreme, closed, and repressive of the five states that officially remain communist." p 95 Kim Jong-Il, North Korea's Dear Leader (2012) by Michael Breen; 3) " Is it the leadership, ideology, or the institution that gives North Korean communism staying power?" North Korea: the politics of regime survival (2014) by Kihl and Kim; 4) " it is misleading to downplay the many elements North Korean ideology has in common with those of other communist systems" Charles K. Armstrong, "Trends in the study of North Korea." The Journal of Asian Studies 70.2 (2011): 357-371. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

See also: [1], [2]. We also have to accept that North Korea is commonly classed as a communist state — including by the US government.[3] And even if its true that North Korea is no longer a communist state, we would still need to list it, because the category includes historical communist states. And removal would also create inconsistencies across Wikipedia — for example, Communist states lists North Korea as a current example. The Workers' Party of Korea page has been subject to a long-running edit war on this topic, so it's not useful to cite it. It seems to me that the best way to deal with these kind of issues to add factual information with citations to the articles, rather than have edit wars over labels.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Some discretion should be employed when using a source, given the potential for bias. The source mentioned above, claiming that North Korea is officially communist, is factually wrong, for example. A state cannot be officially communist when its constitution and other official documents do not mention communism. Since Wikipedia articles can all potentially be updated or changed, the point about inconsistencies between different articles is not important. The category does indeed include "historical communist states", true, but note that it usually includes only particular governments or regimes - thus People's Socialist Republic of Albania is within the category, but the article on Albania itself is not. At the very least, one would expect the article to acknowledge that some authorities do not consider North Korea communist; the omission of that view is a serious oversight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That is covered under "Political ideology".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is ridiculous, whilst there is an argument North Korea's ideology has deviated from mainstream Communism, to suggest it is devoid of that legacy altogether is dubious. First of all, North Korea is still very much a Marxist-Leninist model Communist system with an all encompassing party-state system with power concentrated in the centre. Like in all Communist States, the ruling party, in this case the WPK, plays a "vanguard" role which is designed to educate, inform and drive forwards the revolution. Although the aspects of Juche and Suryeong can be said to deviate from this, the principle nevertheless remains. It is a revolutionary party and a revolutionary state. Furthermore even if you criticize Juche as not being "communist", many of its principles are inherently derived from Maoism and Stalinism alike.. In terms of statecraft itself, the Stalinist element has been very significant in the continuing role of Labor camps, senior purges and the DPRK's official economic system of state led dominance and development. To remove this category would be to ignore and dismiss the entire role North Korea itself played in the cold war and international history, even if the circumstances within are more complex than the general public perceptions of it- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Harden

The text currently says:

Camp 14 in Kaechon, Camp 15 in Yodok and Camp 18 in Bukchang are described in detailed testimonies.

This is true, but Shin Dong-hyuk has admitted that his testimony about Camp 14 is fabricated. How should we deal with this? Is there a better testimony to substitute?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of Camp 14. We shouldn't promote a testimony that we know to be inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Health

I removed this from the lead:

A sizeable amount of the population is thought to suffer from malnutrition, parasite infestations and food and waterborne diseases.

It is not supported by the body of the article. Health in North Korea says that "One-third of the school-age children in North Korea have diseases caused by intestinal parasites", citing a study from 2009. I can't see anything specifically about food and waterborne diseases, but the information on infectious diseases being endemic (also quoted at the article) is from 2003 and, coming from a US government source, is not impartial. However, we also say that, as of 2013, cardiovascular disease is the biggest cause of death. The source for that also says that TB and malaria are declining.[4] The sentence I removed doesn't seem to really reflect the health problems currently in North Korea, or the information we have.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added malnutrition back into the lead, as that is well-sourced.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I feel like the label for what it is de facto should say "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". Bigljbigl (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best description to put in the government section in the infobox be "Juche one-party totalitarian dictatorship"? 66.215.84.193 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we have discussed this ad nauseum. It doesn't make sense to have a long string of terms. And it doesn't make sense to have a description that many people disagree with.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

True, and not forget to mention that the proposed descriptions aren't exactly in line with NPOV. Fortunatestars (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

First meeting

From the lead:

It would be the first face-to-face meeting in history between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

While this is true, and has been said by various media outlets, the meeting would not be as unprecedented as it sounds. When she was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met Kim Jong Il. Clinton met him after his presidency, and Carter met Kim Il Sung after his presidency [and later Kim Jong Il]. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun also met Kim Jong Il, and President Moon seems about to meet Kim Jong Un. While it think this projected meeting is significant, we shouldn't make it sound more significant than it really is.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good removal, it was also unsourced. Fortunatestars (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion

The lead currently says:

North Korea is an atheist state with no official religion, and public religion is discouraged or persecuted.

There are two sources: Elizabeth Raum and Open Doors. Open Doors is only concerned with Christianity, so it doesn't really support this sentence. Raum does say that North Korea is an "atheist state", but it's not clear where this comes from or what it means. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Consitutiton, and there is a religious party the (Chondoists) in the legislature. There are places of worship and religious organisations as we note later in the article and in Religion in North Korea. Neither source says that public religion is "discouraged". As far as I can see, the best thing to do would be to remove this from the lead. We don't need to summarise the situation of religions in the lead, and I think it is too complicated and contradictory to fit into one sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Fox (2008). A World Survey of Religion and the State. Cambridge University Press. pp. 191–193. ISBN 978-1-139-47259-3....how can we paraphrase this source.--Moxy (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That is mainly about Christianity. (It also sharply contradicts what this article says because it says that shamanism has died out.) There is the same problem at Freedom of religion in North Korea and State atheism. On the figures we have, Christians only make up 1.7% of the population, so we can't have a summary that concentrates on them. The lead should reflect what it says in the body of the article, and it should be about religion in general, not religious persecution. Another problem with the current sentence is that it doesn't give any indication of what the religious groups are. My suggestion based on all the information we have would be:

While many North Koreans profess no religion, the major religions are Chondoism and Korean shamanism. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitution, but there are widespread reports of persecution, particularly of Christians.

However, that's too long-winded.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Elizabeth Raum's book in the "Religion" section. As discussed above, it's unclear what an "atheist state" is, and Raum does not say that public religion is discouraged. Moreover, it is a children's book, and I don't think that's an appropriate source.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

History with China

Under Post-war developments:

In the early 1970s, China began normalizing its relations with the West, particularly the U.S., and reevaluating its relations with North Korea. The diplomatic problems came to a head in 1976 when Mao Zedong died. In response, Kim Il-sung began severing ties with China and reemphasizing national and economic self-reliance enshrined in his Juche ideology, which promoted producing everything within the country.

China–North Korea relations says nothing like this, but talks about deteriorating relations during the Cultural Revolution (1966 onwards). Juche indicates that Kim was emphasising the ideology in 1965. Furthermore, China did not begin the normalisations process with the West. It was the other way round. The West had refused to recognise China, and this changed with Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China among other things. History of North Korea also does not support these claims. There is currently no citation for this, and I think it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken my own advice and removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

In "Infobox country", at "government type", change "Unitary one-party republic" to "Juche one-party totalitarian dictatorship". The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland that this change should not be done, at least not in full (if that's what he meant). Juche is an ideology, not a form of government. I'm more open to including "totalitarian"; the source you cite says that it's a form of government and that North Korea is one. "Dictatorship" is not as specific; the source says that totalitarian states differ from dictatorships in that "all political institutions [are replaced] with new ones and its sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions." In other words "totalitarian dictatorship" is redundant to just "totalitarian". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in that case how about changing "Unitary one-party republic" to "Unitary one-party republic under a totalitarian state" instead? (The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Flash Drives for Freedom

I have removed the section in media that speak about a Flash Drives for freedom, the American based organisation Human_Rights_Foundation project of smuggling in flash drives. I don't believe this is appropriate for a page on North Korea's media. It seems rather biases to have large sections on a country's media devoted to how much western media they do or do not receive. I mean, would it be appropriate if I edited the United States of America page to note about how US citizens don't tend to watch much films from the DPRK? Egaoblai (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Media" section is a mishmash of various things. Film has been added in, though I think there was a separate "Film" section in the past. This includes the sentence, "Western films like The Interview, Titanic, and Charlie's Angels are just a few films that have been smuggled across the borders of North Korea, allowing for access to the North Korean citizens". There is also a paragraph and a half about the international media coverage of North Korea, which is different again. I think all this information is worthwhile having somewhere, but this is the wrong place.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this article treats DPRK (let's start with the name why not) as this weird alien culture that can only be understood by it's relationship to the USA. It's weird and unobjective.Egaoblai (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Government type infobox

North Korea has a socialist political system. A socialist political system is by definition a one-party system. A socialist political system is also by definition a republic... YOu can have a socialist political system even if you're not "socialist". But North Korea is socialist; its a "Juche socialist state" and the party is governed by the socialist ideology of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism.. Whatever socialism means to North Korea, its obviously very different

Again, North Korea has a socialist form of government. The party, the legislature, the government are all replicated from the Soviet Union, THey may have different names but the functions are the same... However, does the system work? Of course not, the Central Committee did not convene for a meeting in the period 1994-2011, a party congress did not convene in the period 1980-2016(?)... alas, Kim Jong IL was the only member of the Politburo Standing Committee in the period 1995-2010... Its obviously this is a broken system, and its meant to be broken because that ensure Kim family rule.

However, North Korea has a socialist system. It was introduced by the Soviets, and the system is still the same. The system may not be working, but formally that system is very much intact

alas, this is not an ideology discussion.. it is very possible (but would be very weird) to have a socialist system in a non-socialist country.

So when can I change the infobox @Finnusertop:? --TIAYN (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: I agree that North Korea has a socialist political system. I don't agree that North Korea's form of government could be characterized as a "socialist republic". It's quite simple: please point me to a reliable source that explicitly supports the assertion that "the form of government of North Korea is a socialist republic". There are established typologies of forms of governments that reliable sources follow. We should report what they say and not infer conclusions by original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I don't think it will be hard for me to find sources that say "Socialist republic" (Romania officially called itself just that)... Or are you arguing against the fact that all socialist systems have to be republics? Family rule, hereditary rights el cetra—thats what the Marxist–Leninist movement originally were opposed too... of course, then came Romania and North Korea... I could turn this question around; can you find sources that states the contrary? Or even better, can you inform me of one case in which a socialist form of government was not established as a socialist republic? As for the actual term socialist republic, it means the same thing as "socialist state".. Marxist–Leninists were interested in studying the state as a class dictatorship, and not what form that class dictatorship decided to take.. So socialist state does mean socialist republic, but the Marxist–Leninist use "socialist state" because state encompasses more than monarchy, republic - which is just the form which the class dictatorship decides to show themselves inn

... To be quite honest, in practice North Korea is a monarchy so I won't really argue over it! :P As I said over, North Korea has formally a socialist political system — in reality they have a monarchy. In a socialist political system the party would lead, but in North Korea the "Great Leader" (and only Kims can become great leaders) do. As long as the socialist system thing is linked somehow I'm finnne :)

And someone now is going to chime in and say North Korea isn't socialist. We've had this argument so many times. Can we discuss something more constructive?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the People's Republic of Korea the predecessor state to the DPRK?

So basically, North Korea is actually the successor to the People's Republic of Korea? I think since the U.S. occupation forces in the South banned the PRK in December 1945, the Soviet occupational authorities co-opted the PRK and its committees into the structure to what is now the DPRK. Any mention should be added. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is dealt with in History of North Korea and Division of Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Government edit request

In "Infobox country", at "government type", change "Unitary one-party republic" to "Juche one-party totalitarian dictatorship " (The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

No, Wikipedia is not a one party totalitarian dictatorship. If you want it done, do it yourself, and you're likely to be reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? This page is protected, so there's no way I can edit it. (The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

To clarify: I don't think this should be changed — see previous discussions. And, yes, you can edit if you wait long enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What I should have said is: please don't change without consensus. We have had a lot of arguments about this, and the ensuing edits have produced a very long and complicated description of the government type. What we have at the moment is based on the Encyclopedia Britannica. We shouldn't change it unless we get a consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

History

Previously we discussed removing the history prior to the division of Korea. However, a year ago it was added back in without discussion. I'd like to establish consensus about whether we should have it or not. Reasons against are:

• Readers do not come here for a History of Korea stretching back to the earliest times. It constitutes a long block of text that they have to skip over to get to information about North Korea.
• Other articles about divided states — East Germany and West Germany, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, People's Republic of China and Republic of China, Israel and the State of Palestine etc — do not have identical histories stretching back to earliest times.
• A history about Korea as a whole is not particularly useful as a prelude to the history of North Korea. Fore example, it says nothing about the history of Pyongyang. See, by contrast, the history of northern Korea before the division.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There being no response, I have removed the history up to the Japanese occupation which is a prelude to the advent of Kim Il Sung.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

US-NK summit

I have removed this:

The summit, while largely symbolic, was widely hailed internationally as a strong first step towards peace and denuclearization on the peninsula.

Saying that the summit is "largely symbolic" is editorialising. Saying that it was "widely hailed" etc is misleading. The source is from the UN, and is broadly positive about the summit. I think there were a variety of opinions about the summit. The summit page says, "The summit received a mixed international reaction, with many countries expressing praise or hope for achieving a peace deal from the summit. Some commentators expressed skepticism towards the signed agreement, pointing to a history of failed past agreements and to the vague wording of the declarations." This is probably more accurate. But this article just needs a summary. It doesn't need commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

GmoneyMineCraft123 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the background information is wrong

 Not done: Please specify what you want changes (in "Change X to Y" format) and provide Reliable Sources for your changes. RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated government section

I decided to update the government section, due to there being no reason not to state that North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018

SirBlueStar (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Hi. I found a small mistake on the North Korea article. May I fix it? Also, what I want to change is the fact that an apostrophe was misplaced somewhere in the article. The section I want to fix is the Formal ranking of citizens' loyalty section (6.6) (Example of what I planned to edit: Grammar. The apostrophe should be used in ownership, but in this case, it should be used in words that end with "s", Like, Chris', not elephants'(Plural). On a Side Note, I'm talking about the section's (6.6) title.

The title is fine. The possessive form of a plural noun ends in an apostrophe, according to the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides. In this case the plural noun "citizens" possesses "loyalty", so "citizens' loyalty" is the correct form. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

117.5.12.186 (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Once a woman watched the titanic movie and then got shot.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's cruel and unusual punishment. They should have just shot her.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Human rights

• The lead says:

International organizations have assessed that human rights violations in North Korea are commonplace and are so severe as to have no parallel in the contemporary world.

The quote comes from the UN report, which said, "The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world", but that's not exactly the same. The cited Amnesty International UK website said in 2014, "North Korea is in a category of its own when it comes to human rights violations", while AI's current report says, "Although the government took some positive steps to engage with international human rights mechanisms, the situation on the ground failed to show real progress".[5] AI UK is not an "international organization". Human Rights Watch said in 2014 that North Korea’s record of cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms is arguably among the worst in the world." Whereas, it now says, "Under the rule of Kim Jong-Un, North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries".[6] As far as I can see no source says that the violations are "commonplace". There isn't a consensus among these sources that North Korea has "no parallel in the contemporary world". Human Rights Watch has consistently said it's among the worst, which is quite different. Another problem is that "international organizations" is vague. I think there's two options: quote the UN report directly and leave out the others, or put in a new, up-to-date sentence.

• The "Human rights" section says, "North Korea is widely accused of having perhaps the worst human rights record in the world". This cites a report from 2007 which doesn't say that. (It's also somewhat ruined by the word "perhaps".) This is followed by a misleading citation of Human Rights Watch. Here, I think we need updated sources and any text should reflect the sources, not what the editor wants to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Now, the sentence in the lead has been expanded with the addition of "and that the North Korean regime is the worst infringer of rights of its own population". This is repetitive. I think the best response is to quote the UN report.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

totalitarian dictatorship

is north korea a totalitarian dictatorship and should be described as such in the infobox or atleast mentioned in the lede? 83.185.92.167 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Has there been any prior discussion over this, or any attempts to add it? Generally you wouldn't leap straight to an RFC - it's hard to evaluate this without a more specific sense of how it would be added to the lead, what sources or sections of the article it would be summarizing, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We have had discussions about the "Government" in the infobox for years. At one point we had Unitary one-party Juche state Songun policy (de jure) under a totalitarian dictatorship (de facto). We opted for "Unitary one-party republic" as a compromise to stop the edit-warring. If we have a RfC in this issue, it should determine exactly what the "Government" is, so this does not continue. Dictatorship means one person rule, though it is often used loosely. Some analysts question Kim's absolute power.[7][[8][9] It is hard to know what totalitarian means because there are many different definitions. Most of them involve a one party system. This is somewhat misleading as North Korea has several parties. The lead already describes North Korea as "Stalinist" and says it has "sham elections", so I would think it would be overkill to say it is also a "totalitarian dictatorship". If extra terms are added, they should be used precisely and be amplified later in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No to the second part of the question (should it be described as a totalitarian dictatorship). Whether it is or not is a matter of opinion and political interpretation and such an interpretation is not the function of an encyclopedia. We should only describe the formal system in the infobox and we can report on various opinions on the 'totalitarian dictatorship' description in the article using sourced quotes, not the opinions of wikipedia editors. Oska (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the first part of the question was about the infobox, the second about the lede 83.185.81.9 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

also "Various media outlets have called it" is misleading because some of the sources are not "media outlets" 83.185.81.9 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that could be better phrased.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We generally use the terms at Democracy Index...that has sources. Full democracy...Authoritative etc.--Moxy (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that gives us "authoritarian", another pejorative adjective.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

please write about "camp 22"

please write a short note about camp 22. let the wrold know about the bruatality Gireeshkottayam (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

See Hoeryong concentration camp.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Human rights" and "Law enforcement and internal security" sections here cover the camp issue in some detail. I don't think we need to mention every camp by name (or number). Camp 22 has been closed, so it's not relevant as up-to-date information about the issue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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 propose to merge Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) into Talk:North Korea. Because Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are only redirect pages for North Korea for a long time; Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are only blank pages from the two talk pages were created until now, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.180
11:43, 8 April 2019 (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.

Nomination of Portal:North Korea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:North Korea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Korea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention for "Hangul"

Cross-link to a discussion I posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Why are we calling Hangul "Chosŏn'gŭl" in North-Korea-related articles? Please discuss there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Post-Cold War History

I have removed these sentences:

• Restrictions on travel were tightened, and the state security apparatus was strengthened.
• Corruption flourished and disillusionment with the government spread.

They have been tagged "citation needed" for a year, and I think they really do need citations if they are to be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Korean War needs to be added on the “formation” part

I am pretty sure the Korean War is important to North Korea’s history, so someone please add Korean War on formation. Bubba2018 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Bubba2018

I just added it. I may have accidentally deleted something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899557231 Bubba2018 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Bubba2018

It's been reverted, but I think your version was better. The current infobox mentions "Chinese withdrawal" in 1958, but doesn't say why they were there in the first place. The Chinese withdrawal (or entry) is not mentioned in the rest of the article. It also implies that North Korea wasn't independent until the Chinese withdrawal. I think that's highly questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How about let's keep both the Korean War and Chinese withdrawal out of the infobox? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. For that matter, I think only the 1945-48 entries are relevant to "Formation". The early stuff is about the development of Korea, not the formation of the DPRK. And I don't think the Provisional Government was important to the formation of the DPRK. It wasn't even particularly important to the ROK. The rest are significant milestones, but they don't really relate to the formation of the DPRK.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

NK has reportedly executed 5 negotiators-where to place?

CNBC, Fox, etc., have picked up a story in the South Korean press that five officials were executed and one put to hard labor for the failed 2nd summit with the U.S. that took place in Viet-Nam. I'm not sure if this belongs more under 'Dear Leader' or North Korea? I'm leaning towards Kim's article that it apparently was done to blame scapegoats for the continued sanctions and the total ignoring of their last missile test by Trump. 50.111.48.57 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

CNBC and Chosun Ilbo which they cite, for convenience. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Informant, Kim Jong Un is not referred to as "Dear Leader". Chosun Ilbo is known for false reports. For example, it reported that Hyon Song-wol was executed in 2013 for producing a pornographic video. The reality was that she had disappeared from public view to give birth to a child. In this story it cites an anonymous source. At the very least we should wait to see if this executed people reappear before adding this to any article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack - you should know by now that in the rest of the world, the slang ref to Kim is often "Dear Leader." :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.57 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a common mistake. The phrase "Dear Leader" was only used by the North Koreans for Kim Jong Il (and only occasionally).--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Kim Yong-chol has already resurfaced, so this is definitely looking like a thinly-sourced and sensational false "report" ... TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how do we know he's not a zombie? This is typical of the liberal bias of Wookiepedia. Have we done a DNA test? Do we have a reliable source to say that a silver-haired US Senator has looked up into the blue yonder and confirmed the sky has not fallen in? Do we actually know that NK has not invented a time machine and brought a dead man (or dead transsexual) back to life? Has the National Guard really surrounded every bathroom in America? Is Donald Trump really an aging orang-utan who has been brainwashed by NK Muslim Capuchin Monkeys to spout pro-Juche slogans on Twitter? And does it all mean that the questions about UFOs sightings in Australia are completely put to rest? I don't think so, dear listeners, and I think we should maintain our eternal vigilance against Asian takeaway food that is suspiciously cheap, people who quote the US constitution without knowing what they're talking about, women who wear unnecessary glasses, and Taco Bell. You know I'm right.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

Change government from "Unitary one-party republic" to "Unitary one-party socialist republic"

government_type = nowrap|Unitary one-party republic

to

government_type = nowrap|Unitary one-party socialist republic

Gnautical Gnome (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

The sixth sentence in the third body paragraph of the introduction states that "Most services such as healthcare, education, housing and food production are subsidized or state-funded." I believe a comma (,) should be inserted after the seventh word, housing, to correct the grammar. This would result in "Most services such as healthcare, education, housing, and food production are subsidized or state-funded." Thank you for reviewing this. Ravenclawinaleatherjacket (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems correct to me. "Apples, oranges, bananas and pears" - not "Apples,oranges, bananas, and pears" is correct punctuation to me - but I'm not a fan of the serial comma - so someone may disagree, and I'll leave this open for other input. Our Manual of Style says we may either use or not use serial commas, but should be consistent within the prose. I looked at the next three candidates and see: "with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve and paramilitary personnel" "the fourth largest in the world, after China, the United States and India" and "The gravity, scale and nature of these violations", so I'm inclined to leave it out, as they do. -- Begoon 06:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC) ...adding... although that's probably not entirely a fair exercise because my third example is in a direct quote, so not part of the prose as such - reading on I find "diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems." which has the serial comma - so we are, it seems, inconsistent in our usage here... -- Begoon 06:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above comment. MrClog (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Under "political ideology," it says that "Scholar Brian Reynolds Myers views North Korea's actual ideology as a Korean ethnic nationalism similar to statism in Shōwa Japan and European fascism." First of all, I can find nothing that says that North Korea is "similar to statism in Shōwa Japan and European fascism" in the sources cited (although they do describe it as on the right, the closest it comes to this appears to be the line that North Korea has "less in common with the former Soviet Union than with the Japan of the 1930s"), so I have removed this line. Furthermore, the leaders of North Korea and the military _fought_ Japanese fascism, rather than were influenced by it, so this is an absurd comparison. South Korean leaders, many collaborationists, were the ones influenced by Japanese fascism.

Also, the section on the "Kim Dynasty," besides being biased, is redundant. It has its own article, so I recommend the entire section should be removed. In addition, to this, I can find nothing from North Korea that says the "party and revolution must be carried "eternally" by the "Baekdu bloodline"," as claimed in that section. The source is Choson Ilbo, a right-wing newspaper in South Korea that frequently carries misinformation about North Korea. Incogreader (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That is Myers' view, even though it is a strange one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes on form of government

Shouldn't it be added socialist state and totalitarian dictatorship? TheWikipedian1250 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

We have had many debates on this and there is no consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Korean names for North Korea

There is currently a edit war about the following text in the first sentence:

(South Korea: 북한, MR: Puk'an, RR: Bukan, North Korea: 북조선, MR: Pukchosŏn , RR: Bukjoseon )

I note that there is similar text at the South Korea article. The issue of the different names of Korea is discussed under "Etymology", with a link to the Names of Korea page. I think the text is misleading and unnecessarily complex. If we are to include variants, it should be the most commonly used. I think North Koreans commonly talk about the DPRK, not North Chosen. And I certainly don't think the SK variants should be ahead of the NK variants.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: If you look at the Mount Kumgang page, Korean text is shown next to the English name. There is no reason not to follow this format in North Korea page. 'North Korea' is literally translated as '북한' in South Korea and '북조선' in North Korea. These two names are the most commonly used words for meaning 'North Korea' in each country, respectively. Also, you can reverse the order of name if you want, because that's not important. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Same with North Korean company and firm name. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Koryo. Cheers. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, DPRK stands for 조선민주주의인민공화국, not 북한 or 북조선(North Korea). And if you listen to North Korean 방송, anchor sometimes say 북조선. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We have hangul name for DPRK but no hangul name for North Korea. We need to create hangul names for North Korea, too, in order to make it parallel. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And if you think the format looks dirty, I can erase the MR and RR and just show the hangul. The reason why I have put MR and RR was to match the format with other pages, such as 금강산, etc.. What do you think? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I think I have already mentioned in other user's page, but if you don't like my editing, you can just revert it. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a North Korean source for the hangul for "North Korea"?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "북조선" appears to be rarely used in North Korea - I have found only a few sites in North Korea on Google that use the term, many quotations that originated elsewhere. Jack Upland is correct that North Koreans usually talk about the DPRK, not "North Joseon," i.e., typically, "조선" is used by itself, both in reference to North Korea and Korea in general. It ("북조선") may also even be offensive - for example, Japan's use of the equivalent term "Kitachōsen" in Japanese (literally North "Chosen") is considered offensive in North Korea (since South Korea is referred to without the adjective "South"). Incogreader (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't know about North Korea. But Vietnam uses Triều Tiên(조선) and Bắc Triều Tiên(북조선). Same with Japan. Kitachōsen(북조선). I don't care whether Kim Jung Un feels offensive or not. I'm not affected by him. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Russia: Северная Корея(Literally, North Korea). @Incogreader: 북조선 was "the" official name of North Korea in 1946 and 1947, before 조선민주주의인민공화국 was established. I don't see this as a rare term, and it doesn't matter whether North Korea likes it or not. We have put the official name of Northern part of Korea is 조선민주주의인민공화국 at the bottom and that's enough. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, to reiterate, South Koreans use 북한 almost 100% cases. Sincerely, Park. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: @Incogreader: Also see 북조선임시인민위원회 and 북조선인민위원회. Some say that North Koreans feel offensive about 북조선.. My question to that claim is "Who said?" Maybe one person? Did Kim Jung Un said he doesn't like this term? If Kim Jung Un said so, should we listen to him? I don't think so. The official name proclaimed by Kim Jung Un and his fathers is 조선민주주의인민공화국 and that's enough. Sincerely, Park. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

To repeat again, See 북조선임시인민위원회 and 북조선인민위원회. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you guys don't like 북조선, I suggest changing it to 북조선민주주의인민공화국. They all feel the same to me, just short and long. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest changing it to 북조선민주주의인민공화국 for this reason: First of all, Kim Jung Un claims his country as 조선민주주의인민공화국(there is no 'north' or 'south'). However, Kim Jung Un's country is still referred to as 'North Korea' internationally. If he doesn't like this, he should get South Korea. Therefore, it is right to put 북(North) in front of 조선민주주의인민공화국 for North Korea. Same with South Korea. Although South Korea is officially called 대한민국, we are also called 남한. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, if Kim Jung Un or whoever doesn't like their country to be called 북한, 북조선, 북조선민주주의인민공화국 or whatever, and wants to get rid of 북 in front of their name of country, they should get South Korea. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

However, I still feel the original version (북조선) is better than 북조선민주주의민공화국 for this reason. The offical name of South Korea is 대한민국. But we never say 남대한민국(Southern Republic of Korea). It's awkward. It's same with saying Northern United States of America.. Nobody says this. It's North America, not North United States of America. However, "J"ack Upland doesn't like this and I want to make it in his favor. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

조선민주주의인민공화국 already implies that it's North Korea. If we put '북'(North) in front of 조선민주주의인민공화국, then it becomes North North Korea, which makes it redundant. Hence, I suggest using 북조선 instead of 조선민주주의인민공화국.

Also regarding foreign usage of North Korea:

Russia: Северная Корея(Literally, North Korea)

Japan: Kitachōsen(Chosen means 조선 Kita means 북. Hence, 북조선)

Vietnam: Bắc Triều Tiên(북 조 선)

Chinese: 北朝鮮(북조선)

Hongkong, Makao, Taiwan, South Korea: 北韓(북한)

Since North Korea allies with China, I think Kim Jung Un would prefer 북조선, a Chinese way of calling North Korea.

B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not about what I or Kim Jong Un or anyone else like. It's what the common usage is. Clearly "North Korea" is used in the English-speaking world. And I believe the Korean version of the term is commonly used in South Korea. However, I haven't seen evidence that the term is commonly used in North Korea. I have occasionally seen "north Korea" used in a geographical sense in English-language North Korean press, but I don't know how that is rendered in Korean. I simply don't think we should record a North Korean or "Northern Korean" version of the term without evidence this is is common usage.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: First of all, you're not part of Kim "J"ung Un, Kim "J"ung Il, Kim il seong. I've assembled common names of North Korea by several important countries. I don't think it's important whether Kim Jung Un wants his country to be called 'North' Korea or not. Every country in the world calls Kim Jung Un's country as North Korea and it is important to render in Korean like other pages. Since Korea is rendered differently in North and South Korea, 북조선 and 북한 is the closest transliteration that we can get. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Kim Jung Un does not consider his country to be 'North Korea'. Look at the official name of his country. 조선민주주의민공화국. If we put 북조선민주주의인민공화국, it becomes North North Korea, which becomes redundant. If we look at how Russia and China are calling North Korea, Russia Calls North Korea as North Korea. In Korean, it becomes 북고려, since Korea derived from 고려. However, 고려 is an outdated old Korean dynasty name recorded by Carpine and I don't think it's an appropriate name for current Korea. China calls Korea as 조선, and Japan also calls Korea as 조선. Considering the close proximity of Japan and China to North Korea, I think 북조선 is the best transliteration for North Korea and historically, North Koreans have also called themselves as 북조선임시인민위원회 and 북조선인민위원회. To help you understand these words deeply, it's 북조선+임시+인민+위원회 and 북조선+인민+위원회. Therefore, even though North Korea does not use 'North Korea' term nowadays, Russia, China and Japan are using 'North Korea' term and if we translate it into Korean, it becomes 북조선 and there is a precedent in the past in which North Korea has also referred to itself as 북조선. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Also, common, in my point of view, refers to something that is at least over >80~90%, not 22 or 40%. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: For instance, the male name starting with J is about 15~20% of all male names in the United States and that doesn't seem common to me. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is from Names_of_Korea#Japan:

"However, Japan-based North Koreans claim the name Kita-Chōsen [note: the Japanese equivalent of 북조선] is derogatory, as it only refers to the northern part of Korean Peninsula, whereas the government claims the sovereignty over its whole territory.[21] Pro-North people such as Chongryon use the name Kyōwakoku (共和国; "the Republic") instead, but the ambiguous name is not popular among others. In 1972 Chongryon campaigned to get the Japanese media to stop referring to North Korea as Kita-Chōsen. This effort was not successful, but as a compromise most media companies agreed to refer to the nation with its full official title at least once in every article, thus they used the lengthy Kita-Chōsen (Chōsen Minshu-shugi Jinmin Kyōwakoku) (北朝鮮(朝鮮民主主義人民共和国) "North Chosŏn (The People's Democratic Republic of Chosŏn)"). By January 2003, this policy started to be abandoned by most newspapers, starting with Tokyo Shimbun, which announced that it would no longer write out the full name,[22] followed by Asahi, Mainichi, and Nikkei [23]"

From the same page:

"North Koreans use Chosŏn[20], Namjosŏn (남조선, 南朝鮮; "South Chosŏn"), and Pukchosŏn (북조선, 北朝鮮; "North Chosŏn") when referring to Korea, South Korea, and North Korea, respectively. The term Pukchosŏn, however, is rarely used in the north, although it may be found in pre-war sources, such as the Song of General Kim Il-sung."

I have searched North Korean pages for the term, but I could only find about 12 recorded uses. As I said, most of these are translated quotes from English and other languages or are references pre-1948. Its usage in North Korea is thus exceedingly rare, in modern contexts well over 90% of the time the term 조선 or 조선민주주의인민공화국 is used instead. Also, in the PRC (especially the mainland but increasingly Macau and Hong Kong as well), "朝鮮" (the equivalent of 조선) is usually used to refer to North Korea as well, without the adjective "north."Incogreader (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

... Democratic(민주주의) People's(인민) Republic(공화국) of Korea(조선) → Korea(조선) Democratic(민주주의) People's(인민) Republic(공화국) → 조선민주주의인민공화국(Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

North(북) + Korea (조선) → 북조선(North Korea).

I don't see what's the problem except for the fact that North Korea does not call itself as 'north' Korea.

Also, North Koreas have also called itself as 북조선 before and I don't think it's derogatory at all.

Besides, 북조선 is considered derogatory in South Korea, too. South and North Korea are still in a state of truce. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we follow Kim Jung Un's style of calling North Korea? I mean, there is no free press in North Korea and Kim Jung Un has not still acquired Southern Part of Korea yet. Therefore, it is correct to call his country as 'Northern part of Korea', not simply Korea or Chosun. Moreover, almost all the countries are calling North Korea as 'North' Korea and I think we should follow this style, too. The reason why 북조선 is not used in North Korea is because there is no free speech in North Korea. It's being monitored and suppressed by Kim Jung Un.

Importantly, North Korea calls South Korea as 남조선 very often. See this link. https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&oid=020&aid=0003225935&sid1=001

"조미(북-미) 대화의 당사자는 우리(북한)와 미국이며 남조선 당국이 참견할 문제가 전혀 아니다”라고 했다. 그러면서 “미국에 연락할 일이 있으면 이미 가동되고 있는 연락통로를 이용하면 되는 것”이라며 “협상을 해도 조미가 직접 마주 앉아 하게 되는 것만큼 남조선 당국을 통하는 일은 절대로 없을 것” 2019.06.28 /

This proves the fact that North Korea considers itself as 북조선. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, there is no 'North' meaning in 조선민주주의인민공화국 and simply putting Chosun for North Korea is problematic. Also, we have already put the official name of North Korea as 조선민주주의인민공화국 at the bottom and official name should be distinguished from the unofficial name, like Britain and United Kingdom, North America and United States of America, India and Bharat, etc. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you look at South Korea page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea North Korean way of calling South Korea is written as 남조선. Hence, the antonym for 남조선 has to be 북조선 to make it parallel. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT: Thanks for your reference. You are right if it needs to be made parallels with the North Korean Wikipedia page. However I believe it is the North Korean page that needs to make adjustments, not the other way around. If you refer to the introduction of any other country on Wikipedia, its name is based on self etymology, not what it is colloquially known in another official state. It would be like calling the US "미국" on its page. Outside of Wikipedia, South Korea is commonly known as 한국 or "Korea" in everyday life. 남한 is used in political reference and 남조선 is never used unless you are living inside north Korea. So this should be accurately reflected here. I hope that makes sense. Pds0101 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pds0101: Thank you for your opinion. However, 한국 is not the correct literal translation for South Korea. 한국 is the abbreviation for Republic of Korea.

Therefore, the correct literal translation for South Korea should be 남한, which is a combined word form of 남(South) and 한국(Korea), not just 한국(abbreviation for Republic of Korea). Also, 남한 is widely used in South Korea. Please search for 남한 in naver.com and google.com. Also, 남조선 is widely used by North Korean press, so it can be also used in Wikipedia page. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have put 'literally' in front of South and North Korea. I hope this clarifies the ambiguousness. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, even if you disagree with my opinion, please do not revert my editing, since 남한, 남조선, 북한, 북조선 is the correct literal translation for South and North Korea, respectively. The official names are in the back, so they'll be distinguished from the literal names. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT: Thanks for the reply and I respect your opinion on the matter. As explained above, South Korea and North Korea are both officially recognized as sovereign countries, so their Wikipedia pages should also follow the correct standard of a sovereign country. The South Korean page should only be called "한국" and North Korea page should only be "조선" regardless of how they name each other or what other countries name them. If you refer to google map for example, the two Korea's are only referred to by their official names "대한민국" and "조선민주주의인민공화국". The North Korean page will also need to be corrected in this regard so it sits parallel with this standard. I have also included the literal name "남한" as you have specified above in my edit. Sincerely Pds0101 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pds0101: Thank you for your reply. I think your last edit meets both of our interests. I will match the North Korea page, also. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with changes

Reviewing the history log, I noticed several changes I disagreed with.

Cases in point: "Three million or more Korean were killed in the war, at least half of them civilians, while war deaths in North Korea numbered over one million civilians and soldiers out of a pre-war population of approximately 10 million." was removed. While I can not find an "or more," 3 million is a common estimate for Korean deaths in the Korean War.

This part was also removed: "Following attacks near the border," the military of North Korea invaded the South on 25 June 1950, and swiftly overran most of the country. A United Nations force, led by the United States, intervened to defend the South as well as "overthrow the North Korean government," (changes in quotations) Again, border incidents are well-documented as is the war for the North. Perhaps it could have been worded differently but it is true.

This too: "Some other countries, including China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia have also criticized the accusations made against North Korea and voted against adopting the UN Commission of Inquiry report." Which is true again. Dozens of other countries also abstained from voting on North Korea's human rights record.

Finally, this: "However, one of the defectors cited in the report later admitted to fabricating parts of his story, and New York Times notes that "[i]t is difficult to verify the accounts of North Korean defectors because the country is so isolated." " The sources cited again confirm what was written.

I am not able to edit, but wanted to post about this. -UQal Struck comments by User:UQal, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Incogreader.–TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

@Adoring nanny: You're going to have to do better than a mere assertion of "POV pushing" to remove adequately sourced and neutrally reported content. I am inclined to restore these statements. Please refrain from further changes until you reply here. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. These statements were well documented.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked the users history, and found two other edits in the most recent edits that removed information that seemed to be good (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=906027541 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=906027307). There was another about the South Korean army being poorly equipped which it may have been OK, but I don't see a problem with those two other changes. -UQal — Preceding unsigned comment added by UQal (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Struck comments by User:UQal, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Incogreader.–TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, we already have a discussion here. I don't think text that has citations should be removed without a discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't see why we need Curtis Le May's estimate of North Korean deaths. He was hardly in a position to know that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Moxy mentioned in an edit summary that Incogreader has been blocked. The fact is that some of the editors that voted to block him are also tendentious editors. One of the editors disputed describing the proposed missile launch towards Guam as a missile test. The BBC source that we have clearly states that the missile was proposed to land in international waters near Guam. There is no rational suggestion that the missile was going to have a warhead. Therefore it is a missile test. I think we should be factual and source-based. In an article about North Korea, it is reasonable for us to refer to the North Korean POV, in a neutral way. It is not reasonable to remove text because it seems to give the North Korean POV. That is something readers are coming here to understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

:: I agree, and think we should judge content based on if it is true, not who said it. Or at the least, based on if it is supported by good quality sources. I don't see a problem with much of the content that is listed here. As to the LeMay estimate, I included it without much thought because it was in the news article. I would think he would have some idea of destruction and casualties from access to military intelligence. But if others think it is too much or that it is questionable, feel free to modify that part. Struck comments by User:UQal, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Incogreader.–TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Political Art (5109346023).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Food crisis

This suggests that the crisis probably isn't a crisis. I suggest we wait a while and then remove this item from the "History" section if it doesn't develop further.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Reporting of the situation now suggests that while the World Food Programme is concerned about the situation, it doesn't view it as out of the ordinary.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this because it doesn't seem a historic crisis, but rather just part of an ongoing problem which we have mentioned elsewhere in the article. (However, I think what we've got in the article should be improved. I don't think information about food production and malnutrition belongs in "Demographics").--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Typo

"The first word of the first sentence under the human rights section, "Orth Koreans have been referred to as "some of the world's most brutalized people" should read as "North...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Categoria "Totalitarian states"

Swil999, can you provide more reliable sources than the Economist Intelligence Unit (Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006) and the Democracy Index, which is based on the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy ranking? Because the categories are based on generally accepted statements, not individual opinions. Some authoritarian states (such as Russia, China, etc.) consider totalitarian. But this doesn't mean that it is necessary to put down categories on the basis of individual opinions. Охранник Леса (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Охранник Леса: the EIU report has a civil liberties score of 0 and the DPRK ranks last on their ranking. EIU has no totalitarian category, so either there are no totalitarian states since the DPRK ranks last and has a civil liberties of 0 or North Korea is a totalitarian state. Totalitarian would generally be a subset of authoritarian. Is there an index that has a "totalitarian" category? Otherwise, if the sources for totalitarian cited in the article are considered generally reliable sources, then I think it should be kept unless contradictory reliable sources can be cited. Swil999 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles are written according to WP:RS. If the source (the most reliable source EIU, which doing the democracy ranking) writes that North Korea is an authoritarian regime, then Wikipedia is obliged to display it. Syria also has a civil liberties score of 0, ranks second to last and Syria consider a totalitarian regime by some sources. In the article of Wikipedia North Korea consider a totalitarian regime by two sources. Also Russia and China consider totalitarian regimes. But categories are not based on individual opinions. Охранник Леса (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Охранник Леса: The EIU has no category of totalitarian regime, it doesn't discriminate between authoritarian regimes and totalitarian ones and just lumps them together - but if you find a report saying that they considered totalitarian regime as a category than maybe that would work... Totalitarian regimes would also be authoritarian since it's a subset so that doesn't necessarily contradict it. Swil999 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your words that totalitarianism is a subset of authoritarianism can be applied to any authoritarian state (Syria, Russia, China), not only to North Korea. Can you provide a more reliable source than the EIU, which would define North Korea as a totalitarian regime, not an authoritarian regime? Because your words is WP:OR now. Охранник Леса (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Охранник Леса: "This is all the more frustrating since, in contrast with some developing countries, data do exist. As a totalitarian state and a planned economy, the regime collects statistics thoroughly and widely." -Economist Intelligence Unit, North Korea Report main report.

Swil999 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"This enabled the organisers to gain awide audience for the assemblyís statement, which included condemnation of the Cuban government as totalitarian, and a list of demands, including the immediate release of all political prisoners, pluralism, respect for civil and political rights, abolition of the death penalty, and economic freedom." — Economist Intelligence Unit, Cuba, Main Report. But the quotes are in other EIU's reports, not the democracy table. Can you provide your words "Totalitarian would generally be a subset of authoritarian" and "North Korea is a totalitarian state" in the Democracy Table? Охранник Леса (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial if this conversation had more participants, so here's my two cents. Categories are supposed to be supported by article text. We literally say in the lead: "Outside observers also generally view North Korea as a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship". If we're okay with this text in the lead, we should also be content with the category. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedian article has two mentions (except for the category) of "Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship". Only in one case is the definition of "Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship" refers to sources. The sources are eight. The Telegraph, The Times, The NY Times and The Economist write, that North Korea is a Stalinist dictatorship (North Korea power struggle looms, North Korea's nuclear 'deal' leaves Japan feeling nervous, North Korea Says It Is Using Plutonium to Make A-Bombs, How the other 0.0000001% live), not totalitarian. The Times of India writes, that North Korea is an example of pure totalitarianism (LEADER ARTICLE: Let The Music Play On). The Freedom House writes, that DPRK is a totalitarian dictatorship (North Korea). The Socialist World writes, that North Korea is a Stalinist dictatorship or Stalinist regime and the "regime...rules by totalitarian methods" (North Korea). The Economist Unit Intelligence writes, that North Korea is an authoritarian regime (Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006). However, none of the eight sources has a definition of "Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship". The most reliable source of EIU contradicts what is written on the Wikipedia. The EIU writes, that DPRK is an authoritarian regime. And the article of Wikipedia written, that North Korea is a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship. Охранник Леса (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Unitary one-party ""republic"" "

Im not sure about the rest of the editors here but isn't a bit odd for a Communist Dictatorship to have as it listed government type on this site?Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this several times. There is a wide range of descriptions that editors have suggested. This seems the most neutral and factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No its not "the most neutral and factual" in fact it seems more like direct lies and or propaganda.Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What are the "direct lies and or propaganda"? Are you objecting to the word "republic"? Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider Britannica a propaganda source? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruh wikipedians out here being even more retarded than redditors somehowTexas-Dude1914 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: No, we use reliable sources to base our claims. If you continue that behavior, an admin will notice you and potentially ban you, so I would consider changing your ways. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Land reform

Landlords and Japanese collaborators fled to the South, where there was no land reform and sporadic unrest.

There seems to be an edit war about the bolded phrase. Do we need it? How is it relevant? Isn't it misleading as the South instituted land reform at a later date?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

History section

The history of N Korea doesn't start with the Japanese ocuupation. It either starts with Ancient Korea like the South Korea article does or starts with the founding of N Korea with brief background information about the divison of Korea.钉钉 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The history section is designed to give background to the founding of North Korea 1945-48. And we have discussed this before.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The background info should be brief, The founding of N. Korea is the main point, not the backgroud. The current version has backgroup info included. 钉钉 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

North Korean women sex trafficked in China and their deaths upon repatriation to North Korea

Information and three references I added about North Korean sex trafficked women and girls were removed from the page, as well as the Human rights in North Korea page, as an undue spam edit on 22 March 2020‎. I have no affiliation with the authors of the articles, United Press International, The Telegraph, or United Nations Action for Cooperation against Trafficking in Persons. The articles are 'North Korea women in China trapped in sex trade' (May 15, 2019), 'Oppressed, enslaved and brutalised: The women trafficked from North Korea into China's sex trade' (May 20, 2019), and 'China, The Trafficking Situation' (UN-ACT). The articles discuss that North Korean victims of sex trafficking in China have been forced into marriages, prostitution, and or subjected to penetrative vaginal and anal rape, groping, and forced masturbation in illegal 'online rape dens' used for digital and live pornographic video sharing in the twenty-first century. The UN-ACT states that the women and girls face severe punishment and/or death upon their repatriation to North Korea. It is distressing to read, but factual. Can an editor please read these articles and undo the revision, modify the revision, or add information about the victims in their own writing? This would help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women, there is an 'under-representation of content on Wikipedia about women.' (User Wikipedianuhai)

The contents and sources you added are very biased. Most North Koreans in China are not in such kind of situations. All countries has human trafficking issues of some kind. It is not the kind of contents suitable for this article. 钉钉 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not appropriate for an article about North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

He must be blocked or is he blocked

Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Zero Coronavirus case on north korea

Theres no coronavirus case in North Korea but why? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it could be interesting to have some covering of this subject. As far I have read, North Korea closed the borders for Chinese citizens soon after the new coronavirus became known. Now, I think the borders are more or less completely closed. It would be nice to see some reliable sources. --Madglad (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh... but Supreme leader might be feeling ill... Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I told a coworker at the beginning of all this that the only way we might hear of COVID-19 in North Korea was if Kim got sick. And even then they would probably try to hide it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s the topic I’m talking about! Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And They can’t be trusted

Busted Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposition to alter the word "regime" in the 4th paragraph to a more impartial "government"

Regime implies that the North Korean government is authoritarian. There is mixed definitions of the word, but most suggest that the government in question is either authoritarian or totalitarian. This is a subjective interpretation, even if it is held by many. Therefore, to honor Wikipedia's guidelines for impartial writing, and to allow readers to come to their own conclusions, this should be altered.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exabella (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we only use "regime" in that one place, and use "government" many times in the article. I've made the change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Change: 'Most service—such as healthcare, education, housing and food production—are subsidized or state-funded.' to: 'Most services—such as healthcare, education, housing and food production—are subsidized or state-funded.' Paul W Norris (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Is food production a service?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything NK is service to state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)